The_Admiral Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Is there room to start on that or do they have to demolish the arena first? Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, McCarthy said: Other than "they don't want to pay for it themselves" why can't the A's just build the new stadium in the parking lot while they play the next two years at the Coliseum? Because they can’t pay for it themselves 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, dont care said: Because they can’t pay for it themselves This is the age old line they always use. I wonder if it's true that they really can't pay for it themselves (In which case, they shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team) or they're just trying to cry poor and make it look to the public like they can't pay for it themselves (In which case they REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team). I've never really understood why the A's have always seemingly had such impoverished ownership groups. You would think with all the money in the Bay Area that you'd be able to find at least ONE extremely rich billionaire who could buy the team and foot this whole thing themselves (or at least have the tangible ability to). , just look at Lacob and Gruber. They added BILLIONS to the value of the Warriors and just got them a new arena right in the middle of San Francisco, which is a damn near impossible task. You're really telling me they (or someone with similar financial clout) couldn't do the same thing with the A's? I don't believe it. 7 Quote On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said: This is the age old line they always use. I wonder if it's true that they really can't pay for it themselves (In which case, they shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team) or they're just trying to cry poor and make it look to the public like they can't pay for it themselves (In which case they REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a Major League Baseball team). I've never really understood why the A's have always seemingly had such impoverished ownership groups. You would think with all the money in the Bay Area that you'd be able to find at least ONE extremely rich billionaire who could buy the team and foot this whole thing themselves (or at least have the tangible ability to). , just look at Lacob and Gruber. They added BILLIONS to the value of the Warriors and just got them a new arena right in the middle of San Francisco, which is a damn near impossible task. You're really telling me they (or someone with similar financial clout) couldn't do the same thing with the A's? I don't believe it. When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 No, you’re right, and I get that. It's not just as simple as opening up a wallet and digging in some pockets. But the A's have been run like one of those old Chinatown eateries where the floor is about to fall in and kill everyone because the owners are 97 years old, blind, work 7 days a week, and can barely afford to keep the lights on. That's a sign that the ownership group is in WAY over their heads, are greedy to the point where they don't mind risking the well-being of the public, or (gulp) both. Something has to give. I'm just hoping it isn't the upper deck onto a group of unsuspecting fans. 2 Quote On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, dont care said: When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat. The Giants built their own park. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The Giants built their own park. In San Francisco, of all places! The logistics were a bit different back then, but not by that much. 3 Quote On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 At the time (2000) AT&T park only cost 357 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky1324 Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 6 hours ago, Wings said: A's to Portland Rays to Nashville Expansion to somewhere in North Carolina & Montreal AL EAST Baltmore Boston NY Yankees Toronto AL CENTRAL Chi. White Sox Cleveland Detroit Minnesota AL SOUTH Houston Kansas City Nashville Texas AL WEST Colorado LA Angels Portland Seattle NL EAST Montreal NY Mets Philadelphia Pittsburgh NL CENTRAL Chi. Cubs Cincinnati Milwaukee St. Louis NL SOUTH Atlanta Carolina Miami Washington NL WEST Arizona LA Dodgers San Diego San Francisco A's to Portland Rays to Montreal full-time Expansion to Charlotte and Vancouver AL East: Baltimore Boston New York Yankees Toronto AL North: Chicago White Sox Cleveland Detroit Minnesota AL Central: Colorado Kansas City Houston Texas AL West: Los Angeles Angels Portland Seattle Vancouver NL East: Montreal New York Mets Philadelphia Pittsburgh NL South: Atlanta Charlotte Miami Washington NL Central: Chicago Cubs Cincinnati Milwaukee St. Louis NL West: Arizona Los Angeles Dodgers San Francisco San Diego Quote the user formerly known as cdclt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 7 hours ago, Bucfan56 said: I've never really understood why the A's have always seemingly had such impoverished ownership groups. They had some decent Levi's money behind them until the mid-'90s, but then the patriarch died and thus began the series of piecemeal ownership consortiums (consortia?) that were only just getting by, which in turn begat Moneyball. 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Ken Hoffman & Steve Schott come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 12 hours ago, the admiral said: They had some decent Levi's money behind them until the mid-'90s, but then the patriarch died and thus began the series of piecemeal ownership consortiums (consortia?) that were only just getting by, which in turn begat Moneyball. Raiders moving back didn't help and then-mayor Lionel Wilson saw then leave under his watch only to lure them back and still only get cold feet at the last minute to no avail after he received 40K signatures in a petition for a ballot measure. 