Oakland A's to play in Sacramento for a few years while Las Vegas stadium is built

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The A's own half the land if they ever want anything there. They would get money from the A's if they used the stadium extra years. The A's have other options too.

Oakland isn't in good enough of a bargaining position to demand an enormous take it or leave it change your entire future plans ultimatum for them to use a terrible stadium for 1-3 more seasons, only to have to use that same terrible stadium an additional 2-4 years after that if they did.

I question that. The rent the A's paid on the Coliseum is like $1.2 million a year.

Oakland is probably spending more than that on having police officers and extended BART service for 81 home games.

Lame duck A's seasons aren't bringing in all kinds of economic activity to the stadium, but you also can't cut security because of just how angry the fans are at ownership.

Letting the Las Vegas A's play 3 more seasons in Oakland should be an absolute non-starter for the city.

Letting the A's play in the Coliseum if they agree to re-open Howard Terminal negotiations is a starter. And "you can play here... if you leave the name, colors and brand here when you leave for Vegas" should be on the table as well.

"Leave the team name with the city, and secure an ironclad deal from MLB that we'll get the next expansion team as soon as we find an ownership group, and we'll let you stay as long as you need without tying you down beyond that."

That gives Oakland the As and no John Fisher, so I think they'd be all in for that version.

Yup, I realized that as I was typing it!

I don't know how feasible the MLB expansion team is. The Giants can claim the territorial rights unless MLB leadership handles everything the right way. Which it's Manfred so he won't.

The dude basically said "Eff em, be Giants fans" TODAY.
 

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,975
632
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
One of the curious things I’ve heard is that MLB values the franchise marks more than the market… that the Athletics have been the Athletics in Philadelphia and Kansas City and Oakland, so nobody else really owns them. In which case they may as well go to Vegas. They don’t buy into the Oakland’s history argument.

Which… sheesh.

The real bargaining chip might be Fisher’s ownership of the former county portion of Coliseum property. There are multiple interests looking there, and Oakland would like to move on after departure.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
One of the curious things I’ve heard is that MLB values the franchise marks more than the market… that the Athletics have been the Athletics in Philadelphia and Kansas City and Oakland, so nobody else really owns them. In which case they may as well go to Vegas. They don’t buy into the Oakland’s history argument.

Which… sheesh.

The real bargaining chip might be Fisher’s ownership of the former county portion of Coliseum property. There are multiple interests looking there, and Oakland would like to move on after departure.

Right, but there's a clear line of demarcation on the names/brands thing. No one since 1969 kept their branding in baseball (Pilots, Senators and Expos).

The Cleveland Browns to Baltimore thing, the Charlotte/New Orleans agreement, and the Winnipeg Jets coming back make me think that times have changed a lot since the Dodgers moved to LA.

And honestly, I'd think that "you can have it" would be a smarter move based on the merchandise potential of new brand/colors in Las Vegas. This isn't the huge merch sales, Silver and Black Raiders. This is the Green and Yellow Athletics brand, which I'd assume is probably at the very bottom of MLB sales. (I know it's not Top 10).
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
As for Oakland's land ownership at the Coliseum site... I really don't think that's a significant factor for Oakland negotiating with the A's.

The A's didn't want a new stadium there and they collectively switched to the Howard Terminal site as the best plan for redevelopment. You don't need a plot that big for minor league sports, MLS, or a spring football league team. They can't get an NFL, NBA or NHL team there. And probably not an MLB expansion team without a complicated deal between both Oakland, the A's, MLB and the Giants, which seems crazy unlikely given how the Giants ownership have acted during the A's stadium efforts.

(Now, the San Jose Giants moving to Oakland makes a ton of sense, but again, Howard Terminal. The city and the A's were really close a multi-billion dollar project. Shrinking the scope for a new Triple A Giants affiliate kills three birds with one stone).

Developing an economy-boosting "mixed use" thing at the site makes sense, but that's always been discussed for decades and still hasn't happened. And without the A's/Raiders/Warriors bringing people in year round, why would it happen without them?
 

Vegan Knight

Registered User
Feb 16, 2018
5,310
2,867
I question that. The rent the A's paid on the Coliseum is like $1.2 million a year.

Oakland is probably spending more than that on having police officers and extended BART service for 81 home games.

Lame duck A's seasons aren't bringing in all kinds of economic activity to the stadium, but you also can't cut security because of just how angry the fans are at ownership.

