Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[SFGiants58]

That's definitely a good assessment of the situation. I do wonder why the Warriors didn't consider bolting for San José when The Shark Tank finished construction, given that they played there during the Oracle Arena renovation. The Sharks draw well enough for the whole region (part of why the team delayed that much-needed rebuilt), so why not try their luck there instead of demanding an Oracle renovation?

[TBGKon]

15 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

That's definitely a good assessment of the situation. I do wonder why the Warriors didn't consider bolting for San José when The Shark Tank finished construction, given that they played there during the Oracle Arena renovation. The Sharks draw well enough for the whole region (part of why the team delayed that much-needed rebuilt), so why not try their luck there instead of demanding an Oracle renovation?

Being second tenant to the Sharks might've been a downside.  At the Oracle, they were primary tenant so first dibs on dates.

[FiddySicks]

I think you really have to put into context just how different San Jose was back then compared to now. It’s a tech powerhouse now, but when the Sharks came in it was still sort of a bedroom community for those who couldn’t afford to/didn’t want to live that close San Francisco. And even today, access to the South Bay pales in comparison to the rest of the region. Maybe if those BART plans in the early 90s to move the lines further south had come to fruition (there was no realistic chance of this happening, for MANY reasons. Biggest being that South Bay residents simply didn’t want it.) things would’ve been different. But San Jose wasn’t really the draw in the early 90s that it is today.

[SFGiants58]

That makes perfect sense, thanks for clarifying on the economic and tenant side of it.

[bosrs1]

27 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

Being second tenant to the Sharks might've been a downside.  At the Oracle, they were primary tenant so first dibs on dates.

 

Bingo. Plus if you're able to swindle your current land lord for a new arena (which frankly was what they got as nothing but the outer shell of the old Coliseum Arena survived the rebuild into the New Arena in Oakland), why would you give that up to go be second tenant in a now older and somewhat simpler arena that was built primarily for hockey in San Jose? Not to say it was the right choice, obviously the "new" arena in Oakland was only good enough to keep the Warriors for a little more than 20 years before they bolted anyway.  

[Walk-Off]

Dave Kaval, for all of his recent uptalking of a potential move of the A's to the Las Vegas area, seems to have admitted that a Howard Terminal ballpark is, at least for now, much closer to becoming a reality than an MLB-ready venue anywhere in Southern Nevada:

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/07/as-have-called-the-stadium-pursuit-in-las-vegas-and-oakland-parallel-paths-but-what-does-that-mean/ 

[Red Comet]

So the A’s owner was just rattling his relocation saber to get a better deal locally? I remember when Mario Lemieux did the same thing to Kansas City so the Pens could get a new arena in Pittsburgh.

[rams80]

In fairness to the Penguins, the old Igloo was really in bad shape by that point.

[bosrs1]

23 minutes ago, rams80 said:

In fairness to the Penguins, the old Igloo was really in bad shape by that point.

 

I mean the Coliseum is literally falling apart. So it's not like the A's aren't justified in playing hardball with Oakland. Particularly since they're not asking the city to build the stadium or pay for it outright.  Especially given this is year 26 of their stadium search. 

[TBGKon]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

So the A’s owner was just rattling his relocation saber to get a better deal locally? I remember when Mario Lemieux did the same thing to Kansas City so the Pens could get a new arena in Pittsburgh.

I mean isnt that what usually happens for relocations?  The Tampa Bay area was a relocation threat for Seattle, SF Giants, White Sox, etc.

[WSU151]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

So the A’s owner was just rattling his relocation saber to get a better deal locally? I remember when Mario Lemieux did the same thing to Kansas City so the Pens could get a new arena in Pittsburgh.

 

I think it was to create urgency for the city to approve rather than getting a better deal financially.  If the city didn't approve it this summer, it could be another year before it was approved.  

[Red Wolf]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

So the A’s owner was just rattling his relocation saber to get a better deal locally? I remember when Mario Lemieux did the same thing to Kansas City so the Pens could get a new arena in Pittsburgh.

 

Pretty standard stuff really. We had tons of NFL teams using Los Angeles as a threat to get what they wanted locally for a few decades. I vaguely recall the Saints using San Antonio as a potential threat as well. Without LA on the table now we have to settle for weird stuff like Toronto or London now. Or like, St. Louis I guess.

[bosrs1]

57 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I think it was to create urgency for the city to approve rather than getting a better deal financially.  If the city didn't approve it this summer, it could be another year before it was approved.  

 

That and trying to get them to hone in on Howard Terminal. The city still wants them to consider, and choose, the Coliseum site. 

