Athletics President re: keeping the team in Oakland

[Henry]

I'm calling it now: Time to welcome the Las Vegas Gamblers!

Of course, the "Athletics" name didn't originate in Oakland, either.

But the "Raiders" did, and look where they went.

[Flint1979]

I also find it funny that Oakland thinks that the Athletics name should remain in Oakland when that isn't even where the name originated, that'd be Philadelphia. Kansas City never said that the Royals should be the Athletics and keep that name there. Why should Oakland get to keep the name? They did very little to get a stadium deal done there.

[SP Cook]

There is this small group, including NBC commentator Brodie Brazil, who have this theory that the A's can move to Las Vegas, but that puts Oakland into contention for an expansion team, which baseball expansion is coming in the last part of this decade.  This is why they want to keep the A's name. 

Newsflash:  Oakland is losing its team because its city/county/state cannot/will not build an acceptable stadium.  Every other city in the same position, got it done.  How anyone can think that, somehow, that will change in the next few years, is beyond me.  If Oakland wants baseball, it needs to/needed to get this done.  No one is going to put himself in a position of moving into that dump of a stadium and then go through years of being turned down on deal after deal, again.

[Flint1979]

There is this small group, including NBC commentator Brodie Brazil, who have this theory that the A's can move to Las Vegas, but that puts Oakland into contention for an expansion team, which baseball expansion is coming in the last part of this decade.  This is why they want to keep the A's name. 

Newsflash:  Oakland is losing its team because its city/county/state cannot/will not build an acceptable stadium.  Every other city in the same position, got it done.  How anyone can think that, somehow, that will change in the next few years, is beyond me.  If Oakland wants baseball, it needs to/needed to get this done.  No one is going to put himself in a position of moving into that dump of a stadium and then go through years of being turned down on deal after deal, again.

I agree. It's crazy to think that with the situation there now that something is suddenly going to change in the next few years if MLB does expand and I guarantee Oakland will not be getting a team since they already have one and can't get a stadium now. No Oakland it's either build the A's a new stadium or when they leave you can forget about ever hosting a MLB game in your city again.

[NWI_Irish96]

The problem is that since the A's moved to Oakland in 1968, much of the wealth in the Bay area has moved down to the San Jose/Santa Clara area.

The equitable solution would be to let the A's follow the money down there, but the Giants see that as an infringement on their territory. Oakland/Alameda County just don't have the wealth to support a new team or stadium.

[ZLoth]

Awarded an expansion team? How will that be different than keeping the A's?

And how will Oakland attract a expansion team? By building a good stadium. Anyone looking at the Oakland Hole will say a few choice words, and it's past the renovation point now. And, like it was stated earlier in this thread...

In fairness, I think the Mayor of Oakland has more pressing immediate things to worry about than the A's

Plus, any expansion team will get a hard NO! from the San Francisco Giants. Beyond New York (#1 media market), Los Angeles (#2 media market), and Chicago (#3 media market), I don't see any area being able to support two MLB teams, including DFW.

[Bruce]

No city should have to use public funds to build a stadium for an entitled professional team with wealthy owners. If they want city money, they should be forced to accept public ownership that would forever bind the team to the city itself.

[Flint1979]

The problem is that since the A's moved to Oakland in 1968, much of the wealth in the Bay area has moved down to the San Jose/Santa Clara area.

The equitable solution would be to let the A's follow the money down there, but the Giants see that as an infringement on their territory. Oakland/Alameda County just don't have the wealth to support a new team or stadium.

San Jose would be a perfect location for the A's to move to but I guess the Giants own the territory or something I don't know why it'd matter since they'd be playing further away than they are now.

[gonealookin]

The problem is that since the A's moved to Oakland in 1968, much of the wealth in the Bay area has moved down to the San Jose/Santa Clara area.

The equitable solution would be to let the A's follow the money down there, but the Giants see that as an infringement on their territory. Oakland/Alameda County just don't have the wealth to support a new team or stadium.

San Jose would be a perfect location for the A's to move to but I guess the Giants own the territory or something I don't know why it'd matter since they'd be playing further away than they are now.

The Giants were granted the exclusive rights to Santa Clara County as part of some legal maneuvering around the late 1980s or early 1990s.  They were stuck in Candlestick Park, which was an even more miserable dump than the Oakland Coliseum is now, and made a couple attempts at getting a ballpark approved in Santa Clara, in the general area where the 49ers' Levi's Stadium is situated, but the voters rejected the financing plans.  The A's ownership at the time, Walter Haas and family, were satisfied with Oakland, had no contemplation of ever moving to Santa Clara County and agreed to the Giants' request.

