Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[bosrs1]

6 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

All of what bosrs1 is true, but I’ll add just a bit more to that, because Oakland’s situation is a bit more unique than most cities. Again, context is very important. 

 

1). Oakland just doesn’t have much money to spare. Due to several factors over the course of the last half century, the city doesn’t have the revenue coming in like they once did. For any city that’s going to cause problems, but it’s exasperated by the fact that Oakland is absolutely enormous. 

 

This leads me to my second point, which is a bit more touchy.

 

2). Oakland is one of the most racially diverse and multicultural cities in the country, and with that comes a unique set of challenges. The way Oakland views it (and this is absolutely the correct viewpoint to take), they simply have more important and pressing issues to deal with than doling out the little public money they have to sports venues. Crime, poverty, and substance abuse are a HUGE issues in the city, and the city has determined that putting its resources towards those issues is worth losing sports teams over. There’s always been quite a bit of dysfunction in Oakland, but it’s hard for me to see that as less than commendable. 

 

There’s also a bit of a racial component to it, as well. How are you going to both support the vulnerable classes within your city (which Oakland, again, has made their priority), while at the same time cutting huge money deals with billionaires for their toy projects? The optics just aren’t good. 

 

Part of Oakland's problem too is the development of the Bay Area. When it acquired all of the teams that it did, it was during the suburban flight time period (the 50's and 60's). Oakland was appealing in part because the way San Francisco is hemmed in on all but one side, it doesn't have any direct suburbs other than Daly City (which itself isn't very suburban), so Oakland and Alameda Co. was a prime location for a team like the Warriors to slide over to, or for the Raiders to found their team in, or for the A's to move their team to. And while a suburb, Oakland was the Bay Area's second largest city in its own right at the time with a bustling port, nearby military establishments in and right next to the city limits, etc... 

 

Fast forward 30 years and the Oakland port was passed over long ago by other California and west coast ports in importance, the military has all but abandoned the Bay Area including most importantly for Oakland and Alameda County,  NAS Alameda, and Oakland itself has seen itself eclipsed by San Jose as the other "pole" in the Bay Area (as SJ is on almost equal or superior footing to even SF in many respects).   

[B-Rich]

Another thing to think of is the nature of the LEAGUES in regards to the teams named "Oakland".   When Oakland's first major league team (the Oakland Raiders) came about,  it was in a different LEAGUE, the AFL, which had its own TV contract.   TV markets being what they were (and are) this meant that the AFL had a foothold in the major Bay Area TV market, just as they did in NYC (and originally, LA).  With the merger, for many years you still had the two basic TV network contracts (AFC/NFC) plus the ABC Monday Night Football contract.  Today, in the realm of cable, NFL Network,  Sunday Ticket, flex scheduling and such, having two team in this major market is not as important.

 

Similarly, when the A's moved  from Kansas City to Oakland, it was when the leagues were still much more separate entities who only played each other in exhibition games and the World Series.   In a major market like the Bay Area, it made sense to have a team in each city ( just as it did in NY, Chicago,  and LA, and if you want to stretch this factor, that's why Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and later Florida worked so well with a team in both the NL and AL ).    Not just for broadcast factors, but because the local sports fans (of which there were many) could ostensibly see ALL of the teams (and star players) of both leagues over the course of a season.   With interleague play and unheralded media coverage of all games,  these factors are no longer important.

To me, the Bay Area (specifically San Francisco/Oakland)  has always been less a New York/LA type of place that merited two franchises in football and baseball, but more like a Tampa/St. Pete, or Minneapolis/St. Paul,  and probably most like a Dallas/Ft.  Worth "twin city" kind of situation.   I think that the Bay Area is just "right-sizing" in terms of sports franchises:  one each in all the five major sports. 

 

It is kind of interesting, though, that the result in terms of  NAME will be  two with "San Jose" (Sharks and Earthquakes), two with "San Francisco" (Giants and 49ers) and one regional (Golden State), but in terms of physical location/home stadium/arena it will be two in San Francisco (Giants and Warriors) but THREE in the south bay (Earthquakes, 49ers and Sharks).

[bosrs1]

52 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Another thing to think of is the nature of the LEAGUES in regards to the teams named "Oakland".   When Oakland's first major league team (the Oakland Raiders) came about,  it was in a different LEAGUE, the AFL, which had its own TV contract.   TV markets being what they were (and are) this meant that the AFL had a foothold in the major Bay Area TV market, just as they did in NYC (and originally, LA).  With the merger, for many years you still had the two basic TV network contracts (AFC/NFC) plus the ABC Monday Night Football contract.  Today, in the realm of cable, NFL Network,  Sunday Ticket, flex scheduling and such, having two team in this major market is not as important.

 

Similarly, when the A's moved  from Kansas City to Oakland, it was when the leagues were still much more separate entities who only played each other in exhibition games and the World Series.   In a major market like the Bay Area, it made sense to have a team in each city ( just as it did in NY, Chicago,  and LA, and if you want to stretch this factor, that's why Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and later Florida worked so well with a team in both the NL and AL ).    Not just for broadcast factors, but because the local sports fans (of which there were many) could ostensibly see ALL of the teams (and star players) of both leagues over the course of a season.   With interleague play and unheralded media coverage of all games,  these factors are no longer important.

