MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

23 minutes ago, kimball said:

It'd be interesting to see what happens IF the A's deal in Vegas falls through. There's no return to Oakland.

 

There's no return to Oakland under this ownership.

[kolob]

40 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

There's no return to Oakland under this ownership.

 

True. But, I don't see MLB returning to Oakland, especially if nothing is going to happen with a stadium. 

[Ridleylash]

23 minutes ago, kimball said:

True. But, I don't see MLB returning to Oakland, especially if nothing is going to happen with a stadium. 

Keeping a team in Oakland is better than contraction, which would be the only other realistic option since the league's effort for new franchises is entirely keyed on expansion, not relocation. Moving the A's to Nashville, Vegas or wherever knocks that market off the list of expansion options.

 

Plus, it's a market that has historically proven it can support the league with an owner that gives a about the team besides making as much money as possible for as little investment as they can muster. If/(more likely) when the Vegas bid falls through, I feel like Fisher will just end up selling the team outright and whoever buys the A's will pick the negotiations with Oakland right back up.

 

Besides, everything we've been learning of the A's dealings with Vegas has been things that are at best controversial and at worst outright stupid on their part in terms of endearing themselves to the Vegas locals. If that's the kind of stuff they're going to do to any city who has interest in them, then I would see interest drying up very quickly anywhere besides Oakland.

[Red Comet]

Oakland is going to have to have a wealth boom before any major league team ends up there again. It’s too small, too poor and too broke to have more than one and even that’s in question. 
 

Maybe they can take advantage of San Francisco’s collapse?

[BBTV]

4 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Oakland is going to have to have a wealth boom before any major league team ends up there again. It’s too small, too poor and too broke to have more than one and even that’s in question. 
 

Maybe they can take advantage of San Francisco’s collapse?

 

You've made a few comments like this - I'm not sure you know much about Oakland.  

 

EDIT: at least the people.  Can't say about the city government.

[Red Comet]

5 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

You've made a few comments like this - I'm not sure you know much about Oakland.  

 

EDIT: at least the people.  Can't say about the city government.

I’m not saying the people are bad or even anything all that negative. I’m saying that they tend to be poor or working-class and considering that CoL in California in general and the Bay Area in particular is already inflated to hell and back, that leaves even less money for disposable income than such a situation typically would. So, to get more support for a team, there needs to be more money flying around. Maybe Oakland can try to lure some companies looking for cheaper real estate from Silicon Valley but don’t want to leave California.
 

The city government is bog-standard incompetence but that’s every city. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Red Comet

[WestCoastBias]

2 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Oakland is going to have to have a wealth boom before any major league team ends up there again. It’s too small, too poor and too broke to have more than one and even that’s in question. 

 

I could say the same thing about a lot of rust belt cities if they were in this position. The only difference is they were willing to shell out millions of taxpayer dollars in awful new stadium deals and Oakland isn't.

[Ridleylash]

Just now, WestCoastBias said:

I could say the same thing about a lot of rust belt cities if they were in this position. The only difference is they were willing to shell out millions of taxpayer dollars in awful new stadium deals and Oakland isn't.

See: Calgary

[Red Comet]

Just now, WestCoastBias said:

 

I could say the same thing about a lot of rust belt cities if they were in this position. The only difference is they were willing to shell out millions of taxpayer dollars in awful new stadium deals and Oakland isn't.

Where did I say spending public money on a stadium was a good idea? 

[BBTV]

I think there's plenty of wealth in the East Bay to support a well-run team.  There's a ton of people with >$200k jobs (which are the same jobs that pay half as much in most other cities) being pushed out of SF and into the East Bay / Oakland (source... I know several first hand.) 

 

There's certainly more diversity in Oakland from both a demographic and socio-economical standpoint, but I have less than no doubt it could support a team if the stadium was right and the team was run well and not like it has been.

 

Saying Oakland is nothing but poors is simply inaccurate.

[WestCoastBias]

2 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Where did I say spending public money on a stadium was a good idea? 

 

I'm just saying that a lot of people like to trash on Oakland because all their teams relocated but the same thing would happen in a lot more cities if governments weren't so desperate to keep their teams. 

[infrared41]

21 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

I could say the same thing about a lot of rust belt cities if they were in this position. The only difference is they were willing to shell out millions of taxpayer dollars in awful new stadium deals and Oakland isn't.

 

That is hardly the "only difference." I just looked this up. The cost of living in Oakland is 46% higher than the national average and housing is 99% above the national average. The cost of living in Pittsburgh is right at the national average and housing is 7% cheaper. In Cleveland, the cost of living is 6% lower than the national average and housing is 17% lower than the national average. We haven't even talked about the tax differences between California and the rust belt.

 

Sure, a job that pays 100K here in Ohio may pay 200K in Oakland, but the person in Oakland is still not doing as well as the person in Ohio is for all the reasons I listed above.

[Red Comet]

Okay, I'll take the L about Oakland. It could support the A's if an owner who gave a damn bought the team. But that's the issue: No owner since the Bash Brothers days has given a damn about the A's. The issue is finding someone who does. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Red Comet
clarifying language

[Digby]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

Oakland is going to have to have a wealth boom before any major league team ends up there again. It’s too small, too poor and too broke to have more than one and even that’s in question. 
 

Maybe they can take advantage of San Francisco’s collapse?

lol we’re talking about Oakland, not Stockton. We’re a lot closer to the Brooklyn Nets than the Hartford Whalers here. Or would be, normalizing for sandbagging ownership.

[SCMODS]

Like I've said in the past only if Warriors owner Joe Lacob and some of his billionaire buddies could by the A's and the Coliseum property. Total and complete rebuild of the area in and around the Coliseum property.  Just make it safe for people to hang out and enjoy sports, shopping & dining. Pipe dream, maybe. 

[Digby]

18 minutes ago, SCMODS said:

Like I've said in the past only if Warriors owner Joe Lacob and some of his billionaire buddies could by the A's and the Coliseum property. Total and complete rebuild of the area in and around the Coliseum property.  Just make it safe for people to hang out and enjoy sports, shopping & dining. Pipe dream, maybe. 

thing is, that property is kinda some distance out from downtown Oakland, no? Feasibility aside, the thing with the other new stadium sites is that they’d bring the stadium much closer to the center of population/disposable income in Oakland,

[Cujo]

So this guy won't be going with the As to Vegas...

 

[GDAWG]

 

[WestCoastBias]

2 hours ago, SCMODS said:

Like I've said in the past only if Warriors owner Joe Lacob and some of his billionaire buddies could by the A's and the Coliseum property. Total and complete rebuild of the area in and around the Coliseum property.  Just make it safe for people to hang out and enjoy sports, shopping & dining. Pipe dream, maybe. 

I believe the majority of the legal work for Howard Terminal is already done and it offers the same type of potential redevelopment that Petco and Pac Bell spurred. It’s a great location not only for the A’s but also Oakland, too bad Fisher was too cheap to make it happen. The only redeeming factor of the Coliseum site is how close the BART station is.

[SCMODS]

There is zero public transportation into the Howard Terminal site.