I think it's very encouraging for the Rays that so many of these meetings have occurred and yet they're not all over the news constantly. That's the sort of low-key professionalism that actually gets results.
Oakland A's and Tampa Bay Rays Potential Relocation Thread
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
KevFu
Registered User
Right, but the whole "fiasco" sounding headlines weren't because of anything other than a political timeline.
The Rays lease doesn't expire until after the 2027 season. So no one in Tampa/St. Pete has any reason whatsoever consider building them a new stadium UNTIL NOW. All the politicians involved would be facing re-election before the Rays could possibly leave, so the Rays had zero leverage. So you make up attention-grabbing headlines to get people's attention (Like, splitting time with Montreal).
It's a lot like the Islanders situation with SMG/NVMC. The Islanders made a ton of noise in the 90s about how bad the Coliseum was, how it was unsafe and filed to have it condemned, they'd have to move if they don't get a building... and then 25 years later, they're playing playoff games in it and talking about it like home sweet home!
Because in the 90s, when they were making headlines, they had no other choice. Their options were "hysterical claims to force the issue" or "wait until 2015."
Both the Rays and Islanders signed 30-year leases on buildings that were already 13-18 years old and therefore far more antiquated than the rest of the league. And not wanting to play under the same conditions for years 31-43 of the building was the cause for screaming.
LadyStanley
Registered User
A’s continue LV visits as decision looms on potential ballpark site
Oakland Athletics president Dave Kaval told the Review-Journal he didn’t have a timeline on when the potential Las Vegas stadium site could be announced.
www.reviewjournal.com
Athletic's brass has been coming to LV weekly to hammer out traffic and other impacts for potential stadium.
Oakland stadium has BCBD vote soon. And city council may take up agreement at early July meeting.
Lots of time crunch with fall elections.
Mightygoose
Registered User
Some sabre rattling before this Thursday's vote?
www.reviewjournal.com
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission votes to remove the port designation. It's likely to pass though a no vote will kill the project.
If they move anyways, the feral cat colony will have the whole place to themselves
MLB won’t charge A’s relocation fee if team moves to Vegas
If the Oakland Athletics end up moving to Las Vegas, Major League Baseball wouldn’t charge the team a relocation fee, sources with knowledge of the situation told the Review-Journal.
www.reviewjournal.com
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission votes to remove the port designation. It's likely to pass though a no vote will kill the project.
If they move anyways, the feral cat colony will have the whole place to themselves
KevFu
Registered User
Mightygoose
Registered User
The vote passes 32-2 to remove the port only designation
www.google.com
Still other hurdles remain but this one is cleared
Oakland A's one step closer to new stadium at Howard Terminal after crucial vote
The Oakland A's are one step closer to a new stadium at Howard Terminal.
www.google.com
Still other hurdles remain but this one is cleared
LadyStanley
Registered User
Listened a little to the hearing. Lots of concern about potential needed future growth and a "turn around" grab back of 10 acres.
Would still need to come back to BCDC to approve building plan (after Oakland negotiates its agreement with team).
Would still need to come back to BCDC to approve building plan (after Oakland negotiates its agreement with team).
Voight
#winning
MLB Could Reportedly Waive A’s Relocation Fee
MLB would reportedly waive the Oakland A's relocation fees, should they move to Las Vegas. A potential fee could be as high as $1 billion.
frontofficesports.com
Seems like MLB is all in for a move to Vegas.
Remember the purpose of relocation fees is to give the league a cut in the difference in value between the team at their old city and their new city.
Basically MLB is saying that the A's as they are are essentially valueless in Oakland.
Basically MLB is saying that the A's as they are are essentially valueless in Oakland.
Based on your first sentence the second sentence doesnt make sense.
If the first sentence is accruate then it would be MLB saying they view the two markets as equal value thus no relocation fee. If they valued Oakland at $0 then the relo fee would be quite significant.
I dont think that is what is going on here at all. There is realistically only 2 possible scenarios and neither has anything to do with the differene is in market value. Either MLB very much wants the A's in LV or MLB is very much trying to force Oakland's hand to get them to build a new stadium. If I had to guess i woud say MLBs preference is a new stadium in Oakland that way they can put an expansion team in LV, which would be far more money than any relo fee.
KevFu
Registered User
The primary reasons for no relocation fee is...
#1 - It was a PR thing right before the Howard Terminal vote, reminding people what is at stake before they vote. That's easily #1 and it was blatant.
#2 - The secondary reason is that moving from Oakland to Las Vegas requires no adjustment of the divisions, or the TV territory.
#1 - It was a PR thing right before the Howard Terminal vote, reminding people what is at stake before they vote. That's easily #1 and it was blatant.
#2 - The secondary reason is that moving from Oakland to Las Vegas requires no adjustment of the divisions, or the TV territory.
You're right, I was thinking backwards. That's what I get for posting just after waking up from a nap. Lol.
That said, I still think it's basically the league office (and therefore the other owners) telling the A's they want them to move to Vegas.
