TODAY: After today’s meetings, the Athletics released a statement to media saying “We appreciate Oakland’s engagement and also we are far apart on the terms needed to agree on an extension.” Oakland mayor Sheng Thao also issued a statement, saying “Oakland made a fair and reasonable offer to the A’s. We await their response and look forward to continuing discussions as necessary.” John Shea and Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle note that the city and Alameda County “are not unified in their negotiations for the lease extension with the team,” though Alameda County supervisor David Haubert described today’s talks as “a productive meeting.”
The A’s will turn from this meeting to another set of meetings Wednesday with Ranadive and Sacramento officials, as per another report from John Shea.
MARCH 31: Officials from the Athletics and from the city of Oakland are set to meet Tuesday to further explore the possibility that the A’s could remain at the Coliseum through the 2027 season, as the team is looking for somewhere to play until their planned new ballpark in Las Vegas is ready for Opening Day 2028. Some major details of the city’s latest proposal are already known, as ESPN’s Tim Keown and KGO-TV San Francisco report that Oakland is offering a five-year lease at the Coliseum covering the 2025-29 seasons, with an opt-out clause after 2027 so the team can depart if its new Vegas stadium is indeed ready on time.
The price tag for the new lease is $97MM, which the city demands that the A’s pay in full whether they stay for a three-year or five-year team. This stands out as the largest hurdle to an agreement between the two sides, as Keown notes that two other provisions “are not expected to be contentious” — the A’s would have to sell their 50% share in the Coliseum and surrounding land, and the team would also have to pay to convert the Coliseum’s surface into a soccer-ready state for the United Soccer League’s Oakland Roots SC franchise.
“The city is putting forward a very reasonable deal,” Oakland chief of staff Leigh Hanson said. “We don’t think there’s a poison pill in this deal. We feel this is an accomplishable goal, and we are going forward understanding we have a short window to execute.”
Oakland’s offer also removes two previous demands from the city, covering the idea of Oakland retaining the Athletics name and team colors, or that Major League Baseball would guarantee Oakland a new team in the next round of expansion. The new offer instead asks that the league commit to one of three options — either a vote on Oakland’s retention of the A’s name and colors, or helping work out a sale of the Athletics to an Oakland-based ownership group, or “a one-year exclusive right to solicit ownership of a future expansion team,” as Keown puts it.
The $97MM figure is “the shortfall the city says [A’s owner John] Fisher walked away from on the multibillion-dollar Howard Terminal project” Keown writes, referring to the long-discussed plan to build a new ballpark for the A’s in Oakland’s Howard Terminal area. Those plans fell through, of course, when Fisher instead pivoted for a new city entirely with the move to Las Vegas.
Needless to say, there is a large gap between the city’s ask of $97MM and what the A’s are offering, which is $17MM over the course of a two-year lease covering the 2025 and 2026 seasons. The 2027 season isn’t included since the team is “contending they have options,” which likely implies a one-year move to another city or perhaps to the Athletics’ Triple-A affiliate’s current ballpark in Las Vegas. Staying in Oakland through 2026 would give the club more time to fully plan out their temporary pre-Vegas landing spot, whereas there’s a ticking clock now given that the Athletics’ current lease at the Coliseum expires after the current season.
This urgency might give the city some leverage in negotiations, though the A’s have reportedly explored other locations like Salt Lake City and Sacramento as possible homes for the 2025-27 span. Sacramento was considered the favorite alternate spot besides a lease extension in Oakland, and John Shea and Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote on Friday that multiple league sources feel the Athletics will ultimately end up in Sacramento for a variety of reasons.
The Athletics’ TV contract with NBC Sports California has loomed as a major factor in the situation, as the deal (which pays the A’s upwards of $67MM per season) requires the team to actually be located in the Bay Area. Shea and Ostler write that the A’s are also in talks with NBC Sports California about a revised contract, and speculate that “if the A’s could cut a new deal for, say, half that amount, they might grab it. They’d be losing tens of millions per year, but they’d still be making tens of millions, and could make up any shortfall in other ways.”
Ultimately it might come down to how the math works out between the $97MM figure proposed by the city, and what the A’s could get from a renegotiated contract with NBC Sports California. Just staying in Oakland would naturally make the TV situation a moot point, and the A’s organization would also avoid the logistical complications of playing in a minor league ballpark and temporarily moving its entire infrastructure to Sacramento, while also prepping for another move to Las Vegas in the near future.
However, Shea and Ostler feel Fisher might not be bothered by these complications, and could prefer to leave Oakland behind entirely while also keeping his 50% share of the Coliseum. The city and Alameda County’s desire for full control over the Coliseum gives Fisher some leverage, since “the danger to Oakland here is that [Fisher] has no plan” for his share of the ballpark, Shea and Ostler write, and Fisher “is simply intending to squat on that site and wait for a big-profit sale sometime down the road.” That said, Fisher could also view selling his share of the Coliseum as a method of cutting ties with Oakland, generating some short-term money, and avoiding some ongoing and pending legal challenges facing Alameda County’s half-sale of the Coliseum’s ownership.
Sacramento is currently the home of the Giants’ Triple-A affiliate, and how that team would co-exist with the A’s over three seasons has yet to be determined, should the Athletics indeed wind up in California’s capital city. Vivek Ranadive (owner of the NBA’s Sacramento Kings) owns the minor league franchise, and is both a friend of Fisher and has ambitions of eventually owning a Major League Baseball team himself. Though Fisher has stated that he has no plans to sell the Athletics, there is still seemingly enough uncertainty surrounding the franchise that it doesn’t seem out of the question that Fisher could ultimately sell the A’s to Ranadive, Golden State Warriors owner Joe Lacob, or perhaps Ranadive and Lacob working in the same ownership group, as Shea/Ostler opine.
Kick rocks Oakland, maybe if the city was worth trying to stay in but it’s as bad as the coliseum. Nice try with the extortion though.
Imagine taking John Fisher’s side lmao.
^10 year old kid logic
Not taking the owners side but when the Mayor comes off as Jabba the Hut and wants the moon and the stars for absolutely no reason you have to laugh. If she really wanted the A’s in Oakland then the Howard Terminal project would be half done by now. She just wants money because her city has none and a giant list of issues.
“Not taking the owners side”
Right….
Hitler,”I want socialized healthcare”
Conservative,”I think the free market is better”
Conservative to liberal,”Imagine taking Hitler’s side”
She was not even Mayor when A’s said they were leaving. Fisher wants tax payers to build him a stadium. That is pure communist action having people buy rich elites free stuff. Even most Vegas people do not want the A’s but greedy casino owners who don’t care about Vegas but their pocket books.
I don’t really have a problem with using some tax funds to build stadiums. The city/state/federal government is going to to take your money one way or another. Might as well get a nice place to watch a ball game rather than spending it on yet another social program or war.
Wouldn’t baseball be a social problem. Why should the property owner be taxed for a stadium they don’t own? Socialism is building a stadium. So you want the government owning private businesses.
It’s not a replacement of existing taxes. Oakland, Alameda, and California are taxing on top of any stadium tax. Give me a break.
Property owners pay for stadiums now. SF is one of the only stadium that paid for themselves. When the raiders got their stadium built the tax money going to schools was shifted to build the stadium now schools in Vegas are under funded. Nothing is ever free.
Flush the city & the team down the toilet. Problem solved. Ahahaha!
They can’t. It keeps backing up. Muhahaha!
Not true. I live in Las Vegas and it was the marijuana money that was supposed to go to schools and was taken away. A hotel tax pays for the Raiders stadium.
I don’t think anyone is taking John Fisher’s side, but Oakland is offering the A’s… Well Oakland and packaging it like it’s utopia. If the city wants to keep the team, make some concessions.
Surprised your name isn’t CrossFitliberalSteve.
I find it hilarious you can not help yourself and make everything political and show how stupid you are everytime on here. Socialism has never worked and will never work. One side tried to and still are trying to take rights away, does it that sound like Hitler? yes It does and it’s the left doing it lol your a brain washed sheep and a fool.
Fisher is terrible. The City of Oakland has ruined pro sports in Oakland. Literally every team left for better situations. San Francisco has all the best Bay area rights. Fisher needs removed. Oakland will be a distant memory for sports cause they are not going to get a expansion team in my kids lifetime.
probably the best idea I’ve heard so far. I don’t think anyone would miss either one and the issue would be solved
That was a weird comment. You might want to get back on your meds.
Guard the Vogt13 hours ago
I don’t think anyone is taking John Fisher’s side,
==========================
Way too many people view everything thru the lens of “taking sides” instead of discussing pros and cons.