[Red Comet]

1 hour ago, rams80 said:

In fairness to the Penguins, the old Igloo was really in bad shape by that point.

And The Coliseum is an honest-to-God :censored:hole and not just because it’s in Oakland. As in, sewage issues have been chronic there for as long as I remember. 
 

And yeah, I know it’s a standard tactic but it always amazes me at its effectiveness. I guess no one wants to be Baltimore or Cleveland outside of the more mundane reasons they don’t want to be Baltimore or Cleveland.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Red Comet

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, Red Comet said:

And The Coliseum is an honest-to-God :censored:hole and not just because it’s in Oakland. As in, sewage issues have been chronic there for as long as I remember. 
 

And yeah, I know it’s a standard tactic but it always amazes me at its effectiveness. I guess no one wants to be Baltimore or Cleveland outside of the more mundane reasons they don’t want to be Baltimore or Cleveland.

 

Or Oakland. Remember this is the third team in the last decade trying to get Oakland to help out with something related to a stadium or they bail. That's the one reason I take the A's move threats more seriously than I would otherwise. Oakland has already lost two teams... that and again the A's stadium search being old enough to drink, have graduated from both a bachelors and masters program and is currently finishing up it's doctoral dissertation. 

[Crabcake]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

I guess no one wants to be Baltimore or Cleveland outside of the more mundane reasons they don’t want to be Baltimore or Cleveland.

 

[gosioux76]

On 6/8/2021 at 1:17 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

Or Oakland. Remember this is the third team in the last decade trying to get Oakland to help out with something related to a stadium or they bail. That's the one reason I take the A's move threats more seriously than I would otherwise. Oakland has already lost two teams... that and again the A's stadium search being old enough to drink, have graduated from both a bachelors and masters program and is currently finishing up it's doctoral dissertation. 

 

Help me understand this: Is this Oakland being Oakland or is this Oakland taking a principled stand against doling out taxpayer money to billionaire owners. I can't say I've been paying close enough attention over the years to know whether to view this situation as Oakland just fumbling another opportunity or whether Oakland should be the standard bearer for holding the line on giveaways. 

[bosrs1]

2 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Help me understand this: Is this Oakland being Oakland or is this Oakland taking a principled stand against doling out taxpayer money to billionaire owners. I can't say I've been paying close enough attention over the years to know whether to view this situation as Oakland just fumbling another opportunity or whether Oakland should be the standard bearer for holding the line on giveaways. 

 

It's a bit of both. In general California cities don't dole out money for sports teams anymore. Particular direct subsidies are a dead end with both city councils and taxpayers when it's come to the ballot as they've realized they're expensive vanity projects that have no major benefit for a city and are a waste of funds. Some teams have tried creative alternative tax redirections with mixed results at best but even those have been rejected. The best you can hope for as a sports owner is some form of tax incentivization rather than subsidy or tit for tat land rights sale and maybe support for ancillary development like the A's are looking for with the infrastructure. 

 

That 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.  With the Raiders it was similar, Oakland balked at the subsidy cost that the broke ass Mark Davis wanted (not to mention they couldn't compete with the almost billion dollars Vegas was offering even if they'd been willing to offer public support). The only one the Oakland pols are entirely blameless on is the Warriors. Their owner wanted to move to San Francisco and was willing to pony up to do so. There was little Oakland could have offered that would have derailed that move, even a public subsidy probably wouldn't have been enough. 

[gosioux76]

9 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

It's a bit of both. In general California cities don't dole out money for sports teams anymore. Particular direct subsidies are a dead end with both city councils and taxpayers when it's come to the ballot as they've realized they're expensive vanity projects that have no major benefit for a city and are a waste of funds. Some teams have tried creative alternative tax redirections with mixed results at best but even those have been rejected. The best you can hope for as a sports owner is some form of tax incentivization rather than subsidy or tit for tat land rights sale and maybe support for ancillary development like the A's are looking for with the infrastructure. 

 

That 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.  With the Raiders it was similar, Oakland balked at the subsidy cost that the broke ass Mark Davis wanted (not to mention they couldn't compete with the almost billion dollars Vegas was offering even if they'd been willing to offer public support). The only one the Oakland pols are entirely blameless on is the Warriors. Their owner wanted to move to San Francisco and was willing to pony up to do so. There was little Oakland could have offered that would have derailed that move, even a public subsidy probably wouldn't have been enough. 

This is an incredibly helpful and thorough response. I really appreciate it.

[FiddySicks]

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.