To me, the Bay Area (specifically San Francisco/Oakland)  has always been less a New York/LA type of place that merited two franchises in football and baseball, but more like a Tampa/St. Pete, or Minneapolis/St. Paul,  and probably most like a Dallas/Ft.  Worth "twin city" kind of situation.   I think that the Bay Area is just "right-sizing" in terms of sports franchises:  one each in all the five major sports. 

 

It is kind of interesting, though, that the result in terms of  NAME will be  two with "San Jose" (Sharks and Earthquakes), two with "San Francisco" (Giants and 49ers) and one regional (Golden State), but in terms of physical location/home stadium/arena it will be two in San Francisco (Giants and Warriors) but THREE in the south bay (Earthquakes, 49ers and Sharks).

 

 

Also a good set of points that is also an extension of mine. The current layout of the teams 2 in SF, 3 in San Jose (with one carrying the SF name), and the A's for now, is very much an expression of that shift I was talking about. When the teams were all founded or moved in, Oakland was the "twin city" to SF. Now it's unquestionably San Jose that is the "twin city" in that scenario. Oakland has fallen away to a distant third. And unlike Arlington, from your Dallas/Fort Worth comparison, Oakland as you say doesn't host teams that are designated by the region or the primary city like Arlington does. Even when they had the Warriors and their nonsensical naming. And I agree this is somewhat of a rightsizing. The only CSA's larger than the Bay Area are NY, Greater LA, DC/Baltimore (which have always been two separate markets despite being lumped into the same CSA), and Chicago. And of those 4: NY has 2 MLB, 2, NFL, 2 NBA, 3 NHL and 2 MLS; LA has 2 MLB, 2 NFL (and really is only supporting 1), 2 NBA, 2 NHL, 2 MLS; DC/Baltimore (which again have never been considered the same market) have 2 MLB, 2NFL, 1 NBA, 1 NHL, and 1 MLS;  and Chicago has 2 MLB, 1 NFL, 1 NBA, 1 NHL and 1 MLS. And if you go below the Bay Area to Boston, Dallas, Houston, Philly and Atlanta rounding out the top 10 CSAs each have 1 team in the 5 major sports save for no hockey in ATL. 

 

So really the Bay Area keeping the A's given Chicago having 5+1 extra MLB  or losing them given Boston having only 1 each in the Big 5 would seem appropriate either way it goes. But honestly given the way the poles swung over the last 4 decades in the Bay Area, the A's really should have been allowed to move to San Jose when they wanted to, and should have been renamed the San Jose A's to really reflect the reality of that pole switch.  

[The_Admiral]

I don't think it's that unquestionable. San Francisco and Oakland are separated by a bridge and a tunnel. San Jose is 40 miles away. 

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, the admiral said:

I don't think it's that unquestionable. San Francisco and Oakland are separated by a bridge and a tunnel. San Jose is 40 miles away. 

 

In terms of the poles of the Bay Area... I'd say it's pretty unquestionable. I mean yes there's 40 miles between them but San Jose has grown into it's own beast and is the economic driver of the region along side San Francisco. Oakland, which is still a great city, has unfortunately become somewhat of a direct suburb of San Francisco with many having fled the city in recent years to live in the slightly more affordable town across the Bay. I mean it still has its own identity but it's place in the Bay Area has been irrevocably altered. 

[TrueYankee26]

And to add further into the "Twin Cities" analogy @B-Rich and @bosrs1 brought up, not only are San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose; Dallas and Fort Worth; Minneapolis and Saint Paul; and Tampa and St. Petersburg in different counties, they were considered different MSAs before they merged into one (DC and Baltimore are still in different MSAs despite sharing CSAs and of course have their own media markets).

[The_Admiral]

When was that? I think you'd have to dig pretty far back to find demographers who weren't considering Tampa-St. Pete or the Twin Cities to be one statistical area.

[TrueYankee26]

6 hours ago, the admiral said:

When was that? I think you'd have to dig pretty far back to find demographers who weren't considering Tampa-St. Pete or the Twin Cities to be one statistical area.

Good question.. Saw it somewhere but I forgot.

[chcarlson23]

You’d almost have to go back to before the Radio-era to say that the Twin Cities were separate media markets. They’ve been joined at the hip for a long time...

[Red Comet]

Maybe economically they were joined at the hip for a long time, but socially they were very far apart. Started with Minneapolis having mostly Protestants while St. Paul had a lot more Catholics and it continued until the 1960s to the point where said municipal rivalry cost them the Lakers because people in St. Paul weren’t going to support the Minneapolis Lakers. Which is why every team since then has gone with saying that their team is the “Minnesota” Vikings/Twins/North Stars/Timberwolves/Wild. Having a basebrawl between the minor league teams from both cities probably didn’t help either.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Red Comet

[DCarp1231]

The other day I learned that the Athletics move from Kansas City to Oakland was more or less the main reason why the Braves and Reds joined the NL West in 1969

 

Also, Portland or bust this time around 

[Walk-Off]

I think that this thread is overdue for these two links:

 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/st-petersburg/2021/06/04/the-rays-the-mayor-and-montreal-st-petersburgs-stadium-drama-explained/

 

https://www.tampabay.com/st-petersburg/i-say-let-them-go-st-petersburgs-black-community-is-indifferent-to-rays-fate-20190703/

[Gothamite]

 

On 6/1/2021 at 3:24 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Seriously, Inter Miami should suck it up and play there. MLS in general should remove the SSS requirement from the league. 