There is no pro to moving to Vegas. Many other cities r to move to that will have fans and a better place to watch a game.
We know that Dave Kaval and John Fisher have burner accounts on Twitter. So probable they have them here.
John Fisher isn’t even on John Fisher’s side.
Imagine taking the government corrupt side that’s caused the city demise in the first place.
What makes Oakland worse than other MLB cities such as St. Louis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, or Baltimore? Should MLB try and relocate those teams as well?
Also, your other comment about the city not doing anything to help the A’s is completely wrong: oaklandca.gov/projects/oakland-waterfront-ballpark…
You can’t use the city’s own talking points as evidence
Because they’re put out by the city does not mean they’re untrue. Further, why a city would put such facts out in black and white if they were false is beyond me. In any case you’re welcome to cite anything that is false on that page.
Unlike those other teams Oakland shares a media market. It is also located in California so it has far more taxes and regulations. Then you get to the insane bureaucracy within the City itself.
Fisher is an absolute tool but he’s the third sports owner to leave Oakland along with tons of other businesses.
Had the A’s held onto the TV rights in Silicon Valley there would be enough revenue to justify the red tape and taxation. But they didn’t.
Mark Davis of the Raiders said himself that Fisher extended his lease to block the Raiders from building at the coliseum site. That’s why they left.
Mark Davis absolutely hates John Fisher.
The Raiders left because of Fisher. Don’t believe me? Ask Mark Davis.
sfgate.com/athletics/article/raiders-mark-davis-tr…
The A’s still have their TV rights. They can be seen on TV in all of the Bay Area. They just couldn’t put a STADIUM in San Jose and Fisher knew that before he dumped another stadium project at the last minute to say “hey, lets go to San Jose”.
Teams that have built stadiums/arenas in California in the past 10 years: GS Warriors, LA Rams, Sac Kings, SF 49ers, LA Clippers (opening soon).
The SF Giants managed to build a stadium in an area that would have similar bureaucratic concerns to Oakland. So did the Warriors.
The problem isn’t California or Oakland. The problem is Fisher sucks.
The City of SF was dying to get that area developed and did everything possible to work with the Giants.
Fisher sucks for sure. But none of those arenas were built in Oakland.
Perhaps you’re right. But the city of Oakland
– does have a group actively wanting to develop the Coliseum site for the Roots/Soul
– the city of Oakland did raise 400+ mil for Howard Terminal along with supporting the A’s through an EIR and numerous instances of litigation
Based on two points above, combined with the haphazard way John Fisher has handled this move to the Las Vegas, it’s hard for me to put too much blame on the City of Oakland. In essence, i’ll concede there are likely things the city could have done better. But the lion’s share of blame here goes to John Fisher.
And you are right that none of those stadiums are in Oakland, but they are all in California which you cited as adding to the difficulty of building a stadium. I was refuting that.
@Death The Warriors might ve built in CA bit they left OAK. Now I’m not advocating for Fischer here, but I think there is plenty of blame to go around here.
As for the current Mayor of OAK everything I read she seems to be way overplaying her hand. The difference she is seeking makes it feasible to just walk away from the TV deal for 2 years. That’s not even factoring in the smaller TV deals A’s would get after moving to temp location. Also she is seeking A’s funding reporpousing the stadium for soccer. Amazing anyone would want the dump that is The Colliseum to live on.
the reason they must repurpose for the soccer team is the contract is already signed with the soccer team. A’s should have negotiated before a soccer team signed a deal. They can’t cut the soccer deal which will draw more of a crowd to the games.
@Arc Why should A’s care about a soccer team that is not there’s??
The stadium issue was far from resolved, the city should have held off with the A’s future and the future of the dump that is The Colliseum in limbo
@deathby9
Frankly, it gets better. If you go back to the original announcement of the Howard Terminal plan, allegedly no public money was needed.
Over time infrastructure became an issue. Around this time Fisher was allowed to buy half of the Colliseum at a very cheap price to frankly balance additional costs.
Fisher will profit from this site regardless of the A’s/Vegas whatever…
Equally astoundingly, and it has been a really slow simply plot to follow, it seems virtually no-one here realise the fight is simply fan base against owner.
The current Mayor (and read about her history) has tried to relocate the A’s in a prime Bay position, and redevelop the Colisseum site, perfectly served by BART already.
I don’t know what more Oakland can do for the A’s. Is it any surprise the Mayor tries to recoup previous losses at this point with higher rental. For once Oakland City holds the ball(s) – good luck to them. This A’s fan won’t go to Vegas, I’ll complete 31 parks (cheekily incuding London)..
Happy Easter!
@deathby9
Oakland is a $hithole. The city has businesses closing not because they are unprofitable, but because the city is run horribly. In & Out Burger is closing its one and only location in Oakland is an example of this.
cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/citing-crime-in-n-ou…
But we can still agree that the city of Oakland and California do suck.
Says someone who doesn’t live in either.
Oakland has a higher per capita and media household income than NYC. It has lower taxes.
Where I live in San Diego county is absolute paradise.
I don’t live in New York Either. You do have a higher per capita income because cost of living is twice as the rest of the country. California is for the Rich or the poor. Middle class is fleeing as fast as they can.I was stationed near San Diego. It isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. The drugs and other crap flowing across from Tijuana is horrible.
No one is fleeing California.
Since 2020 the states population has dropped 1.4% or 433,000.
Since 2020 102,356 or 0.26% died of COVID,
Since 2020 there have been.56,000 fewer immigrants per year than in 2016-2019.
The birth rate has plummeted from 444,000 in 2019 to 396,000 in 2023 or about 48,000 less births.
All of that data is from the Public Policy Institute of California. You can take a look yourself at https://www.ppic.org
But yeah, keep on with the Fox talking points about how people are leaving California.
What does fox got to do with anything? What does covid deaths have to do with anything? You threw out random stats but you first one was your population declined by 1.4%. The only state to have its population decrease. You know you’ve become a joke when your only response is Fox News is bad.
I don’t think Fisher is a good owner, but Oakland city council’s outlandish lease extension demands make me somewhat sympathetic towards him. Have they been this unreasonable throughout the entire process?
What are your similarities between the Oakland and St Louis franchises??
Oakland and East St. Louis crime rates I’d imagine.
Difference is the Cardinals ballpark is not located in the center of the crime.
Interestingly, if you look at murder and manslaughter rates per 100,000, Oakland, despite its reputation ranks behind the following MLB cities: St Louis (66.07), Baltimore (55.77), Detroit (39.80), Kansas City (30.93), Cleveland (27.77), Cincinnati (23.40), Philadelphia (20.06), Milwaukee (19.83), Chicago (18.26), Pittsburgh (17.98), Washington, D. C. (16.72) and Atlanta (16.41). Oakland’s rate is 16.24.
Even when you look at total violent crime per 100,000, Oaklands rate is lower than six other MLB cities. For total property crime, Oaklands rate is lower than StLouis and San Francisco. St Louis comes out at or near the top in all the crime stats.
Perception is often different than what the evidence shows but people believe what they want to believe.
The original post was about cities not franchises. Their claim seemed to be that because Oakland deals with issues they don’t deserve a team. I was pointing out that there are a lot of MLB cities facing issues. But to answer your question, there are little similarities between the A’s and Cards, especially when it comes to competency of ownership.
Your original post, deathby9, cited cities who’ve secured ballparks. Did you bother looking back to see what public money was put into said parks in these high crime cities? Or how many hoops the government forced them to jump through? Once you figure this out, you’ll understand the city has played a major role in destroying Oakland basebakl, and perhaps more than ownership.
Actually, it is. Have you been to Saint Louis before?
Well, let’s ask Oakland’s football team who’s really the problem here. Also, the A’s are LEASING the stadium in Oakland. So, as a tenant when there are issues with the property and the owner doesn’t make the proper fixes, what incentive is there to stay?
The Raiders owner said that John Fisher was the problem. The A’s were required as part of their lease to do maintenance which they have not done. They have not even paid the city and county for the parking they collect.
If you’re talking to me Vogt, the answer is the fans who don’t support the team.
Its_happening lol sorry, I wasn’t referring to you; these threads get messy. But to comment on your answer, yeah, that’s a good incentive to stay… For the fans. Honestly, I think that’s the only incentive to stay but I think it’s too late into the game and they made up their mind they are leaving.
Agree 100% Guard the Vogt.