There's long been a school of thought that the A's moving to Oakland in the first place was a bad move that should never have been allowed. That it undermined the Giants at a particularly vulnerable time (when the honeymoon period has ended but before the team has really settled in as a local institution) which pretty much took until the opening of the new park to recover from. That abandoning KC suddenly lead to political blowback forcing the hurried expansion by four teams in 1969 instead of the originally planned two (with two more in 1971), which had knock on effects of the disastrous failure of the Seattle Pilots, which in turn lead to more lawsuits and political issues leading to earlier than expected addition of the Mariners. All for playing to mediocre crowds in a poorly designed, even more poorly maintained dump. It's clear MLB doesn't want the team there anymore, and never really did.
KevFu
Registered User
The general stance of all the leagues is that they will back the team getting a free stadium from taxpayers. MLB is saying "No relocation fee" and "the A's will move without a stadium" just like they've said for everyone (and the NHL has, too).
But the Bay Area being a two-market team is ideal for baseball, and changing that now would be bad. The Giants being "vulnerable" is silly. The Bay Area is a massive market. It's the 5th CSA, but really bigger than that because places like Sacramento and Fresno aren't included but ARE in their TV footprint/fanbase.
Look at the Red Sox. The Red Sox are rich -- despite playing in a 100-year old stadium. But Boston's MSA is smaller than Dallas, Houston, Washington, Philly, Atlanta, Miami and Phoenix.
Buf if you look at CSAs divided by teams, the Bay Area is third. Boston is fourth.
The Top 8 CSAs (36% of teams) have produced 25 of the last 44 teams to play in the World Series (57%).
Boston acts richer than their CSA because in addition to it, all of New England (13 million people) has NESN is on their TVs, and the Sox get TV money from their viewership.
Well, Sacramento and Fresno aren't in the Bay Area CSA. Neither is Reno or Northern California. But they're in the Bay Area TV market. That's about 19 million people.
If the A's leave the Bay Area, the Giants, over time, are going to be come a lot stronger than the Red Sox. Because the Giants don't have a 100-year old stadium, and will have like 6 million more fans.
Of course it won't happen overnight that all the old A's fans become Giants fans. But how many BRAVES fans are left in Boston? The Braves left in the 1950s, and by 2000, there were no Braves fans left.
Not only do I hope that they'll roll back on playing everyone every year after 2026, but also, with the expansion to 32 teams, that interleague play will no longer be year-round as was the case prior to 2013. Under my proposal, all interleague games (36 played by each of the Eastern teams, and 18 by each of the PCL teams) would be played over a 42-day period running from the third Monday of May to the Sunday falling between June 25 and July 1, with PCL teams playing interleague games only on the last 21 days of that stretch.
MMC
Global Moderator
Also, starting next season, Peacock's Sunday Leadoff package (which can also continue in my proposed TV contracts from 2029-40), should only permit Eastern and Central Time Zone teams to appear.
All games would then starting next year start at 11:30 AM local time, which means games in the Central Time Zone would start at 12:30 PM Eastern.
All games would then starting next year start at 11:30 AM local time, which means games in the Central Time Zone would start at 12:30 PM Eastern.
What the hell does that have to do with the topic of this thread? (BTW, the Peacock games already feature only eastern or central time zone home teams. And noon eastern is a better start time because it's more likely people will watch.)
KevFu
Registered User
So what I've been saying about the A's leaving Oakland would be bad for baseball because the Giants would grow into an uber-rich team without the competition.
Take note of what's happening in San Diego. The Padres were a small-market team for decades who rarely had a big payroll. In the last four years, they've signed Manny Machado and Fernando Tatis to $300m plus contracts; they just traded for Juan Soto (and Bell, and Drury and Hader).
Their attendance is about the same as it's always been. Where's the money coming from?
The Chargers left San Diego for LA in 2016, and the Padres revenue is up $95m.
The advertising and fan dollars that used to go to the Chargers is going to the Padres, who now have the 5th most expensive ticket prices in MLB.
Take note of what's happening in San Diego. The Padres were a small-market team for decades who rarely had a big payroll. In the last four years, they've signed Manny Machado and Fernando Tatis to $300m plus contracts; they just traded for Juan Soto (and Bell, and Drury and Hader).
Their attendance is about the same as it's always been. Where's the money coming from?
The Chargers left San Diego for LA in 2016, and the Padres revenue is up $95m.
The advertising and fan dollars that used to go to the Chargers is going to the Padres, who now have the 5th most expensive ticket prices in MLB.
I just want to point out that I was referring to decades ago, not the present situation.
The Giants' tenure in San Francisco was for a about 15-20 year period in the mid 70s through around 1990 or so considered somewhat precarious in part because Candlestick was a combination of a poor design and a bad location for a baseball stadium. OK for football, as it turned out (though it's shortcomings might very well have been obviated by the Montana and Young led teams being as good as they were). But not so much for baseball, with the wind playing havoc – that was the ballpark that had a pitcher get blown off the mound during the All-Star Game, after all, and is sometimes blamed for Willie Mays not being the one to break Ruth's career home run record – and poorly located for walk-up ticket sales during a period where they were still a very significant part of a team's financial well-being.