MLS does not have a SSS requirement.

 

It has a “control your stadium” requirement, to ensure that its teams aren’t tenants in somebody else’s park, without access to the revenue streams that a primary tenant controls even when someone else is using the stadium.

 

So when MLS teams share ownership with the primary tenant of a stadium (like in Seattle or New York City), MLS can write the contract guaranteeing the soccer club a measure of most-favored status in the stadium, they’re plenty happy to put its club in a non-SSS. 

[Gothamite]

On 6/1/2021 at 7:31 PM, Red Comet said:

NYCFC isn’t for lack of trying, though. Just a cursory look into the situation tells me I really need to look into that whole saga because it looks like one hell of a doozy. I don’t think NYCFC is in any danger of moving at all but it really is reminiscent of the DC United situation with RFK and that team’s near 2 decade long fight for a stadium site.

The difference is that MLS was so desperate for a New York team that they were willing to put the club in a stadium situation nobody liked. 
 

And also, don’t forget that MLS had previously spent several years trying to build a NYC stadium on their own.  They knew how hard it was, they knew what they were getting into, and the upside was still important enough to them that they went right ahead with it. 

[Gothamite]

On 6/1/2021 at 7:22 PM, waltere said:

I may be wrong, but isn't the case with MLS that their preferred option is an SSS, but they'll allow otherwise as long as there's ownership crossover between the team and the stadium, because it's about not having their teams be tenants of somebody else. Hence how Arthur Blank's Atlanta FC are allowed to share Megatron's butthole with the Falcons, NYCFC sharing with the Yankees, and I assume the Sounders must therefore share owners with the Seahawks.

You are absolutely correct.  
 

when the Sounders came into the league, they shared ownership with the Seahawks. 

[bosrs1]

14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

You are absolutely correct.  
 

when the Sounders came into the league, they shared ownership with the Seahawks. 

 

Didn't hurt that the Sounders can nearly fill their NFL venue on a weekly basis. 

[Gothamite]

9 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Didn't hurt that the Sounders can nearly fill their NFL venue on a weekly basis. 

 

They don't, actually.  They don't usually open the upper levels, unless it's a rivalry game or playoff.  Not that I'm knocking them at all for that; it's still very impressive. 

 

But nobody knew that at the time they were admitted into the league.  That's not why they were allowed to play in an NFL stadium.

 

[bosrs1]

52 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

They don't, actually.  They don't usually open the upper levels, unless it's a rivalry game or playoff.  Not that I'm knocking them at all for that; it's still very impressive. 

 

But nobody knew that at the time they were admitted into the league.  That's not why they were allowed to play in an NFL stadium.

 

 

No but I think it gave MLS the confidence to allow similar set ups going forward in ATL, NYCFC, Nashville, and even the move back to Chicago proper. 

 

 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

No but I think it gave MLS the confidence to allow similar set ups going forward in ATL, NYCFC, Nashville, and even the move back to Chicago proper. 

 

It really didn't.   I can say that with absolute certainty for NYCFC. 

 

Nashville was admitted after they got their own stadium plan passed.  Atlanta got in under the rule that existed before Seattle was admitted.  If Seattle was that kind of game-changer, we'd see other expansion teams in NFL stadiums unrelated to their ownership groups.  Which we haven't.

 

And Chicago?   That's more desperation than anything.  But it's also not an expansion club.

[Walk-Off]

On 6/10/2021 at 1:22 PM, bosrs1 said:

Oakland has always been somewhat dysfunctional at the local governmental level, more so that even most California cities are accused of being even with getting those supportive measures that are palatable. You have multiple points of view that don't like to see eye to eye to get things done. And the Coliseum site and its teams were a prime example. You have not only Oakland but Alameda County as having been stake holders in that (so double the government double the problems, particularly since Oakland and AlCo don't work well together and never have).  AlCo in particular just wants out of the sport business. And Oakland has mixed feelings about where the A's want to build as it's prohibitively expensive (the whole project is $12 billion and they're still asking the city for the equivalent of $897 million in indirect subsidies, and half the city council can't understand why they just don't build and redevelop where the existing stadium is instead for far less.

 

Those tensions between the Oakland and Alameda County governments seemed to have added another chapter yesterday, as multiple members of the AlCo Board of Supervisors indicated that they (a) want a say when it comes to the Athletics' plan for Howard Terminal and (b) want to move at a noticeably slower pace on this matter than do their counterparts at Oakland's city hall.

 

https://newballpark.org/2021/06/15/6-15-alameda-county-board-of-supervisors-meeting-on-howard-terminal/