Pads fans – you’re correct. They were required to do regular maintenance on the stadium, which they did. However as part of the lease, there were a few things that were supposed to be done for the A’s but never were completed…sooooooooooo there’s that as well. At the end of the day Fisher is still a tool, but Oakland is presenting themselves like mother Theresa, they are not that
Since Fisher owns half of the stadium isn’t he responsible for maintenance?
I mean yeah, he is responsible for the routine maintenance… But part of the agreement was the city was to fix these bigger issues and that didn’t happen.
Blame Oakland for the cheapest owner in all of sports. Vegas can kick rocks they are the ones giving a sport team tax payers money to get a cheap owner to their city.
Blame Oakland for the least supportive fanbase. Fixed it for you again.
I wish Fisher would buy your favorite team and destroy it like he did with the A’s. Only difference is you will still pay top dollar to eat his leftovers.
Arc I don’t need fisher to buy my team. I’m a Guardians fan. We have Larry Dolan. Dolan went to the Fisher School of scumbag. Nobody on here is actually on Fisher’s side, it’s just both sides are completely misleading the public and placing the blame on each other.
Try being a A’s fan and being told for 5 years that the A’s were building a new stadium downtown and just need the environmental report signed off. It was signed off and silence by the A’s then comes out they signed a deal with Vegas. Fisher is to blame for all of it.
Look who he’s dealing with. They lowered their offer to merely $60m/3yr for the worst stadium in sports. Can only assume they’ve been this delusional all along.
The difference between what Oakland wanted a year and what the A’s offered was the average price for a middle reliever.. Theat shows how cheap Fisher is.
The mayor’s initial proposal was a lease hike of 2300%, which was reduced to a hike of 1300%. All for the worst stadium in sports. The A’s did not counteroffer. This isn’t being cheap, this is waking away from a delusional negotiator.
The A’s are in fact cheap, but this is not an example you should use.
Sorryyou’resorry
My sister in law shared a video of the homeless encampments in Oakland. It was worse than a 3rd World Country. I thought it was bad in LA. Oakland needs to work on cleaning that mess up instead of trying to keep the a’s
Winslow you could say that about a lot of cities. Houston, Seattle…a LOT of places. That’s the urban thing now.
Then there is a leadership problem, Dock. All places with that problem. Who’s electing them? The people. Fix the problems.
I can’t argue that we have a low character in high places issue in our country. People really do have the power. If a baseball business does things you don’t care for. Take your $ elsewhere. People talk, but money walks. Things don’t change until consumers change their behavior
I’m okay with the city asking to retain the name and colors. And asking to get another team might be a moot point when they try to entice someone to move in to the 100 year old stadium with no fans.
But on the A’s side, staying in Oakland for the 400,000 in attendance does seem very useful. They could probably get that almost anywhere. Then it becomes the broadcasting revenue versus the $97M.
Broadcasting revenue over the course of the offered lease term is alleged to be near $300m which for someone that doesn’t have a concrete plan to finance the LV project, might be very useful.
Joe I would be good with the city wanting to keep the name if not for the fact that the team had the name before they came to Oakland. I also don’t think anyone has claim on colors.
@Joe. “if not for the fact that the team had the name before they came to Oakland.”
Good point. Hadn’t even thought of that.
Philadelphia Athletics (1901), Kansas City Athletics (1954), Oakland Athletics (1968).
Something about the city wanting to “own the name” doesn’t add up. The name Athletics doesn’t belong to the city. In fact I suspect MLB has much to say about the names of franchises and controls who can own them. I’m wondering if the real answer is the city wants to own the rights to “Oakland Athletics,” for whatever good it would do them in the future.
But the one that has me really scratching my head is a soccer team called the Roots. Is this like the worst name ever?
The A’s name and logos should follow the team wherever they move to. They played in Philly and KC before, so Oakland doesn’t need to keep the franchise and it’s history. It’s doubtful if another team will ever be put there. The NFL did this for Cleveland with the Browns, and that shouldn’t have happened either.
I’m sure they don’t need it but my question is why they want it (if in fact they do), and whether MLB would even allow the city to retain it. I imagine the league has some property interests in it as well. I wonder what became of the Expos name when the franchise moved to Washington.
Just a FYI the name Expos would have made no sense to keep when they left Montreal. The name was specific to the city. But then again LA kept the name Lakers when they moved from Minnesota, which was dumb, but it has worked out just fine.
Yeah, the Baltimore Browns would’ve been so special for the folks in Maryland.
And we all know Salt Lake City is a hotspot for the jazz music community.
Cleveland kept the Browns name and colors.
Not that anyone wanted either ha ha.
Blueskies…all it is is a way to essentially allow the rebrand ploy on Fisher..which makes sense for Vegas. You’d THINK they’d rather have an expansion team than this mess. City wants to basically kick Fisher away from the brand and get a new A’s…like the Cleveland Browns didn
If the team decided to completely rebrand in Las Vegas, perhaps they’d abandon their ownership of the A’s, but I can see why they’d want to do either.
BlueSkysLA- A’s said last year they aren’t rebranding. It’s a classic franchise, so that makes sense and it’d be kind of stupid to destroy links to that past.
It just seemed to me like Vegas was possibly #1 on the expansion list. If not #2 to Nashville. Why not get your own team?
I’m not sure this deal with Vegas actually happens. I could see it leveraged for a move to a couple places, Salt Lake City and Portland. Portland HAS 140 acres or so already purchased for stadium development.
I loathe this move from Oakland. But I 100% understand why Oakland proper might not be the best place for the team. Giants should have granted them San Jose. Giants would be in St Pete if it hadn’t been the A’s granting rights to Santa Clara.
Oakland will never get another team, so for the City to ask to keep the name and colors is pointless. Plus, last I checked, Oakland was the A’s third stop after Philly and KC.
Lol there’s so much money in the Bay.
If Oakland was never getting another team why did Manfred say it is going to remain an open territory and not turn into Giants territory?
The most billionaires in the US:
Bay Area: 68
New York: 60
Los Angeles: 43
Chicago: 24
The most millionaires:
New York: 350,000
Bay Area: 306,000
Los Angeles: 212,000
Chicago: 120,000
Source:
@nwwealth
@HenleyPartners
Yes but they all live in Silicon Valley which is Giants territory now.
Had the A’s maintained that territory I’m sure we’re not having this conversation.
54 of those billionaires live in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Solano counties. Only 14 live in Santa Clara county. The wealthiest city in the US is in Alameda county.
The TV money is for the entire bay area, not just Oakland because NBC Bay Area channel is seen throughout the region.
I would’ve figured Marin but not Alameda.
That’s cool.
Orinda, a small town in the Oakland Hills.
So… Alameda county is a city, not a county?
Alameda the city is in Alameda the county.
Orinda is in CoCo County, but whatever. I agree with your overall point that there’s plenty of money to go around.
@halos. You proved to never been to the bay area. Many of them live in Blackhawk or Alamo area.
How many of those millionaires and billionaires are in Oakland or anywhere in the east bay area? The millionaires and billionaires are concentrated in the Silicon Valley and the South Bay. The A’s should have moved to San Jose long ago. It’s still a better move than Las Vegas.
They can’t move to San Jose, the Giants own the territorial rights to Santa Clara County. That’s why they tried to develop a stadium in Fremont about fifteen years ago – as close to the South Bay as they could get – but that didn’t work out.
There are lots of millionaires in the inland East Bay. From Pleasanton all the way up I-680 to Walnut Creek it’s nothing but extremely rich people for a good 20 miles, and then the same from WC westward to the Oakland city line, with Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda.
There’s the problem. The Giants own the entire territory which could easily support two teams. Oakland obviously can’t support a team. Facebook, Google, and Apple are all in the South Bay.
MatthewStairs – There IS money in the bay area, but the Giants have a lot of it wrapped up in their territorial rights including San Jose. I’m not sure if Fremont was in there. The Giants blocked the San Jose move which kinda got us where we are today.
The Bay isn’t a FULLY open market. Maybe Manfred isn’t granting the entire bay area to the Giants. They need to be careful about someone pressing an antitrust lawsuit.
The city of Oakland is not trying to entice a team to move into the Coliseum. They have the HT site is still approved with a huge amount of taxpayer money for infrastructure already approved, the EIS already complete, and any potential lawsuits already handled, and it is a $12 billion development that an owner that can get financing to build would have control over.
I DETEST Fisher…badly. But the city has no more claim to the name or colors than Philly or KC had. It’s a private business…but a community trust..that’s where Fisher is way off-base.
It’d be like any other city asking to retain the name and trademarked images of a private company. That’d never fly
Looks like a case of “Just follow the money”
Of course. If you believed the recent spin, you’d think the city and Fisher were so unhappy with each other they’d blocked their phone numbers and unfriended each other on Facebook. Are we supposed to be shocked to find that money talks?
