Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
B-Rich

Hornets, state announce agreement to keep team in N.O. thru 2024

135 posts in this topic

Those rumblings started at least a month ago when talk of an arena in the Giants ballpark's parking lot surfaced. (Or even when they introduced that SF logo - and no O - before the 2010-2011 season.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was my first clue.

Real subtle there, fellas. An indication of impending name change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those rumblings started at least a month ago when talk of an arena in the Giants ballpark's parking lot surfaced. (Or even when they introduced that SF logo - and no O - before the 2010-2011 season.)

True. There were rumblings, but nothing like the commish coming round to deal with it. Or more importantly, the revelation that the Warriors have NO interest in the only existing Oakland arena plan. Previously the Warriors had been playing coy that they were "exploring all options" and hadn't given up on Oakland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

I honestly think Oakland could lose all three teams. If I had bet on it, I'd go with the A's and Warriors relocating within the next 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

Oakland realistically can't support ANY of its teams. Their attendances, particularly the A's and Raiders, have never been great. There is little corporate support. Their venues are all old (in the Warriors case it's the oldest in the sport despite the 90's renovations (which just like Key Arena's renovations still left a 45 year old building behind)). And in the stadium's case the Coliseum is the last crappy multipurpose venue left in the NFL and MLB (unless you count Skydome) and is also 45 years old without any significant renovations in that time other than the destructive addition to the outfield. Most damaging of all however is that Oakland has no public money left to contribute to new venues meaning unless the teams themselves want to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to stay in what has always been a marginal major league town, there's nothing keeping them there. The Warriors will be back in San Francisco before this decade is out. The Raiders will be in LA or Santa Clara in a stadium share in the same time frame. And the A's will either be in San Jose or some other out of California city by 2020. I'd be shocked if Oakland has any teams left in 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

Oakland realistically can't support ANY of its teams. Their attendances, particularly the A's and Raiders, have never been great. There is little corporate support. Their venues are all old (in the Warriors case it's the oldest in the sport despite the 90's renovations (which just like Key Arena's renovations still left a 45 year old building behind)). And in the stadium's case the Coliseum is the last crappy multipurpose venue left in the NFL and MLB (unless you count Skydome) and is also 45 years old without any significant renovations in that time other than the destructive addition to the outfield. Most damaging of all however is that Oakland has no public money left to contribute to new venues meaning unless the teams themselves want to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to stay in what has always been a marginal major league town, there's nothing keeping them there. The Warriors will be back in San Francisco before this decade is out. The Raiders will be in LA or Santa Clara in a stadium share in the same time frame. And the A's will either be in San Jose or some other out of California city by 2020. I'd be shocked if Oakland has any teams left in 8 years.

Generally seconded.

What one has to understand is Oakland's place (and their franchises' place) in the history and scheme of things. While Oakland is its own municipality in a separate county, it's still part of the San Francisco-dominated "Bay Area" and not a market in and of itself. In that regard, they are no different from St. Paul, MN, Ft. Worth, TX, St. Petersburg, FL., or even to some degree Anaheim, CA. What garnered Oakland (IMHO) some "false" cachet was their ability to put the name "Oakland" out there. Sure, it goes back to the Oakland Oaks of the PCL, but there were also the Ft. Worth Cats and St. Paul Saints in minor league ball, and there was never a cry to give franchises those location names later on. Oakland was the only "twin city/sister city" to get its name out there, with a result of getting people (particularly young kids in the sixties and seventies like me) to think that Oakland was some big metropolis deserving of its own pro teams. It wasn't and still isn't. It's more of a situation where the size of the Bay Area market called for (1) a second team team in the AFL and later NFL (thus the Raiders) (2) an AL baseball team to go with the NL team (particularly back when there was no interleague play) and (3) arena sports following the sixties/seventies trend of franchise playing in outlying or suburban areas raher than the city center (Washington Bullets in Landover, Cleveland Cavaliers in Richfield, NY Islanders in Nassau, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

I could see Oakland putting up a relatively small fight to keep the A's and Warriors, but going all out to keep the Raiders... I think they're every bit as important to Oakland's civic identity as the Packers are to Green Bay's. As flawed as the Coliseum is by modern standards, it's still an original AFL venue and I would hope it could somehow be retrofitted into something more suitable for football if/when the A's leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be right.

But are the Warriors really central to Oakland's sense of identity? Wouldn't they, as the only one not bearing the city's name, be the easiest to let go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

I could see Oakland putting up a relatively small fight to keep the A's and Warriors, but going all out to keep the Raiders... I think they're every bit as important to Oakland's civic identity as the Packers are to Green Bay's. As flawed as the Coliseum is by modern standards, it's still an original AFL venue and I would hope it could somehow be retrofitted into something more suitable for football if/when the A's leave.

Only issue is, keeping the Raiders will far and away be the most expensive proposition with the least return for the city given how expensive NFL venues are 120%+ more so than an arena or baseball park. And playing only 8 games a year. And on top of it a new Oakland football stadium would be in direct competition with the Niners new 1.2 billion dollar pleasure palace going up down in Santa Clara and wouldn't have the NFL's backing. The NFL have made their position very clear, they want the Raiders and Niners to share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be right.

But are the Warriors really central to Oakland's sense of identity? Wouldn't they, as the only one not bearing the city's name, be the easiest to let go?