Ownership of both teams has changed, and even though the Giants eventually found a site in San Francisco and built one of baseball's best ballparks there, they have never been willing to reciprocate Haas' cooperation and relinquish their exclusive rights in Santa Clara County.  It has been part of a strategy to either ensure that the A's are the secondary team in the Bay Area or force them to leave and give the Giants a monopoly in one of the country's largest and wealthiest markets, and that strategy finally appears to have worked out for them.

The Giants don't have any right to prevent baseball from putting an expansion team in Alameda or Contra Costa Counties (or Sacramento, for that matter).  Under the Major League Constitution their exclusive territory is "The City of San Francisco; and San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties in California; provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California shall also be included."  However, it seems unlikely that Major League Baseball would put the East Bay above several other cities which would be competing for an expansion franchise, as the A's have usually been toward the back end of the pack in attendance for most of their Oakland tenure.

[Max Rockatansky]

Having an MLB team in the Central Valley might be interesting given there is only one big four professional franchise teams out here.  Trouble is where to put a stadium and how would it get paid for?

[ZLoth]

San Jose would be a perfect location for the A's to move to but I guess the Giants own the territory or something I don't know why it'd matter since they'd be playing further away than they are now.

The Giants were granted the exclusive rights to Santa Clara County as part of some legal maneuvering around the late 1980s or early 1990s.

This was around 1992-1993 time frame where there was the threat of the Giants moving to Tampa Bay.

[Henry]

Awarded an expansion team? How will that be different than keeping the A's?

And how will Oakland attract a expansion team? By building a good stadium. Anyone looking at the Oakland Hole will say a few choice words, and it's past the renovation point now. And, like it was stated earlier in this thread...

In fairness, I think the Mayor of Oakland has more pressing immediate things to worry about than the A's

Plus, any expansion team will get a hard NO! from the San Francisco Giants. Beyond New York (#1 media market), Los Angeles (#2 media market), and Chicago (#3 media market), I don't see any area being able to support two MLB teams, including DFW.

Are we forgetting Baltimore and Washington? Some people say they're two separate areas, but they're close enough to be considered one large area. As I recall, the Nationals were opposed by the Orioles' owner when they arrived (and they were owned by MLB back then, not yet sold to a single individual or group), but it took them 15 years to reach the pinnacle of success, a World Series championship. While the Nationals don't have the large fan base that the Orioles do, at least those fans are dedicated, and it felt good to see them get rewarded.

[Max Rockatansky]

Certainly helps that the residents of the two cities largely hate each other, especially when it comes to sports.

[SP Cook]

Are we forgetting Baltimore and Washington? Some people say they're two separate areas, but they're close enough to be considered one large area. As I recall, the Nationals were opposed by the Orioles' owner when they arrived...

The Orioles owner, who is one of the most immoral and truly evil people currently alive, worked out a complex deal with MLB, relative to the TV rights to the Nationals.   How much the TV network, which the Orioles own, should pay has been in litigation ever since.  Angelos, the Orioles owner, has lost at every level, but simply files new lawsuits and avoids paying.  Eventually, with the regional sports network model in decline, he will simply bankrupt the TV channel and pay the Nationals nothing.

Sadly, the other owners knew exactly what sort of person Angelos was when they let him buy the team. 

[The Nature Boy]

Awarded an expansion team? How will that be different than keeping the A's?

And how will Oakland attract a expansion team? By building a good stadium. Anyone looking at the Oakland Hole will say a few choice words, and it's past the renovation point now. And, like it was stated earlier in this thread...

In fairness, I think the Mayor of Oakland has more pressing immediate things to worry about than the A's

Plus, any expansion team will get a hard NO! from the San Francisco Giants. Beyond New York (#1 media market), Los Angeles (#2 media market), and Chicago (#3 media market), I don't see any area being able to support two MLB teams, including DFW.

Are we forgetting Baltimore and Washington? Some people say they're two separate areas, but they're close enough to be considered one large area. As I recall, the Nationals were opposed by the Orioles' owner when they arrived (and they were owned by MLB back then, not yet sold to a single individual or group), but it took them 15 years to reach the pinnacle of success, a World Series championship. While the Nationals don't have the large fan base that the Orioles do, at least those fans are dedicated, and it felt good to see them get rewarded.

The A's and Giants play 16 miles apart so they're a lot closer than the Nats and Orioles. The attendance figures in Oakland (going back 20 years, before Fisher bought the team) support the assertion that the Bay Area can't support two teams. The team has had really good seasons, even recently, and no one is showing up.

A's fans are loud online and spin a hell of a sob story but sometimes reality smacks you in the face.

[Max Rockatansky]

It isn't as though Oakland doesn't have a track record for losing professional teams to other cities.  The city in fact likely has the worst record given it stands to lose all four major sports and somehow the same NFL team twice. 