A’s want to pay nothing and Oakland is saying so if you want to stay you got to pay. Its like if your ex-wife found a new man but wants to stay in the home you own you charge her the highest rent. Why would you do that.?
And today’s totally weird analogy winner is…
You have a better one post it. I bet you don’t.
It’s weird because it’s so unnecessary. The A’s don’t want to pay “nothing” they only want to pay less than the city is asking. This is called a negotiation, and they will very likely figure something out because it’s in their best interests to do so. Money talks, as I said already. Call that the analogy if you like.
The A’s want to pay less than it costs the JPA to have them play there. Its not happening. They can either pay what the city of Oakland is asking for or they can move on and lose hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 3 seasons.
Oakland said what they want. Now it’s on Fisher to come back with something they will accept. The meeting is Tuesday. Let’s see if he is serious. MLB won’t wait much longer. They have a contractual obligation to have the 2025 schedule finalized in a few weeks. It cannot wait. Your move Fisher.
so you have nothing but thanks for playing
Like I’ve said twice already, it’s a negotiation, and unless you have insider knowledge, you can’t do more than guess about what either side will actually accept. The only point I am making here is many were saying the two sides were so far apart that they wouldn’t even talk to each other again. This always seemed highly unlikely.
And the negotiations continue with meetings yesterday and today. Turns out nobody was making a take it or leave it offer. Turns out money does talk. Not everyone is surprised.
let me fix it for you Fisher doesn’t want to pay anything. Why would anyone be surprised he has not ever signed a good free agent. He has not signed anyone to a extension. he doesn’t want to pay any money unless its minimum.
City of Oakland made a take it or leave it offer. They talked, but didn’t budge on a single point.
Are you saying this is a new development since the article linked here?
That is the result of the Tuesday meeting with the city, county and the A’s.
The city of Oakland didn’t budge.
The A’s didn’t budge.
Alameda county asked for the A’s to pay the balance of the money owed on the sale of the 50% share in the Coliseum to the A’s or they wouldn’t agree to either plan.
Today the A’s were in Sacramento meeting with Ranadive and city officials.
They were meeting again today with both the city and officials in Sacramento. If the city was making a nonnegotiable offer then the meetings with them would be unnecessary. We don’t know if they budged or not, only that no deal was struck today. The reality is the city can’t simply refuse to negotiate terms because of their fiduciary responsibilities. They have to exhaust the process because they are dealing with public funds.
The city of OAKLAND and the county of Alameda was who met with the A’s yesterday.
We do know that city of Oakland didn’t budge. Mayor Thao said that they had made a fair offer initially and were waiting for the A’s to make the next move.
The A’s said that the two sides were far apart but didn’t mention any counter offer they had made. . No other source has said that the A’s made a counter offer.
So we have two parties not budging.
The city of Oakland has no reason to negotiate. The Coliseum has paying tenants for 2025 and beyond in the Roots and Soul. With the A’s gone they can start holding concerts and other events in the Coliseum that the A’s are blocking now.
The past 4 years having the A’s play there has cost the Coliseum $4 million per season not including revenue from other events that could not be held from March to October.. They have been LOSING money on the A’s lease.
The city and county have no vested interest in having the A’s back. The current lease offer the A’s made would not even be a break even on costs for the Coliseum authority. So the best thing the city can do is walk away if the A’s do not take their offer.
Just one meeting in Sacramento today. It was the first and only so far.
The city has no reason to want to A’s back, but not only are they still talking to them, they want to come away owning the team name and team colors and the A’s half share of the property ownership. Other than that, no interest at all.
Parties to a private negotiation always say publicly that they’ve made a “fair offer,” but we should know this does not reflect anything being discussed behind closed doors. And as I said, the city has every reason to negotiate. A city government can’t take a “my way or the highway” position because they are responsible for public funds.
Anyway, my entire reason for bringing this up was to point out the error of the claim we heard often a while back that these parties were totally done with each other and were never going to talk again. This was never right, and here’s the proof. Whether they will be able to strike a deal I have no idea. All I know is the city has to exhaust all the possibilities.
Just contract them, already
After losing 4 professional sports teams, they think they deserve another one? LOL.
Good luck asking Fisher to pay in full when Vegas ballpark is projected to complete by ’27. Ain’t no way I’m sympathizing with Fisher but that proposal is outright extortion from business points of view
How? Vegas will not be built by 27. The drawings A’s given can’t fit in the 11 acres they have. More likely take the full 5 years at the best possible time line. Fisher also doesn’t have the money to build it. A’s can find another stadium to play if they don’t like the deal. Extortion is asking us tax payers to pay for a stadium from a rich billionaire.
The site in Las Vegas is 9 acres and the renderings are for 13 acres. The most optimistic timelines are for construction to start in January 2025 and to be completed in January 2028. Fisher doesn’t even have financing to build it yet.
You build the stadium first.
Who woulda thunk that there is a cost to doing business? Oakland is simply leveraging their position to earn revenue. Fisher had plenty of time to make stadium contingency plans being fully aware that their current lease was going to expire. Fisher can walk away and play elsewhere and lose their TV revenue. That’s a choice he has.
They don’t want Fisher to stay. They’ll make more money having soccer at the Colisuem. Might as well ask.
I don’t know about more, but under their recently signed lease the Roots/Soul will pay as much per year as the A’s would under this proposal. They play a lot less home games combined than the A’s do.
Wouldn’t take much to outdraw the A’s hosting just about anything there. City get a crack on gate/parking? Guessing sales tax on things atleast. Still…sad that even COULD sound reasonable compared to an MLB team.
If there was a living, breathing commissioner this wouldn’t be going down the path it’s going.
Unfortunately that’s not the case.
It’s like Fisher is taking a stinky, steamy “Oakland” on the Coliseum turf and it all smells so bad that Manfred just wants to stay outside until all the flushing is done.
lol…good luck getting them to cough up 97 million to continue playing in that dump. That’s close to double their payroll.
I LOL’ed at the part about $97m being due regardless of a 3 or 5 year lease.
Right now it’s pay the 97m or lose 67m in tv money. They may get some of that back in a new deal but good luck with that.
A’s likely come out ahead paying the 97m.
$210 million in TV money over 3 years.
Maybe the problem here is the payroll?
Hey, I like having one concrete doughnut 1960’s throwback stadium still around!
Oaklands politicians have done everything wrong thus far. So it should be no surprise they have a list of ridiculous demands to a guy who clearly wants out of there anyway.
Do you have anything to actually cite here? Feel free to outline “everything” and then show us what they did wrong. Here is some help: oaklandca.gov/projects/oakland-waterfront-ballpark…
You’re right. But no chance they’ll click on the link you provided and read the information contained within.
It’s so much easier to hold onto a false narrative.
They’ve lost the Warriors and Raiders and will soon lose the A’s. That’s plenty to ‘cite’.
They lost the Raiders because of Fisher.
sfgate.com/athletics/article/raiders-mark-davis-tr…
The Warriors moved 7 miles away after Fisher blocked a new building at the site of the Oakland Arena and they were basically gifted a 11 acre site by the owner of Salesfoirce. (He sold them the site far, far below market value in the Mission Bay neighborhood)
.
Fisher backed out of an approved deal at Howard Terminal.
Notice the commonality there?
Fisher done everything wrong. Cost Oakland a lot of money getting Howard terminal ready and backing out of the project. So the question is why do you feel sorry for a billionaire that wants tax payers to pay for a new stadium?
The 92 ask of Oakland is what they had invested in the Howard Terminal project that was agreed upon.
Has ever been a move this chaotic and poorly planned for a team in a major sport? I can’t think of one.
Montreal isn’t far behind.
I don’t care how bad Oakland is or what it’s asking for, John Fisher is the worst owner in professional sports. He’s a rich greedy scum bag and deserves to be screwed over by Oakland. He gets 30+ million dollars a year from MLB revenue sharing because he refuses to sign any of his good players to extensions and never reinvests a penny of revenue sharing he receives from MLB.
I hope the remaining A’s fans boycott him because he deserves nothing less.
I feel bad for the players having to play under those conditions.
Any opportunity to leave Oakland is a good one. I tell them to kick rocks and play in the triple AAA stadium in Las Vegas for the short term.
They can’t. The MLBPA said no to the AAA ballpark in Las Vegas.
Play in Edmonton for three years.
Doubleheaders every day for the 81 playable days per year there!