Also, the A's were the better team for a good chunk of that time, drawing interest away. That's the part where the resentment of the A's moving to the Bay Area when they did comes into play. In 1968 (only ten years after the Giants' arrival) the Bay Area was growing, but it was not yet the megalopolis it has become, especially in the South Bay.
And remember, the only reason the Giants are even still in San Francisco is because their application to sell the team and move for 1993 was voted down by the other team owners. Otherwise they would be the team playing at Tropicana Field. So saying the franchise was vulnerable until the opening of Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T/ Oracle Park is not silly. It's the historical facts.
Also, none of this addresses the knock-on effects of the A's leaving KC after only a dozen years in the first place (and the Braves bolting from Milwaukee similarly a couple of years before) and how those moves ultimately caused every team move in the subsequent decades. Despite the desire to chase the public stadium dollar, owners really don't like having teams move, as it creates significant disruption. (It's a big part of the reason the Coyotes aren't in Quebec, after all.) This is especially true in Major League Baseball, which uses nostalgia and history as a major marketing item. The fact they're outright endorsing a move tells you something about how they view Oakland as a market.
KevFu
Registered User
Got ya.
I still think that teams being "vulnerable" is a silly concept in general. The closed nature of the sports leagues means that the value of the franchise is always going to keep going up because sports is like the great escape for a massive percentage of the population and are DVR/On Demand-proof, must watch live content for media companies. We can all list a ton of franchises who "could be in danger of moving" but they're just moving for better opportunity (aka free stadium), not because they're in any real danger of ceasing to exist.
(We just had a 2020 season where MLB sold zero regular season tickets. This isn't like gate-driven sports of the the 1940s where the leagues lost teams during WW2. Every single team is totally fine post-pandemic and all their franchise values went up).
I most definitely remember that the Giants were sold to Tampa and it was the owners who vetoed the sale. They knew the Bay Area was too big to leave to just one team, and MLB would be wise to remember it now.
I think I've mentioned that previously in the thread. The Rays exist now because in response, Florida politicians called MLB before Congress for anti-trust hearings and the Rays were created to buy them off, which caused a bunch of other problems (ARZ in the NL, MIL/HOU switching leagues, etc).
I've also mentioned previously in the thread the huge mistake that has let this Oakland situation be unresolved for a decade: The NL and AL league offices merged into MLB in 1999, and combining the AL/NL constitutions and the working agreement between the two leagues into ONE document is why the A's couldn't build a stadium in San Jose/Santa Clara.
The AL and NL were two different leagues, and the working agreement had policies to prevent teams from infringing on each other's markets. A relocation had to be approved by THE OTHER LEAGUE. After the 1989 Bay Area Earthquake, the Giants were trying to get California's "rebuilding budget" to include a new stadium in San Jose, but the MLB commissioner just died of a heart attack so the league had other business to attend to instead of the AL approving the Giants "move." The A's signed a document stating that the Giants could move to San Jose to streamline the process.
But then when merging those documents, the new MLB constitution changed the meaning completely. The new doc specifically listed San Jose/Santa Clara as exclusively Giants territory, when that's not what the old working agreement and the A's approval of the Giants moving to San Jose/Santa Clara meant at all.
Because the new owners of the Giants and A's signed that they'd abide by the MLB constitution, the Giants official have San Jose/Santa Clara exclusively when they weren't supposed to.
I don't think it was so much having only one team in the Bay Area so much as the prospect of that only team being stuck in East Oakland and not the more prestigious San Francisco. That would be like having the only LA team be the Angels down in Anaheim instead of Dodger Stadium's pretty central location. Speaking of the Dodgers, a big part of the opposition to letting the Giants move came from them not wanting to lose their most traditional rival. I still don't think they have a problem with having only one team in the Bay Area in the present day. Again, none of the other major pro leagues have an issue with it, so I don't see how MLB is any different.
Last edited:
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
You recall how many people were convinced in 2006 that housing prices would always go up?
At what point do the closed North American leagues have problems?
At what point do the closed North American leagues have problems?
What could happen to keep the A's in Oakland is that the A's temporarily share Oracle Park with the Giants while a new home stadium is built where the Coliseum currently stands. The complex could also include a new NFL-quality stadium for the Cal Golden Bears football program, while the arena is renovated to be a more intimate venue for a Cal Golden Bears NCAA men's ice hockey team. The resulting complex would be jointly operated by the A's and UC Berkeley. The NFL-quality stadium would also serve as a potential home for a new NFL team in Oakland.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Why wouldn't a new "Oakland" NFL team just be a tenant for the 49ers.?
They would share the stadium just like the 2 NFL teams in LA or NYC.
If the As move, you don't need a new football/baseball in Oakland.