Letting the Las Vegas A's play 3 more seasons in Oakland should be an absolute non-starter for the city.

Letting the A's play in the Coliseum if they agree to re-open Howard Terminal negotiations is a starter. And "you can play here... if you leave the name, colors and brand here when you leave for Vegas" should be on the table as well.



Yup, I realized that as I was typing it!

I don't know how feasible the MLB expansion team is. The Giants can claim the territorial rights unless MLB leadership handles everything the right way. Which it's Manfred so he won't.

The dude basically said "Eff em, be Giants fans" TODAY.

You greatly underappreciate how little leverage the city has. The A's have about five other options and they have half the land they can use in the future to make the city's interests more difficult. There is no power for them to make any big demands in the situation.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
You greatly underappreciate how little leverage the city has. The A's have about five other options and they have half the land they can use in the future to make the city's interests more difficult. There is no power for them to make any big demands in the situation.

Leverage for what? Go back a page. We were talking about any possible reason for Oakland to NOT say "If you're the 'Las Vegas Athletics' looking for a place to play from 2025-2027, GFY."

And those reasons are: If the A's aren't hell-bent for Vegas and staying is actually an option, or turning over the name of the team is on the table. Those are the only reasons for Oakland to take a meeting with the A's. I didn't say those were LIKELY or possible, I just mean if those aren't the case, then you don't let them stay in the Coliseum an extra three years, you kick them the hell out.
 

Vegan Knight

Registered User
Feb 16, 2018
5,310
2,867
Leverage for what? Go back a page. We were talking about any possible reason for Oakland to NOT say "If you're the 'Las Vegas Athletics' looking for a place to play from 2025-2027, GFY."

And those reasons are: If the A's aren't hell-bent for Vegas and staying is actually an option, or turning over the name of the team is on the table. Those are the only reasons for Oakland to take a meeting with the A's. I didn't say those were LIKELY or possible, I just mean if those aren't the case, then you don't let them stay in the Coliseum an extra three years, you kick them the hell out.

Then you as Oakland get the extra headaches when you inevitably need their half of the land in the future based off of some dumb desire to indulge your emotions.

If it's not possible, like you mention in this post, you don't bring it up as a demand. It would only hurt them down the line.

You don’t need to roll over or make anything easy, you can demand that the city get a deal that makes sense for them in a professional manner, that they not only break even but make some money for their troubles these years.

That is probably enough to get the no from the A's and you haven't engaged in a bad faith demand to sour the other party you will need something from in the future, be it the A's or MLB. It's dumb, over the top emotional garbage that has no place in a professional business setting and can do nothing to help you and only potentially hurt you.
 

BattleBorn

50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Feb 6, 2015
12,069
6,017
Bellevue, WA
There's going to be some maintenance costs involved in keeping the place non-condemnable that the city would take on with the departure, plus whatever pittance the A's pay in rent, so I mean, maybe it's just that?

It seems like in a normal city a spot near the water and a slough with a mass transit stop would be a perfect place for a mixed use mid level/fake downtowny area that's all the rage, but Oakland is obviously different since the only apparent improvement with a BART station next to a people magnet like a stadium and arena was a bridge over the construction supply company and car impound lot.

Guessing maybe the city doesn't have a strong hand if their actual goal isn't to have taxpayers pay for things they can avoid paying for.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Then you as Oakland get the extra headaches when you inevitably need their half of the land in the future based off of some dumb desire to indulge your emotions.

If it's not possible, like you mention in this post, you don't bring it up as a demand. It would only hurt them down the line.

You don’t need to roll over or make anything easy, you can demand that the city get a deal that makes sense for them in a professional manner, that they not only break even but make some money for their troubles these years.

That is probably enough to get the no from the A's and you haven't engaged in a bad faith demand to sour the other party you will need something from in the future, be it the A's or MLB. It's dumb, over the top emotional garbage that has no place in a professional business setting and can do nothing to help you and only potentially hurt you.

While we were typing about it, I think they already met and convos went no where. It was reported later yesterday that Sacramento is now the leading candidate to be the temp home of the A's
 

Vegan Knight

Registered User
Feb 16, 2018
5,310
2,867
While we were typing about it, I think they already met and convos went no where. It was reported later yesterday that Sacramento is now the leading candidate to be the temp home of the A's

That's a good thing for Sacramento and another reason I think the idea of Oakland making unreasonable demands would be a mistake.