You can’t fault the city for trying to stick it to Fisher. There’s plenty of us A’s fans around and Fisher has deliberately given us nothing to root for. Trading away any talent we have and spending less than ever. The fact that Eric Chavez’s contract is the most they’ve ever paid a player is insane
I can’t think of any better players they kept beyond their Arb years since then. FA’s get short contracts so they don’t compare to Chavy.
Marcus Semien, they couldn’t even afford a qualifying offer, so he just walked away for nothing when he hit free agency.
$70m a year for the next 3 years in TV money is the reason why Fisher even considers this.
MLB wants this situation resolved NOW.
This far MLB has extended Fisher’s revenue sharing, waived a relocation fee. I’m sure MLB may push him to take this deal and finally ,for the first time, spend HIS money to make this easier on MLB.
Doesn’t mean much when Oakland is asking them to pay 97 mill in extension fee, cover the costs of converting the field into a soccer field, and sell their stake in the stadium.
Almost seems like a “we tried to keep them” but they refused.
Similar to Dean Spanos leaving SD. They only allowed San Diego county residents to vote on stadium and after dean refused to move off down town location they left for LA.
The extension fee is the annual rent though. Fisher may need to sell his stake anyways to generate money for Vegas, since he’s struggling on that front. Maybe the city concedes the conversion? This is the city’s starting point, not final offer.
Did you see the most recent JPA meeting? Fisher is in arrears on his payments to the county to buy his half of the Coliseum site. He still owes $55 million.
On their lease, the Roots/Soul will be paying as much as the A’s for 33 events per year and they committed building a soccer only stadium on a parking lot that they will turn over to the JPA/community when the new Coliseum is built, I don’t think that the city will back down on the conversion costs since its in the Roots/Soul lease and if the A’s don’t pay it, the city would be forced to.
Oakland should demand as much as possible. Fisher just wants that TV money. Fine. Let him keep just enough so he’s better off than temporarily relocating, but nothing beyond that.
Otherwise Fisher can kick rocks. Go to Sacramento so when Vegas falls apart, the new owner can bring them back to Oakland
Seems like the best solution for both is to part ways. City of Oakland has done things. Fisher has definitely done things. It’s unfortunate the fans get in the middle of messy divorces like these but prolonging it seems like the worse route.
I remember when chargers moved they had to play games at the Cal State Dominguez stadium for a few years while Sofi was being built.
A”s could probably go a similar route with UNLV.
I don’t disagree. The city and Fisher should part ways.
However Fisher can’t afford to not have the $210m in TV money, especially to get financing for the Vegas ballpark.
He’s not in a great spot to actually pay for this thing and needs all the money he can get, including selling his half of the coliseum.
Perhaps Fisher can’t afford the team and should sell it. The team has blatantly become nothing more than AAAA player development for the rest of the league. How long does the league allow this?
Oakland has been that way long before Fisher took over in 2005. They’ve had success on limited budget but have been cheap for a long long time.
I remember back when they dismantled the playoff teams in 04 dealing Hudson and Mulder at the time. Jason Giambi back in 01 walked away.
The A’s current payroll is $17 million lower than it was in 2007. Adjusted for inflation its never been lower.
Uh it’s been lower. 2022 and 2023. A’s have never broken 100 mill. They’ve been cheap a long time.,
legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al…
I stand corrected.
Especially with Bally’s about to go belly up. Their credit rating has tanked and its questionable whether they will be able to come up with the money to build a new casino once they tear down the Tropicana.
Cal State Dominguez? I could have sworn the Bolts used Home Depot Field in Carson…
Anyhow, your points stand.
Stub Hub Center (formerly Home Depot Field) located near Cal State San Dominguez. Idk if they own the field or use it but I do remember seeing Cal State Dominguez on buildings when I went to see my buddy’s brother back in 2019 play against the chargers when he was on the 49ers at stub hub center.
MLBPA already nixed the A’s playing in the AAA ballpark there. There is no way they would approve the college field.
Yes
fisher should part ways with the franchise
Move them back to Philadelphia where they were originally from.
And build an exact replica of Connie Mack Stadium in the suburbs for them to play in!
The low payroll for the As is a red herring. Aside from the Chris Davis contract, the As have spent far more on payroll than the Orioles since 2018. But the Os won 101 games in 2023 and the As won half that many with a similar payroll.
Neither Oakland nor Baltimore is an urban paradise. But Baltimore and Maryland have worked hard to keep a team and succeeded. It’s all about a difference in fan support and local politics.
The Orioles were actively tanking at the direction of the architect that built the Astros. That’s an incredibly important detail you’re missing.
Baltimore also struggled with attendance during that time.
During the time the Os were “actively tanking” they acquired Santander, Bradish, Bautista, Mateo, Kramer, Dillon Tate, Urias, Jorge Lopez (flipped for Cano and Povich), etc. And attendance never dropped to recent As levels. MLB wasn’t going to approve any move.
Oakland’s problems were bad baseball decisions and hostile local politics.
O’s also had Camden Yards. It’s insane that the Rangers are on their 3rd stadium before the A’s get their first.
The Os had Camden Yards because Baltimore and Maryland politicians responded to the Colts move by proactively supporting new facilities for both the Os and Ravens. Oakland lost all of its sports franchises.
I imagine NBC would love to drop the A’s.
That guaranteed contract is an albatross for them as Fisher has turned everyone against the team and put a historically bad product on the field.
Who wants to watch that?
If there aren’t eyeballs, there aren’t advertisers.
I think the TV money is generous and likely upside down for the network. I expect they’d love to get out of that contract since Fisher has destroyed the product.
Would love to see more details regarding that TV contract. You could be right about NBC wanting out.
Of course they would love to get out of that contract since Fisher has alienated the fan base and probably have less than 50,000 watching the games. If I had a business I wouldn’t advertise on the A’s network for games and only reach a few thousand people.
It’s also hilarious that Ostler/Shea opine that Ranadive and Lacob would want to work together. They already did with the warriors and it didn’t end well.
Ranadive has said he is willing to discuss the A’s playing there, but so far Fisher has not stepped up to the table.
The estimates to bring the ballpark up to MLB standards are between $15 and $20 million. fisher would have to come up with that money. no way Ranadive is paying for it when he cannot make it back.
The MLBPA would also need to give their ok on it and without those improvements to the ballpark that isn’t happening. They already said no to the A’s triple A Las Vegas Ballpark.
Lacob wants to BUY the A’s and build at Howard Terminal. Do you think he wants to help Fisher screw the Bay Area more?
Lacob wants to BUY the A’s and build at Howard Terminal.
==========================
If that’s the case, wouldn’t keeping Fisher in Oakland for three more years be counter-productive.
Let the As leave, award Lacob a hew Oakland franchise, and let them build a new stadium at HT.
Not unless the city gets assurance that they can GET a team.
Fair enough, but I don’t why MLB would object to having a new owner and brand new stadium. OTOH, this could require a financial commitment from both Lacob and the City of Oakland.
And I trust Lacob a lot more than Oakland.
The team’s position seems to be “we need a place to play in a location where we get our TV money, and it seems fair to us that Oakland give it to us at the lowest possible cost/commitment. The Athletics are leaving–I’m not sure why the city should give them a break. Oakland political leadership is not exactly perfect, but Fisher & Company aren’t engaging in reasonable dealing either–and especially since he’s getting such a huge handout from the taxpayers of his new home.. This is an ugly situation where crazy-rich people expect to be given even more.
The fans are the problem. Not the stadium. Not the city. Not the owner. It’s the lack of interest by the fans and their refusal to show up and support the team. Now they’re moving and everyone is whining like babies. You did this.
Troll on
For the last 20 years you heard they were leaving. If your wife every year said she was leaving would you invest in the marriage? Of course not. Blame the owner. He created the problem and could easily sell the team and let somebody who actually cares about baseball own the team.
Fisher is well respected by fellow owners and the business community at large. He’s does the most he can do with a limited fan base. He didn’t have to bring in JD Davis, but he did to ensure the club had a chance of a winning record. That’s an owner committed to winning. Again, it’s the fans refusal to support the team that’s making him move.
Jimmy that was the funniest post at satire. Loved it. You should have put in there Fisher wanted to stay in Oakland but unfairly they wouldn’t give him the $2 billion for a new stadium. Unfair! Oakland not wanting to give a guy $2 billion.
Good god I’m glad that’s a satire account
Dude…did you just say they brought in JD Davis to ensure they have a chance at a winning record???
ROFL!!!
Just say you know jack squat about the A”s and their situation.
ARC 24 hours ago
For the last 20 years you heard they were leaving.