[The Nature Boy]

It isn't as though Oakland doesn't have a track record for losing professional teams to other cities.  The city in fact likely has the worst record given it stands to lose all four major sports and somehow the same NFL team twice.

I've honestly been surprised by the social media reaction to the A's leaving. It's not as though Oakland is a prime sports market that is losing a baseball team that regularly sells out and has wide fan support. There are emerging markets for MLB to enter and if you're looking to relocate a team, Oakland's metrics make them a prime candidate.

John Fisher is an asshole and their stadium is a dump so on the surface, it's a sympathetic cause but the team has had minimal live attendance over the last two decades, which includes multiple runs of decent success (including a 97 win season). I've seen hot takes ranging from people claiming that the A's are a big part of Oakland's culture so the name should remain (they were in Philly and KC first, get in line Oakland) and this is worse than when the Dodgers left Brooklyn (lol!).

The A's relocation saga is a good example of how social media can be used to rile people up, even when the facts aren't on their side.

[1995hoo]

....

Newsflash:  Oakland is losing its team because its city/county/state cannot/will not build an acceptable stadium.  Every other city in the same position, got it done.  ....

There is one that didn't get it done. That city–Montreal–lost its team. There were several other issues at play there as well, of course, including bad attendance, which also affects Oakland, as well as mismanagement of media rights where one owner didn't even bother to arrange for English-language local TV and radio deals. The media rights fiasco almost certainly affected attendance because I think most people who watch baseball would agree that it's a more enjoyable sport when you watch the same team regularly.

[ZLoth]

....

Newsflash:  Oakland is losing its team because its city/county/state cannot/will not build an acceptable stadium.  Every other city in the same position, got it done.  ....

There is one that didn't get it done. That city–Montreal–lost its team. There were several other issues at play there as well, of course, including bad attendance, which also affects Oakland, as well as mismanagement of media rights where one owner didn't even bother to arrange for English-language local TV and radio deals. The media rights fiasco almost certainly affected attendance because I think most people who watch baseball would agree that it's a more enjoyable sport when you watch the same team regularly.

Soldier Field in Chicago, although a better stadium than the Oakland Hole, has major issues as well to the point where the team is purchasing a former racetrack and is planning to convert it to the stadium. The poor field maintanence has been a major issue for decades. Yet, the politicos keep thinking they own that team.

Ref:

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority (City of Oakland and Alameda County) owns and "maintains" the Oakland Coliseum.

[CtrlAltDel]

No city should have to use public funds to build a stadium for an entitled professional team with wealthy owners. If they want city money, they should be forced to accept public ownership that would forever bind the team to the city itself.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[ZLoth]

No city should have to use public funds to build a stadium for an entitled professional team with wealthy owners. If they want city money, they should be forced to accept public ownership that would forever bind the team to the city itself.

I agree wholeheartedly.

As far as I'm concerned, whether it be a sports stadium, sports arena, sports pavilion, or what have you... we should not be utilizing taxpayer funds or tax-free muni bonds to fund a stadium. It's a entertainment complex after all, much like a movie theater or music venue. https://www.fieldofschemes.com/

[Max Rockatansky]

I guess it doesn't bother me.  Usually the leading theory is that the economic benefits of a professional sports venue and franchise will recoup the investment. 

[CtrlAltDel]

Usually the leading theory is that the economic benefits of a professional sports venue and franchise will recoup the investment.

True, but rare is the case where this theory withstands empirical scrutiny.

[1995hoo]

I think it depends on a couple of things, with the two biggest considerations being the type of venue and the location. Paying for an indoor arena (hockey/basketball size) likely has the most benefit because it gets used the most of any sports venue and it's not limited to just those events. Some arenas are in use almost every day of the year and bring in business to the surrounding area as a result. Verizon Center in DC–though not publicly funded except for infrastructure improvements–is an outstanding example of a sports venue that led to an economic boom in the surrounding area. I'd suggest that a pro football stadium is the least sensible for public funding because it has the lowest return due to being used for far fewer dates per year than an arena or a ballpark (or, I suppose, an MLS-sized soccer stadium).

Any venue you plop down in the middle of a sea of parking is likely to have limited economic benefit to the local area compared to an in-city arena or ballpark surrounded by restaurants, bars, etc.

[Bruce]

Public financing of infrastructure improvements around new stadiums is also a tricky one. For conventional real estate development, the developer is usually fronting this cost, but for even privately-financed stadiums it's assumed to be the government's responsibility. Doesn't sit well with me at all.

The recent wave of MLS stadiums with very little to no public subsidies proves that it can be done in this country. These ownership groups are nowhere near as wealthy as the traditional leagues of the Big 5 and yet can build stadiums that are close to $1 billion.