12 hours ago, Wings said: Ken Hoffman & Steve Schott come to mind. @Wings has it right. Hofmann and Schott bought the team from the Haas family, but were underfunded and out of their element. They were real estate guys, specifically homebuilders. They decided it was better to cut payroll and use young players at about the same time the new CBA gave them a revenue sharing check from the likes of the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox... Schott claims they tried to get a new stadium at in the Coliseum complex parking lot. From 2005: Quote One thing Schott couldn't get done as owner was put the A's in a new stadium. Attempts to move the A's to the South Bay failed because the San Francisco Giants have territorial rights to that area. Talk of building a new ballpark next to Network Associates Coliseum, where the A's have played for nearly 40 years, hasn't gone beyond the talking stage with East Bay officials. Schott said not being able to work out a stadium deal played a part in the decision to sell the A's. Since he "did not feel up to challenge" any longer, Schott thought a change in ownership would be in the best interest of the team. "Being an owner is like being the caretaker of a franchise. (This organization) is well over 100 years old, and there haven't been that many owners - I think we were the seventh," he said. "I felt 10 years, almost complete, was enough for me to carry the torch, and now the franchise can take the next step: to be more competitive. To get to the World Series on a regular basis, you need a new stadium, which will lead to more revenue." And them selling to Lew Wolff and John Fischer was backed with Fisher's money, not Wolff's. Fisher had 80% when the bought it in 2005 and got Lew's 10% in 2016. Sadly, Fisher, like Wolff is looking towards more soccer investments with Celtic and he'll have more cash to spend when Gap officially spins off Old Navy and it goes public. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 (edited) BTW, I'm pretty sure that hasn't been mentioned or posted, since I haven't done either, but earlier in October before this thread was made, the city of Oakland filed suit against Alameda County to prevent the county from selling their 50% of the Coliseum Complex to the Athletics. Note/Warning: I'm posting you a link to an independent, Oakland blog (not anything from Zennie Abraham, for those Bay Area folks), which heavily leans to the Left, but the links within the blog are to major papers and websites which will produce the actual court filings in PDF. LINK From the blog: Quote The Oakland City Attorney’s Office filed a lawsuit against the County of Alameda (Case NO. RG19036930), on September 27, 2019, at the direction of the Oakland City Council to block the sale of the Coliseum complex property to the Athletics Investment Group, LLC (Oakland Athletics). Earlier today, reportedly Alameda County Court Judge Frank Roesch issued a temporary restraining (TRO) to block the sale of the property. A hearing has been set for November 14, 2019, when the City of Oakland can make its case to explain why the County of Alameda should not be able to sell its 50 percent share of the Coliseum complex property to the Athletics Investment Group, LLC, a.k.a. Oakland Athletics. According to the lawsuit, the County of Alameda and its Board of Supervisors failed to make an effort to either comply with the procedures of the Surplus Land Act or even ensure its public lands will be used to fulfill the statutory aims of the act. When the County of Alameda entered into a binding agreement for the sale and transfer of the property (publicly owned land) to the Athletics Investment Group, LLC, in violation of the Surplus Land Act’s strict requirements, the City of Oakland’s opportunity to explore whether the property could be developed for affordable housing, continued recreational uses or other public good would be extinguished. The Act requires that a local agency proposing to dispose of surplus land must negotiate in good faith for a period of not less than 90 days. Allegedly, the County failed to do so, and did not comply with this mandate. Edited October 19, 2019 by dfwabel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 On 10/18/2019 at 11:29 AM, McCarthy said: Other than "they don't want to pay for it themselves" why can't the A's just build the new stadium in the parking lot while they play the next two years at the Coliseum? Because they don’t own the land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 37 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: Because they don’t own the land? Apparently they've tried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrumptious Ham Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 If im paying for a stadium, I'm picking a better city than Oakland. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 10/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, dont care said: When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat. Of course they can. Billionaires understand how loans work. That’s how they (or their parents) became billionaires in the first place. 9 Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Right. When you have a billion dollars you can easily get someone else to give you another billion dollars. That's not the problem. The problem is they want to reap the rewards without paying for it, which is another way they became billionaires in the first place. Also stadiums don't need to cost a billion dollars. Baseball stadium design should be moving more where MLS is now. If you're in a climate like Oakland's you don't need a retractable roof like the Rangers or like you would in Vegas and you don't need 65,000 seats. I'd love to see a major league team take a minor league style design and really trick it out with about 32,000 super intimate seats. 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Amen. 1 Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnPheitseog Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 On 10/21/2019 at 11:38 AM, McCarthy said: Right. When you have a billion dollars you can easily get someone else to give you another billion dollars. That's not the problem. The problem is they want to reap the rewards without paying for it, which is another way they became billionaires in the first place. Also stadiums don't need to cost a billion dollars. Baseball stadium design should be moving more where MLS is now. If you're in a climate like Oakland's you don't need a retractable roof like the Rangers or like you would in Vegas and you don't need 65,000 seats. I'd love to see a major league team take a minor league style design and really trick it out with about 32,000 super intimate seats. That was, from my memory, the reason behind the design on PNC Park. Owners wanted an intimate ballpark that emphasised the view of the city over adding additional seats. One of the best ballparks for those reasons. 2 Quote Formerly known as DiePerske Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.