====================
Every team threatens to leave for greener pastures. The A’s have one of the better records over the past 20 years, and the fans are still too cheap to go to a game.
Joe – It’s not about regular season record, it’s about competing for a spot in the World Series.
Oakland hasn’t won an ALCS game since 1992, Moneyball was a glamorized hoax, Athletics fans have a right to be unhappy and disillusioned with the team,
If you are in the playoffs, you are competing for the WS.
During the bash brother years they were consistently top 3 in AL attendance. They also were top 3 in payroll.
Probably just a coincidence, right?
Just move to Sacramento.
This is a relationship in which one side has completely stopped trying ti make anything work (Fisher) and the other is getting divorced for the third time but won’t change (Oakland).
The Golden State are a regional team, that moved 7 miles away, back to the first area they existed in when they moved from Philadelphia. Joe Lacob wanted to own his own arena. He has further intimated multiple times he wants to buy the A’s and keep them in Oakland.
As for the Raiders and the A’s? If you believe Mark Davis, those are both on John Fisher: sfgate.com/athletics/article/raiders-mark-davis-tr…
Even better, here is Fisher himself accepting some culpability: sports.yahoo.com/john-fisher-reveals-attempt-amend…
Vivek Ranadive (owner of the NBA’s Sacramento Kings) owns the minor league franchise, and is both a friend of Fisher and has ambitions of eventually owning a Major League Baseball team himself. OH BOY!
This is true.
Since Vegas isn’t solid he likely hopes that the A’s being in Sacramento if the Vegas deal fails makes it likely Fisher sells to him.
Sacramento is a great sports town. This is the best outcome for all sides. Keep the TV money by staying in the Bay Area, sell it to a friend, and save face. In my opinion, if the Athletics fans keep protesting the entire season, Fisher will sell. These rich millionaire types actually DO care what people think, believe it or not.
I wouldn’t mind if they ended up moving to Sacramento which would be the idea location for the A’s because bay area fans could attend and draw more from a growing area.
Thing is MLB wants cities to give A LOT of money for ballparks. If they let a ballpark be privately funded it undermines their entire extortion game they got against other cities.
Sacramento has a $60m+ deficit and likely couldn’t afford to give the money.
I believe their current TV deal dies even if they only go as far as Sacramento. It’s Bay Area-only, not ‘Bay Area and maybe a little beyond’
Sacramento doesn’t have the necessary cash flow to sustain another professional sports team. The leading employer is the state government followed by the county government. With the Kings already entrenched adding another team does not mean people suddenly have more money available to spend.
By the way Rivercats games in Sacramento are more expensive than in Oakland. And temperatures are near 90 degrees at first pitch during the summer. It’s a terrible place to watch a game and traffic is a nightmare getting in and out.
Ranadive said that he is not willing to change the stadium schedule at Sutter Health Park to accommodate the A’s because of pre-existing contracts for concerts, community events, and other private events.
He also said that Fisher would have to be responsible for any costs of upgrading the stadium to make it meet the MLBPA’s demands.
Ranadive thinks that if the A’s do end up playing in Sacramento that he would be first in line to get a MLB expansion team. I have news for him, that won’t happen. All it would do is make it easier for Fisher to move to Las Vegas.
What must be done eventually should be done immediately.
those are wise words, Zeus. too wise to heed
Fisher walking away with his 50% share in the coliseum after ’27 would seem to be a worst case scenario for the city. Assuming LV is a 100% go Fisher can just wait it out. Time is not on the city’s side.
Why?
Fisher owes the county most of the sales price and cannot pay. The city of Oakland controls WHO Fisher sells to. He cannot sell without their permission. The JPA has a buyer lined up already and they have the money to build a privately financed new stadium and arena on the Colisuem site. Selling gets the county paid and Fisher no longer able to block redevelopment of the site.
Fisher loses $210 million in TV money plus the $15-20 million it would cost to upgrade any minor league park to MLB standards if he moves. Because they would lose the name Oakland in their team name, he also has to pay the not unsubstantial costs of changing the name to rebrand his team.
Fisher has no leverage. MLB has to have a schedule complete in the next couple of weeks or they default on their agreement with the MLBPA. Time is not on Fisher’s side.
I would guess that is why Alameda county said in the meeting yesterday that they were disinclined to agree to either proposal unless part of it was the A’s paying the rest of what they owe the county for the sale of the 50% share in the Coliseum site. I have read that the A’s still owe Alameda county $55 million.
Fisher is going to take his time to lower Oakland’s ask. MLB will eventually lose patience and force his hand to make a decision bc they need a form a ’25 schedule which involves a lot of logistics planning for the other 29 teams.
I don’t think he has time. MLB has a deal with the MLBPA that says they have to have the schedule in place.
Exactly.
I love how this site misrepresented the offer.
The city is asking for $19 million per season. That is just slightly more than break even. If the A’s leave early, it covers the money the A’s owe the Coliseum authority now.
It’s also what the two soccer teams will be paying and they will play fewer games in the stadium. The soccer teams are committed to spending money on a $20 million soccer only stadium on the site that they would give to the community to use for other events, while the A’s are in arrears on maintenance and payments to the Coliseum authority for parking fees the team collects on. That is why the lease offer says the A’s would have to pay for the playing surface to be maintained for the soccer teams.
The A’s cannot sell without the Oakland’s permission and they still owe Alameda County $55 million of the original $70 million sale price. They have offers on the table from a group that actually has the money to develop the land and that sale would pay off Fisher’s debt and put $60 million in his pocket. Money he will need to have to get the Las Vegas ballpark built since he is not going to get the $380 million from Nevada.
Fisher will get to keep the $70 million in TV money that he will lose if he moves.
Fisher also won’t have to spend $15-20 million to upgrade a minor league park to MLB standards if they have to move for 3 years.
The MLBPA has already nixed playing in the A’s Las Vegas AAA ballpark, so that is not an option.
No minor league owner is going to pay those costs because they won’t recoup that money. 40% of local revenue goes into MLB revenue sharing and it costs money to put on games. The A’s would want some of the ticket money too. So there is no reason for Sacramento or SLC owners to pay those costs.
I could continue but I think everyone gets the point. Fisher has no leverage. He will accept this offer or he will lose a minimum of $250 million.
The offer asks for MLB to give them one year to find an investor to buy an expansion team and considering the fact that Lacob has a standing offer on the table to buy the A’s, I don’t think they will have a problem finding one. They also have a site already approved at Howard Terminal.
Um….no on several of your points.
Ok Dave Kaval. Having a burner account on Twitter was not enough. You wanted one here too?
I notice you could not refute even one of his points. If you could have, you would have at least tried.
Ok here’s one: ‘ The city is asking for $19 million per season.’. $97 million over the course of 3 or 5 years does not add up. Oakland even went as far as saying they want the full $97M even if they leave after 3 years.
Noticed you didn’t even try to claim you are NOT Dave Kaval.
97/5=19.4
Come on Dave. You have a calculator on that phone. Use it.
You also owe for deferred maintenance and parking fees Dave. The city doesn’t believe you will make good on your debts after you leave. Do you blame them?
Oh, and why didn’t you show up at opening day?
Noticed you didn’t even try to claim you are NOT Dave Kaval.
97/5=19.4
====================
Are they going to in Oakland for five years?
What points? All of them are the facts of the situation.
You hit everything on the nose there BIL. I thought you were a Mets fan? How do you know so much about the A’s situation?
Not a Mets fan, just live in the area. As the name implies, I am a huge baseball fan and it’s one of the biggest stories in the sport. I have read all I could find on it.
Do you really think that comment was from Dave Kaval? I muted him on his first comment.
You have never once said what team you are a fan of. Who do you cheer for?
Prefer to be just a baseball fan on here. Once you say who you cheer for the trolls find every possible reason to give you a hard time.
Fisher giving one more middle finger to Oakland before he takes his team and rides off into oblivion.
The team should make this deal with Oakland, because given John Fisher’s shaky finances, there is no guarantee that the Vegas stadium is going to get done.
Oakland’s offer to the #Athletics for Coliseum lease extension ahead of Tuesday’s meeting.
✅ 5-year lease with opt out option at 3rd year.
✅ Approx $19.4M/yr.
✅ Sell Coliseum stake.
✅ Grant Oakland 1 exclusive year to line up owners for expansion.
*OR Oak keeps name and colors.
*OR Facilitate sale to new group.
✅ A’s get to stay in big league park, check all MLBPA boxes, and keep full TV deal (approx $350M value).
✅A’s lease in Oakland expires after this season. So the A’s would be covered from 2025-2030 if Las Vegas hits a snag.