It still isn't one hundred percent that the A's are in Vegas in 2028 (I think it's probably 80-90% but not absolute yet with Fisher factored in) and if it didn't go through then Sacramento would likely be in the driver's seat for the A's since they would already be there and have an existing relationship.

If Oakland had that opportunity and chose to be unreasonable and let it slip through their hands they'd probably regret it.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
That's a good thing for Sacramento and another reason I think the idea of Oakland making unreasonable demands would be a mistake.

It still isn't one hundred percent that the A's are in Vegas in 2028 (I think it's probably 80-90% but not absolute yet with Fisher factored in) and if it didn't go through then Sacramento would likely be in the driver's seat for the A's since they would already be there and have an existing relationship.

If Oakland had that opportunity and chose to be unreasonable and let it slip through their hands they'd probably regret it.

I think our views in general are similar, it's just the differentiating between a "permanent home" and "temporary home" for the A's.

The A's walked away from negotiations with Oakland on a permanent home and signed a loose deal with Vegas and applied for relocation with MLB.

That's pretty much slamming the door shut on Oakland as a permanent home -- the Howard Terminal deal was nearing the finish line, they weren't that far apart. And so asking about a lease extension is like "I'm divorcing you, but let's keep sleeping together for three years." It's not unreasonable to say "We can try and make this work, or you can get out now."

The main reason for the A's to want Sacramento (and Oakland) over Utah or Nashville is their existing TV deal for $70m from NBC Sports California. Given the state of RSNs, they're not getting a better deal than that in a smaller market.

If the Las Vegas deal falls apart, Sacramento would be interested, but the Sacramento Athletics really doesn't make sense for either party:

Forget about their willingness to build a $1.5 billion or more taxpayer funded stadium. (Getting the NBA arena done took seven years and they almost lost the team like four times). The Howard Terminal project is way bigger than that and closer to the finish line than starting from scratch in Sacramento.

Brodie Brazil, who's a Bay Area media guy summed it up on his YouTube channel quite nicely:

The Sacramento A's would be both "too close for a 'honeymoon' and too far from 'home.'"

You don't get the Honeymoon effect of "This is OUR team! We finally got one!" like you would in a brand new market. You get that from A's fans in Sacramento, but Giants games have been on TV in Sacramento this entire time and they've been better than the A's the last 20 years. Most those fans are gonna just keep watching the Giants (now hundred years from now, that would shift).

But at the same time, half the A's fans in the East Bay are gonna consider that "losing the A's." They'll have bad feelings about their team being 80 miles away and won't go to games. Those who are "at least they're semi-local" will just go to less games, because it's 80 miles.


Now, if the A's move to Vegas or Salt Lake, then an EXPANSION team in Sacramento could make a lot more sense; (a) the Giants couldn't stop it and they can fight an Oakland replacement team to the death. (b) a new Sacramento expansion team WOULD be like "finally our own team" for the A's fans, who's team just left to another state and are no longer on TV, AND to some Giants fans, who's games COULD disappear from TV. And the available place to build in Sacramento is the site of Arco Arena and the failed MLB stadium plan from the late 80s, which is North of the city, which can still work for expansion, works against them for the A's.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
57,551
15,385
Illinois
That's admittedly neat-looking, albeit with a Sydney Opera House-vibe from the outside.

I'll alwaya believe that these exorbitant cost estimates involve substantial skimming off the top, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted Hoffman

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
111,007
23,352
Sin City

A few more facts about renderings

Includes largest video display in league
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,428
3,608
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
That's admittedly neat-looking, albeit with a Sydney Opera House-vibe from the outside.

I'll alwaya believe that these exorbitant cost estimates involve substantial skimming off the top, though.

Most of the cost estimates are phantom dollars: Like "We wont charge you $300m rent over 30 years." Which Vegas wasn't charging the casino rent before hand... so really it's just tacking on $300m to the amount we talk about.
 

KingLB

Registered User
Oct 29, 2008
9,035
1,160
That “rendering” is a complete bait and switch right? Support dropping, release stadium people will love. Knowing full well you would never do it. Once it’s approved use excuse like “economy”/supply chain/city gave us less that anticipated. Then build a standard boring ball park. I mean common, has this owner shown anything to make anyone think that is real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KevFu

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
111,007
23,352
Sin City

City of Oakland offering 5 year lease with opt out after 3 years. $97m extension fee.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,659
1,484
Ajax, ON
The city allowing this offer to leak 2 days before the meeting?

There are so many reasons why I don't see the A's entertaining this.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad