NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[colortv]

Oakland's billion-dollar Coliseum City plan is ready for a big score

An agreement between Oakland and Alameda County that could pave the way for the massive Coliseum City development — including new stadiums for the Oakland Raiders and Oakland Athletics — will come before city and county leaders over the next few days.

Oakland City Council members are set to vote in a special session late Friday morning on a new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart that is trying to pull together the project. The county could vote on the deal either Friday or Tuesday.

Bringing the city and county together on the exclusive negotiating agreement, or ENA, would be a major step forward in the $1.5 billion, 200-acre first phase of the Coliseum City project. It would mark the first time the city and county have addressed their joint ownership of the land that holds O.co Coliseum, the home of the Raiders and A's, and the Golden State Warriors' Oracle Arena.

New City in October won an ENA with the city, which expires April 21. But Kephart said his team — and the Raiders — has been hamstrung on development and financing plans for a 55,000-seat Raiders stadium without the county's involvement in land discussions for the new project.

"The No. 1 condition from the Raiders to stay is, 'Tell us how to deal with the land,'" Kephart said.

The new ENA expires Aug. 21, but New City must present "broad strokes" financing and site plans by June 21, Kephart said.

We've always had that," Kephart said about the availability of money. "That's not my issue here. That's not my issue today. That's not my issue tomorrow. That's not my issue next week."

In addition to funds Kephart can access, Raiders principal owner Mark Davis has said that the team would put as much as $400 million in a new stadium.

The city and county will have 15 business days to approve or reject each plan that New City submits along the ENA path.

"Everyone believes this could be done by 2019, if we just function," said Kephart, who last month was critical of the county's work toward bringing an ENA to a vote.

http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/03/coliseum-city-floyd-kephart-oakland-raiders.html?ana=twt&r=full

Looks like Oakland is getting serious, but 2019? Can the Raiders hold out that long?

[dfwabel]

Oakland's billion-dollar Coliseum City plan is ready for a big score

An agreement between Oakland and Alameda County that could pave the way for the massive Coliseum City development including new stadiums for the Oakland Raiders and Oakland Athletics will come before city and county leaders over the next few days.

Oakland City Council members are set to vote in a special session late Friday morning on a new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart that is trying to pull together the project. The county could vote on the deal either Friday or Tuesday.

Bringing the city and county together on the exclusive negotiating agreement, or ENA, would be a major step forward in the $1.5 billion, 200-acre first phase of the Coliseum City project. It would mark the first time the city and county have addressed their joint ownership of the land that holds O.co Coliseum, the home of the Raiders and A's, and the Golden State Warriors' Oracle Arena.

New City in October won an ENA with the city, which expires April 21. But Kephart said his team and the Raiders has been hamstrung on development and financing plans for a 55,000-seat Raiders stadium without the county's involvement in land discussions for the new project.

"The No. 1 condition from the Raiders to stay is, 'Tell us how to deal with the land,'" Kephart said.

The new ENA expires Aug. 21, but New City must present "broad strokes" financing and site plans by June 21, Kephart said.

We've always had that," Kephart said about the availability of money. "That's not my issue here. That's not my issue today. That's not my issue tomorrow. That's not my issue next week."

In addition to funds Kephart can access, Raiders principal owner Mark Davis has said that the team would put as much as $400 million in a new stadium.

The city and county will have 15 business days to approve or reject each plan that New City submits along the ENA path.

"Everyone believes this could be done by 2019, if we just function," said Kephart, who last month was critical of the county's work toward bringing an ENA to a vote.

http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/03/coliseum-city-floyd-kephart-oakland-raiders.html?ana=twt&r=full

Looks like Oakland is getting serious, but 2019? Can the Raiders hold out that long?

You quoted most of the article, but for an essential sentence:

"The new ENA continues to allow the Raiders and A's the option of bypassing New City and submitting their own stadium plans."

That's crutial when Mark Davis has never publicly stated what he wants.

[Gothamite]

The Raiders can definitely hold out until 2019, if they know a deal is getting done. It's not like they're losing money in the interim.

Does seem like the Carson threat is working, though. Stalled stadium negotiations in both cities now have new movement.

[bosrs1]

http://documents.latimes.com/aegs-letter-carson-mayor-jim-dear/

AEG going nuclear, what are they trying to accomplish?

They couldn't have their LA stadium so now they're making sure no one else can either. And in Carson they have the added desire to not have a competing venue for their Stubhub Center.

It's just sour grapes from a sore loser.

[bosrs1]

Oakland's billion-dollar Coliseum City plan is ready for a big score

An agreement between Oakland and Alameda County that could pave the way for the massive Coliseum City development — including new stadiums for the Oakland Raiders and Oakland Athletics — will come before city and county leaders over the next few days.

Oakland City Council members are set to vote in a special session late Friday morning on a new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart that is trying to pull together the project. The county could vote on the deal either Friday or Tuesday.

Bringing the city and county together on the exclusive negotiating agreement, or ENA, would be a major step forward in the $1.5 billion, 200-acre first phase of the Coliseum City project. It would mark the first time the city and county have addressed their joint ownership of the land that holds O.co Coliseum, the home of the Raiders and A's, and the Golden State Warriors' Oracle Arena.

New City in October won an ENA with the city, which expires April 21. But Kephart said his team — and the Raiders — has been hamstrung on development and financing plans for a 55,000-seat Raiders stadium without the county's involvement in land discussions for the new project.

"The No. 1 condition from the Raiders to stay is, 'Tell us how to deal with the land,'" Kephart said.

The new ENA expires Aug. 21, but New City must present "broad strokes" financing and site plans by June 21, Kephart said.

We've always had that," Kephart said about the availability of money. "That's not my issue here. That's not my issue today. That's not my issue tomorrow. That's not my issue next week."

In addition to funds Kephart can access, Raiders principal owner Mark Davis has said that the team would put as much as $400 million in a new stadium.

The city and county will have 15 business days to approve or reject each plan that New City submits along the ENA path.

"Everyone believes this could be done by 2019, if we just function," said Kephart, who last month was critical of the county's work toward bringing an ENA to a vote.

http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/03/coliseum-city-floyd-kephart-oakland-raiders.html?ana=twt&r=full

Looks like Oakland is getting serious, but 2019? Can the Raiders hold out that long?

This is just another extension of the ENA they've been working under for almost 2 years now. And they still have 0 of the 3 Oakland teams signed on. The Warriors are still moving forward with their San Francisco Arena, the A's are still after San Jose or site control in Oakland (which this isn't), and the Raiders are still playing San Antonio, Oakland and Carson off against each other.

[Gothamite]

Every year that passes pushes San Jose that much farther out of the reach of the A's. The Giants' owners paid good money for that market, and aren't going to give it up without serious compensation.

[STL FANATIC]

Every year that passes pushes San Jose that much farther out of the reach of the A's. The Giants' owners paid good money for that market, and aren't going to give it up without serious compensation.

Didn't the Giants owners pay nothing for that market?

[Gothamite]

No, the current owner bought his majority stake after the Giants were assigned the territory. The price he paid for those shares was determined by the franchise's assets, including the territorial rights. Johnson paid for those rights, I'd be surprised if he just let them go.

[bosrs1]

No, the current owner bought his majority stake after the Giants were assigned the territory. The price he paid for those shares was determined by the franchise's assets, including the territorial rights. Johnson paid for those rights, I'd be surprised if he just let them go.

Johnson? Giants owners before Magowan didn't pay for those rights at all. They were only assigned to the Giants in the early '90's. And the Giants paid $0 to obtain them at the time. Now you could argue that they were factored into Magowan's purchase price, but it's a pretty specious argument given they were only a temporary grant at the time granted a year earlier and he and his predecessor Lurie didn't utilize it at all instead focusing on building in San Francisco immediately which culminated in Pac Bell Park. And as the group Mcgowan was a part of is still the Giants ownership today no one else has obtained ownership under any illusions that San Jose is solely the Giants.

Ultimately though the current holding of the rights can be changed by MLB with or without the Giants consent. And IF that Coliseum City plan for the Raiders somehow comes to fruition, the A's could very quickly find themselves homeless and MLB will be forced to open San Jose up. If Coliseum City fails, the A's swoop in and take over development of that site. Either way the A's are essentially in wait and see mode. They'll get what they want ultimately, the final location within the Bay Area is the question time will answer.

[The_Admiral]

Gothamite always seems really liberal until it comes to rich men in nice suits making important transactions. Rahm Emanuel with social graces.

[Gothamite]

Nah, I've got all ten fingers.

What's not "liberal" about believing that one set of rich guys will protect their assets against another group of rich guys? Keep in mind, I posited what I think they'll do, given the circumstances in play. I wasn't making moral judgments on any of it.

[IceCap]

From what I understand MLB doesn't really divide markets up among teams in the same metropolitan area. You might break the Yankees/Mets fanbases down into Bronx, Staten Island, and Manhattan vs Queens and Brooklyn but as far MLB goes? The entirety of New York City belongs to both teams. So if the Yankees wanted to build a stadium in Brooklyn or the Mets in Manhattan? The other team can't block it.

So the Giants owning the exclusive rights to San Jose within the San Francisco Bay Area is a bit out an outlier as far as MLB's policies on shared markets go. Granted, I'm not familiar with the transaction that resulted in them getting that exclusivity, but it seems like a case could be made that the transaction went against established precedents and could be overturned by MLB if they saw fit.

Either way it sucks because the Colosseum simply isn't tenable as a long-term situation, the A's want to go to San Jose, and San Jose wants them. The Giants just come off as bullies at this point. I understand that they own the rights to that market but it goes against the way MLB usually treats these matters to such a degree that it really doesn't even seem right that they own it in the first place.

[Mac the Knife]

Having a football stadium downtown is a waste of a downtown. Indoor arenas can be booked solid with the right management, but what the hell does a football stadium do most of the year? Build it in the parking lot next to the current stadium and just make sure it's really nice.

Agreed. That's why you have to put on it to attract Final Fours and other large indoor events. That's why Cleveland really screwed up not putting a dome on the Browns Stadium.

Yeah, because when I think of a great site for really big events with global exposure, Cleveland comes immediately to mind...

Every year that passes pushes San Jose that much farther out of the reach of the A's. The Giants' owners paid good money for that market, and aren't going to give it up without serious compensation.

I honestly think the A's should get a group of the team's businessmen from San Jose - the area within about a square mile of where they want to put a stadium - together, help them get organized, donate $1 million to them, and then persuade them to file a federal anti-trust suit against Major League Baseball. They could easily claim that by prohibiting the A's from relocating to the site proposed for the stadium, MLB is using its monopoly powers in a fashion that restraints trade (specifically, theirs) - action which constitutes a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Win or lose, the mix of PR nightmare and even a sliver of a chance that they could lose a $ 1 billion anti-trust suit (which, for reasons I've never understood, would be trebeled under federal law) might help the A's in a resolution.

No, the current owner bought his majority stake after the Giants were assigned the territory. The price he paid for those shares was determined by the franchise's assets, including the territorial rights. Johnson paid for those rights, I'd be surprised if he just let them go.

Nah, that's a bull :censored: argument.

The Giants just come off as bullies ***holes at this point. I understand that they own the rights to that market but it goes against the way MLB usually treats these matters to such a degree that it really doesn't even seem right that they own it in the first place.

There. FTFY.