✅The city would get a chance to line up a group ready to pitch MLB on expansion. (There are groups
ready now).
✅MLB gets a chance to have LV AND Oakland.
The sale of the A’s half of the Coliseum also provides the team with an influx of cash. They’d still have to share the stadium with the Roots/Soul and pay conversion costs.
My honest assessment: This is reasonable and a path to a win-win in the short term and a potential mega win for baseball in the longterm.
Sacramento’s offer would hinge on a TV deal re-negotiation and playing in a Minor League park for 3-5 years. SLC is a non-starter.
via @CaseyPrattABC7
Here is a video with all the terms.
youtu.be/Mi4NhpiPWIw?si=gay5eeUGn7_iO9dI
The major thing is that there are multiple cities that are far ahead of Oakland in the list to get an expansion team and there will only be two expansion teams coming in the next round. After this round of expansion it will be at least a decade before another round is considered
Why would there be ANY city in front of Oakland.
#1 – Oakland is in the biggest market. Twice the size of any other market being considered.
#2 – Oakland has a provider, NBC Bay Area, that is willing to give any team big money for their broadcast rights.
#3 – Oakland has an approved site at Howard Terminal They could have shovels in the ground tomorrow.
#4 – Oakland the Bay Area have passionate fans who have suffered through a terrible ownership.
No city should be considered until Oakland has a new team. Let Fisher go bankrupt his franchise in Las Vegas.
All the more argument for Oakland and its fans wanting Fisher out as soon as possible.
They do want him gone.
1st choice, Fisher sells to Lacob and Lacob builds at Howard Terminal. 2nd choice, the A’s sign a new lease for 3-5 years that pays the Coliseum enough to make it worth their while and MLB gives the city enough time to get an investor and promise that to get an expansion team. 3rd choice, Fisher leaves Oakland after 2024, loses $250 million or more in TV and other revenues over the next 3 years, and is probably never able to build a ballpark in Las Vegas and has to sell the team. 4th choice, Fisher leaves after 2024, loses $250 million or more over the next 3-5 years, sells a huge chunk of the team to be able to build in Las Vegas, and ends up having to sell in a few years.
The only thing that will not happen is things continuing the way they are now in Oakland after the end of the season.
So Dave Kaval and John Fisher both have burner accounts here. sorrynotsorry and johnnytwobags.
Plenty of owners and GMs scour this site. I knew that when I was watching Wyatt Langford’s debut and the ‘experts’ on MLB Network waxed poetic about him being a Bregman/Trout comp. I was saying that since the Rangers drafted him last June during the Omaha Championships. In all honesty, why WOULD’NT you solicit information from the #1 destination for instant, insightful MLB fan feedback? It would be poor due diligence otherwise. At least throw them a bone for that.
LOL. Ok.
$97 million isn’t terrible if the A’s stay five seasons its less than $20 million per year which the revenue sharing dollars the A’s pilfer each year can cover. Even if they just stay 3 years its still a little north of $32 million, which the A’s can still afford. The team seems to forget they are negotiating a lease, not Aledmys Diaz’ contract.
Fisher selling would be the best thing for him, MLB, the team, and Oakland. He gets his fortune and this embarrassment to the game ends. The writing is on the wall and Vegas doesn’t want the A’s
Oakland fans need to take Billy Beane hostage THEN negotiate.
Just wish I could wave magic wand and this all go away! Maybe MlB should give the owner .50 cents on the buck and move the team to Vegas next year, without the owner!
Move to San Jose, build a new ballpark there. Problems solved. Case closed. Time for MLB to step in and remove the Giants “territorial rights” to California’s 2nd biggest city (55 miles from San Francisco.) Stop allowing the Giants to hold San Jose hostage. It deserves a franchise of its own.
I really wish Las Vegas and mlb would’ve agreed to to build the new stadium next to the Minor league park. I think they’re gonna regret not having a retractable room. There’s not enough room to add that to the A’s stadium on the strip. And as a resident of Las Vegas the last 24 years(come August) I’ve been to the strip maybe 15 times. Half the of the times it was for a Tech N9ne concert. I will definitely go to game but it’s such a PITA(pain in the ace) to go to the strip for anything if you live here.
They A’s should just play the home game at Las Vegas Ballpark for the 2027 season at the very least.
Good to read a take from an actual LV resident .
Oakland hates Fisher so much they should root for an expansion team.
If they don’t get an expansion team, it means the government was a big problem after all. It is time to leave Oakland.
How about calling them the Las Vegas Gamblers!!
The uniform could have dice on the front or a slot machine. Or the Vegas skyline!
I like this!!! Let’s go Gamblers let’s go!!!!
Las Vegas Hookers n Blow
The first adult themed MLB team
The commies in CA wouldn’t pony up the collectively pooled tax payer money, but luckily those capitalists in Vegas would pony up the collectively pooled tax payer money.
Cognitive dissonance is fun.
Let me fix that for you. The middle class in Oakland said no more tax money to rich elites. While in Vegas the socialist want to pay the rich elite tax money to come to Vegas. Vegas is more the communist expecting tax payers to foot the bill.
Let me fix that for you: cut taxes.
Middle class got what they voted for in Oakland. That’s what they said.
??? Cut taxes? Like when the top 1% got their taxes slashed and they took away funds to all states and departments. look how badly that turned out.
How about don’t buy a sport team and expect the tax payers to buy you a stadium. It should be all on the owners paying for a stadium.
Example Warriors built and paid for their own stadium and is now worth more than any NBA team.
You cut taxes for everyone. Anyone who wants higher taxes for ______ is part of the problem. That would be you.
You should be attending 81 games in Oakland with about 30000 of your friends. But let’s not let the fact that Oakland fans quit on the team years ago get in the way of your narrative.
Warriors aren’t in Oakland anymore but let’s not let that fact get in your way. You should try being a real sports fan and support your team instead of blaming everyone else.
Four Teams in Commifornia is enough…. watched the game last night maybe there was 4,000 fans and 90% of them were Red Sox fans.
Why would fans of the A’s show up when MLB said that they don’t support your team but only the owner. Its like your ex-wife asking you to buy her a dinner for her and her new boyfriend.
You show up because you like baseball?
Or Oakland doesn’t. That’s a more accurate description.
Wouldn’t you go watch little league if you like baseball So when was the last time you just stop your car and watch a high school game being played? So since you have not you don’t like baseball. That was easy…
Would you show up to a game if your team was owned by this clown?
The last time the A’s had a top 3 payroll they were top 3 in attendance.
Most of us fans do not want to give another dime to this pile of a$$.
Support your team and show up. Otherwise some complaining about your situation.
How many A’s game have you gone to in the last 5 years? Come on its happening how many???
I think it’s clear Oakland does not want the A’s in their city.
The funny thing is that the area right around the stadium is improving dramatically including extreme rise in property values- thats why many are beginning to refer to Oakland as ‘Malibu North’. So the joke is on the baseball team if they decide to leave
They obviously haven’t actually been there.
Oakland officials have overplayed their hands throughout this debacle. The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees screwed the pooch by not agreeing to the Laney College proposal, the Oakland City Council kept moving the goalposts on the Howard Terminal deal and now they’re asking for the moon on the lease extension. See you in Sacramento next March.
The city of Oakland officials can give it up on any idea that Oakland will get an expansion team any time soon. Too many cities with established ownership groups and ready stadium construction plans are in line for the two expansion slots. It will probably be another three years at least before expansion and then another ten to twenty years before another expansion round. So maybe in 15 to 20 years Oakland MIGHT get an expansion team. The better hope would be a team relocating but I don’t know of any teams even considering a relocation
Oakland doesn’t deserve a sports franchise. if I was Fisher I’d keep my 50 percent ownership of the coliseum, go play in Sacramento and tell the city of Oakland to suck it. there’s a reason Oakland is losing all it’s franchises and it’s not because of the owners
Davis left because of fisher. The Warriors left because they got the primest piece of real estate in SF.
The city of oakland is run by imbeciles, but they are nowhere near as bad as fisher.
why doesn’t Tampa Bay move to Oakland and Oakland move to Tampa Bay?
So they met yesterday.
City of Oakland made a take it or leave it offer. They talked, but didn’t budge on a single point.
If you are wondering what they are asking for, watch this video by Casey Pratt on ABC7 there in the Bay Area
youtu.be/04l94MdaVkk?si=q0V2SCQlW_pzExlt
The A’s didn’t budge on their offer either.
NBC Sports said that less than 10% of A’s viewers are in the Sacramento, so they don’t see there being a fit, but they are willing to negotiate.