So far it seems so. The response I'm seeing on Warriors message boards is largely indifferent to the idea that the Warriors might move back to San Francisco. There's a few that feel the heart of their fanbase is in Oakland despite their goofy name, but by and large I think people realize that they were an SF team first and would remain the region's basketball team even in SF (not to mention they'd be a short BART ride away where they want to drop the new SF arena) and even if they changed their name back to SF Warriors. The reaction hasn't been nearly as polarized as the A's situation or I imagine the Raiders situation would be should the team move AND change city names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With at least 2 of the 3 Oakland teams uncertain weather to stay in said city. It got me thinking in this day and age can Oakland realistically still support 3 major professional sports teams?

Also if not which teams should go in your opinions?

I could see Oakland putting up a relatively small fight to keep the A's and Warriors, but going all out to keep the Raiders... I think they're every bit as important to Oakland's civic identity as the Packers are to Green Bay's. As flawed as the Coliseum is by modern standards, it's still an original AFL venue and I would hope it could somehow be retrofitted into something more suitable for football if/when the A's leave.

Well the Warriors have confirmed their desire to go to SF. Though they've shunned the Giants proposed arena south of AT&T Park for a site closer to downtown and the Bay Bridge on the old Pier 30 area. They're definitely with the A's in the "we want out of Oakland" camp.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/09/BAQB1O0653.DTL&tsp=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're definitely with the A's in the "we want out of Oakland" camp.

The difference being that the A's, from what we're told, tried mightily to build a new ballpark in Oakland and the Warriors haven't even bothered. The A's are leaving reluctantly but the Warriors wanted to leave for leaving's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're definitely with the A's in the "we want out of Oakland" camp.

The difference being that the A's, from what we're told, tried mightily to build a new ballpark in Oakland and the Warriors haven't even bothered. The A's are leaving reluctantly but the Warriors wanted to leave for leaving's sake.

Well I don't think the A's are leaving reluctantly after their efforts in Alameda County came up empty. But they did do more trying to stay than the Warriors have. The Warriors got their renovation back in 1996 which essentially rebuilt the arena almost completely, but they're not satisfied with that anymore and are now just going to bolt without giving Oakland much of a shot to keep them (not that Oakland has any plans currently beyond their joint Coliseum City plan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not reluctantly now, but after all the A's efforts failed. At least they reportedly tried. Given that the San Jose plan is stumbling (not that I think the rights issue is anything more than a minor speed bump), do you think they'd remain if Oakland miraculously found a few hundred million in the sofa cushions and offered them a home?

I get the sense that Golden State would still turn them down, in hopes of getting an apartment on the fashionable side of the Bay Bridge. Did the Warriors even try to get a new arena in the East Bay? Or did they just unveil their new "SF" logo as a passive-aggressive break-up note?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not reluctantly now, but after all the A's efforts failed. At least they reportedly tried. Given that the San Jose plan is stumbling (not that I think the rights issue is anything more than a minor speed bump), do you think they'd remain if Oakland miraculously found a few hundred million in the sofa cushions and offered them a home?

I get the sense that Golden State would still turn them down, in hopes of getting an apartment on the fashionable side of the Bay Bridge. Did the Warriors even try to get a new arena in the East Bay? Or did they just unveil their new "SF" logo as a passive-aggressive break-up note?

With the Warriors it's the latter. The new ownership have made no secret of their desire to move over to SF. As for the A's, if Oakland offered them a new ballpark they'd not turn it down. But it won't happen. Oakland had to scrape together the meager funds to do an environmental study of their "Coliseum City" design at the current site of Oracle arena and the Oakland Coliseum. I don't see how they find enough money to build the 2-3 billion dollar complex (nor are they trying to as they've said the teams would have to shoulder the vast bulk of the costs for the 3 new venues).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson has bought his cross-street neighbor for $338M.

Meanwhile, the Maloofs have filed for relocation. That's probably not gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson has bought his cross-street neighbor for $338M.

Not a bad deal all around:

  • The NBA makes a "profit"(I put that in quotes because when the NBA bought the team from Shinn, he didn't walk away with the whole purchase price in cash. Money he owed the league-- for relocation fees, loans, etc.-- was taken off the top.)
  • Benson provides an immediate "safety blanket" to the many fans who were hesitant to embrace the team over the last ten years, with a team that had already relocated here (as opposed to an expansion franchise), attendance "benchmarks" in the lease, two seasons in OKC, etc. We're hearing a lot of that in "on the street" interviews and in radio chatter. While I don't expect the team to go fully sold-out in terms of season tickets as the Saints have done post-Katrina, I expect an even better season ticket base than current (over 10,000 this past year) and higher attendance.
  • Benson benefits from the synergy and cost efficiency of having two franchises in the same city. They have physically linked playing facilities, and a whole "sports festival marketplace" (called Champions Square) next door. Wouldn't be surprised to see a new Hornets training facility going up on state-owned land between the exisiting Saints facility and the AAA Zephyrs stadium in the suburbs of Metairie.
  • The state (via the lease) ensures that both franchises are solid here in New Orleans through 2024, with an overall better deal for the taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really came out of nowhere. When you consider how protracted these things have been with other teams, Benson didn't take long to buy the team at all. He really picked the team up quickly. You might even say he's the quicker picker-upper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really came out of nowhere. When you consider how protracted these things have been with other teams, Benson didn't take long to buy the team at all. He really picked the team up quickly. You might even say he's the quicker picker-upper.

what-the-i-see-what-you-did-there-spiderman-comic-564ifZ.jpg

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0