[dfwabel]

Mac,

Business leaders still must wait since the city of San Jose already has it's antitrust case in line for SCOTUS after two losses in lower courts.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/san-jose-appealing-mlb-antitrust-lawsuit-over-as-move-to-u-s-supreme-court-major-league-baseball-athletics-mayor-sam-liccardo-territorial-rights-san-francisco-giants-rob-manfred/

[colortv]

Oakland's billion-dollar Coliseum City plan is ready for a big score

An agreement between Oakland and Alameda County that could pave the way for the massive Coliseum City development — including new stadiums for the Oakland Raiders and Oakland Athletics — will come before city and county leaders over the next few days.

Oakland City Council members are set to vote in a special session late Friday morning on a new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart that is trying to pull together the project. The county could vote on the deal either Friday or Tuesday.

Bringing the city and county together on the exclusive negotiating agreement, or ENA, would be a major step forward in the $1.5 billion, 200-acre first phase of the Coliseum City project. It would mark the first time the city and county have addressed their joint ownership of the land that holds O.co Coliseum, the home of the Raiders and A's, and the Golden State Warriors' Oracle Arena.

New City in October won an ENA with the city, which expires April 21. But Kephart said his team — and the Raiders — has been hamstrung on development and financing plans for a 55,000-seat Raiders stadium without the county's involvement in land discussions for the new project.

"The No. 1 condition from the Raiders to stay is, 'Tell us how to deal with the land,'" Kephart said.

The new ENA expires Aug. 21, but New City must present "broad strokes" financing and site plans by June 21, Kephart said.

We've always had that," Kephart said about the availability of money. "That's not my issue here. That's not my issue today. That's not my issue tomorrow. That's not my issue next week."

In addition to funds Kephart can access, Raiders principal owner Mark Davis has said that the team would put as much as $400 million in a new stadium.

The city and county will have 15 business days to approve or reject each plan that New City submits along the ENA path.

"Everyone believes this could be done by 2019, if we just function," said Kephart, who last month was critical of the county's work toward bringing an ENA to a vote.

http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/03/coliseum-city-floyd-kephart-oakland-raiders.html?ana=twt&r=full

Looks like Oakland is getting serious, but 2019? Can the Raiders hold out that long?

This is just another extension of the ENA they've been working under for almost 2 years now. And they still have 0 of the 3 Oakland teams signed on. The Warriors are still moving forward with their San Francisco Arena, the A's are still after San Jose or site control in Oakland (which this isn't), and the Raiders are still playing San Antonio, Oakland and Carson off against each other.

Seems Raiders fans think the same: http://oak.scout.com/forums/5427-forum/13741273-oakland-s-billion-dollar-coliseum-city-plan-is-ready?s=66&page=4

[colortv]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/nfl/l-a-mayor-downtown-stadium-proposal-not-dead/

Yup...guess there is a method to AEG's madness.

[Gothamite]

No.

Don't read too much into an off-hand comment from a politician keeping his options open.

He said environmental work is complete and a plan is ready, should someone want to take the city up on it.

Well in that case, start building a hotel on the sIte.

[bosrs1]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/nfl/l-a-mayor-downtown-stadium-proposal-not-dead/

Yup...guess there is a method to AEG's madness.

Still sounds like AEG is out of the downtown stadium. And without them it's dead despite the mayor's pronouncements.

[Cosmic]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/nfl/l-a-mayor-downtown-stadium-proposal-not-dead/

Yup...guess there is a method to AEG's madness.

Still sounds like AEG is out of the downtown stadium. And without them it's dead despite the mayor's pronouncements.

Dead dead. Like dead. Unless I'm missing something, every team on the LA radar has some kind of deal for a place to play if the move actually goes through.

[Brian in Boston]

The Missouri Senate has passed a measure that would require a vote by either the state's Legislature or voters before the executive branch could extend bonds to help finance a new NFL stadium in St. Louis. This move was apparently in response to a member of Governor Jay Nixon's administration - Doug Nelson - saying that the administration believed it had the authority to extend bonds for such a purpose without a vote.

The measure now moves to the Missouri House of Representatives.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-senate-nixon-can-t-extend-bonds-for-nfl-stadium/article_237c78cd-1941-5168-a64e-3964385ae9d8.html