The county wants being paid upfront for money owed by the A’s to be part of any lease agreement. I guess they don’t believe that Fisher, who is already in arrears on payments for his 50% of the Coliseum site, will continue to pay them.
The A’s meet with Sacramento today, but Randive has made it clear he is unwilling to alter the Sutter Health Park stadium schedule which includes non-baseball related events concerts, community celebrations, festivals, and private events. He is also unwilling to foot the cost of bringing the ballpark up to MLB standards that the MLBPA has estimated will cost $14-20 million.
Per Casey Pratt, some A’s employees have been told that Sacramento is going to happen, that nearly all workers will be the existing ones from Sutter Health Park, and that layoffs are coming, possibly during this season considering attendance is down so much.
The A’s are so screwed.
Nobody will want to actually come out to see this team until it is sold.
Beware LV, don’t crawl in bed with this scumbag.
Selig, Manfred, Fisher, the Giants Ownership are to blame for this Oakland A’s situation.
Case in point: When the Washington Nationals, briefly, were put up for sale months ago, Manfred stated that MLB “would be very flexible and do anything it could to get the deal closed including fundamentally changing the MLB TV deal in the area that has been a long running dispute between the Nationals, the Orioles and MLB.
But, MLB, Selig, Mahfred have, repeatedly, refused to extend the same “Get it Done” mentality and effort to the A’s stadium and ownership situation?!
MLB, Selig, Manfred never made such a commitment to the A’s and their fans in the SF Bay Area over the past 20-30 years OR the A’s would have built a new a stadium a long time ago in San Jose/Santa Clara County (World Capital for Technology and rolling in trillions of dollars).
Cisco Field in downtown San Jose was shot down by MLB.
Numerous Santa Clara County sites shot down by MLB.
The SF 49ers lost public stadium funding ballot initiatives in San Francisco
and build Levis Field in Santa Clara County.
The A’s should have been allowed to do the same thing
They would be thriving today if MLB and the Giants had not
blocked the A’s from viable stadium deals in SF Bay Area.
And don’t give us that bullsheet about “protected territory” for the
SF Giants. Mets/NYY, Cubs, White Sox, Dodgers/Angels share their territories as 2 MLB teams in large viable cities/MLB markets.
Why treat the A’s /Giants situation any differently than those other teams and cities?!
And, stop the lies about the economic viability of the A’s in the SF Bay Area (650B+ yearly GDP is exponentially larger and richer that the entire State of Nevada including Las Vegas).
Remember, the A’s former Owner Walter Haas Jr.(Levis company)
loaned the SF Giants the A’s 50% of their :shared territory (Santa Clara County/San Jose/Silicon Valley). Bud Selig has been quoted in the Media that it was understood that the A’s only loaned their 50% of their Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County Territory to the Giants to get the SF Giants a new stadium built in SF Bay Area.
A’s Owners Haas “acted in the best interests of baseball by loaning their 50% of their shared territory to the SF Giants to save the SF Giants for the SF Bay Area. But, Selig was very clear about A’s Owner Walter Haas Jr’s INTENT: After the SF Giants were stabilized with a New SF Bay Areas Stadium, Haas expected that MLB and the SF Giants would return the Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley A’s 50% share of Silicon Valley BACK TO THE A’s.
Instead, MLB, Selig, Manfred and Giants Ownership set up roadblocks to the A’s success in the SF Bay Area and actively worked to block the A’s from being restored their territory that the A’s loaned to the SF Giants to keep them in the SF Bay Area and block their 1990’s move to Tampa.. The territory was a “loan” by the A’s to the Giants and not a gift..
Google it. Selig admits that fact.
A simple vote by MLB Owners at an MLB Owners meeting can immediately restore the A’s 50% territory in Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley. So cut the bullsheet about it being some unchangeable thing in the “MLB Constitution” since it was never in the MLB Constitution prior to 1990’s and such an unfair, inequitable arrangement is not “in the MLB Constitution” relating to other MLB Cities with two teams sharing the market like NY, Chicago, LA etc. So stop it with that complete crap that everyone can see right through, MLB Owners make and vote on the rules and can change the rules at any time by a vote of MLB Owners..
2_Second point. Even if MLB tabled and did not address the shared territory issue at this time for whatever reasons, multiple SF Bay Area billionaires have made offers and expressed interest in buying the A’s and building the A’s a New stadium with private funds in Oakland and/or the SF Bay Area with their own private funds and credit.
There is precedent for MLB forcing prior MLB Owners to sell their teams: Frank McCourt (Dodgers) Rangers were in Bankruptcy Court with a forced sale, Astros were pressured to sell to the current Ownership group and more..
Warriors Owner Joe Lacob has a 10 year standing offer to buy the A’s and build the team a new stadium with private funds in the SF Bay Area. Lacob’s proven success in building the Warriors a the New Chase Center in SF with private funds proves he is a viable owner who can get a new stadium built..
Reggie Jackson/ Bill Gates Ownership Group is also viable. for A’s in Oakland and SF Bay Area.
Many others would step forward in an open competition.
SF Bay Area is full of billionaires who could write a check for the team and a New stadium from their petty cash without breaking a sweat.
Former Microsoft Executive Steve Balmer paid a few billion for the NBA Clippers and is building a privately financed multi billion dollar New Intuit Dome near another privately financed NLF football stadium SOFI field in Inglewood.(LA).
CA has the money and economy to “get it done” in Oakland and the SF Bay Area.
MLB is “missing a great opportunity in Oakland”.
Petco Park in San Diego was built in a rundown ghetto section of downtown San Diego that has been revitalized by its convention center, the Gaslamp Quarter and Petco Park and is now booming.
Two new professional sports stadiums in an Industrial area of Inglewood in Los Angeles have created more economic opportunities.
The same thing could happen in Oakland with the right, well financed Ownership group at the Jack London Square water front site or the Coliseum site.
The Jack London Square Waterfront deal for the A’s was nixed by Fisher and Manfred when it was on third base and ready to score a walk off win for MLB, Oakland and the A’s.
Manfred and Fisher have have not tried hard enough to make a deal happen in Oakland.
Get a New Owner in with the A’s (force Fisher to sell to a billionaire who can close the deal and get it done) or force Fisher to take on a well funded partner in Oakland.
The Padres were warned by MLB and Manfred not to run their debt up too high and/or spend too much money on players last year?!
Where are the red flags and warnings for Fisher spending too little funds on the A’s and players?!
Where are the “red flags” warnings when Fisher could not qualify to finance the larger Jack London Square A’s stadium deal on the waterfront in Oakland.
If Fisher cannot get the financing for the Oakland deal, then why has the Commissioner and Owners not enforced their own MLB rules
about MLB Owners having sufficient capital and credit to own and run an MLB franchise?!
Why have MLB Owners not voted @ Ownership meetings
to require Fisher to put the A’s for sale on the open market to
an Ownership Group that is financially more stable and financially capable of owning and operating a successful MLB franchise and no “fire sale away” all its young All Star players every few years and not taking revenue sharing monies from MLB and other owners while being located in one of the top TV markets in the country?!
video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&…
There’s a reason Manfred is willingly retiring. He knows how smart baseball fans are. He also is a typical rich tool that deeply desires to be “liked” rather than shield himself from the scrutiny in his million-dollar loft. The booing at every MLB Draft has worn on him severely. The best thing about the situation is that it’s not over yet.
That was quite the dissertation there. As I told websoulsurfer earlier in this post, GMs and Owners frequent this site quite often. Your salvo will not fall on deaf ears, rest assured.
Thank you!
A wealthy businessman or woman looking to create even more wealth and a personal legacy for themselves and their family(s_ would see the A’s situation in Oakland as a “golden opportunity” in many ways..
Get into that area when it is at lower value and has the great potential to become exponentially more valuable
like Petco Park in San Diego revitalized an area that before it was built, you couldn’t pay people to visit that area of downtown San Diego.
Now, it is a destination area and real estate values are soaring and those business people who took the risk
and had patience with that Petco Park development
like John Moores and Larry Lucchino were very well rewarded professionally and financially.
Fisher appears to be an “accountant type” who is risk averse.
The most successful businesspeople and entrepreneurs
see opportunity where others see just the negatives.
They are not making any more land.
Land is currently cheaper on the Oakland side of SF Bay.
It will not always be that way.
Prices will go up with or without an A’s stadium featured development.
MLB Fisher will never maximize the value of the A’s
with a smaller project/stadium on the Las Vegas strip
with Casino Owners controlling the land and venue and with no potential for growth.
Brand New privately financed Clippers arena build in Inglewood/LA
scheduled to open soon!