Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

Piccinini still the right man for the A's

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Piccinini still the right man for the A's
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 08:14 am:

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10835~2236755,00.html

column by Dave Newhouse

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 06:50 am:

Great article from Newhouse. He seems to be the only sports writer here that gets the bs that Selig/Schott/McGowen have going and the bs they pulled off when Piccinni/Dolich offered to buy the team.

I don't know, is Newhouse the only sports columnists to point or at least put out that story about how the SF ownership was in on the sabatoge of the Pinnicci sale.

What a dirtbag!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 09:02 am:

Selig/Magowan don't want a new ballpark in Oakland, which would, in their mind hurt the Giants just as much as in the South Bay.

Selig/Magowan have nixed more than the Piccinini group. At least two other bidders with intentions of building a ballpark in Oakland have been shut down by Selig.

Their ultimate plan is to get the A's out of the Bay Area completely.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rono on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 09:29 am:

I don't think the Giants sabotaged the deal although I am sure they were against it. REMEMBER Schott admitted last year that he never wanted to sell in the first place. In order to shorten the lease term at the Coliseum and get other concessions he had to offer the club to local buyers at a discounted price of $122 million versus an estimated value of $150 million. Schott arranged with Selig to postpone consideration of the deal so the Blue Ribbon Commission could sort out baseball affairs .This move delayed the deal beyond the deadline that the city and county had to find a buyer and complete the deal. SO Schott was off the hook and didn't have to sell. When I confronted Mike Crowley at the time he said Piccinini did not have the money to complete the deal . When I told him that I knew the whole thing was a ploy to cut the lease and that Schott never wanted to sell he could not respond. Schott confired this fact a year or two later when he said he never wanted to sell in the firstplace. Magowan's influence is over rated. The Commish and the other owners are not happy that he did not get big public subsidies to build his stadium which made them all look bad, That's why SF has not had an All Star game yet in their now 5 year old stadium. By the way the sales of the Royals and the Marlins were approved while the A's deal was held up. All these facts get ignored while we contemplate the conspiracies.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 09:42 am:

Rono, I have to totally disagree with you...

Selig was the one who helped Magowan put together the investment group to buy the Giants and Selig gave Magowan the guarantee his "territory" would be protected. Selig was the one who stopped the sale of the Giants to TB and gave his support and help to Magowan to front the investment group.

You are right that the Schott sale was bogus and the intention was to get out of the lease.

As for saying the Piccinini group didn't have enough money...wrong...
they had a ton of money...Just Goodby was worth 1 billion and they had other heavy duty investors in the group including a Dolich friend from Boston who wanted to purchase the BoSox but failed. Their name escapes me...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 01:16 pm:

One has to wonder if the piccinnini/Dolitch group had offered the $150 million for the A's,that Selig and his gang would not have pulled the same stunt.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rono on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:54 pm:

Lil

I know Piccinini personally. He had the money despite what Crowley said. What I am trying to say is that Magowan was irrelevant to the decision to keep Piccinini from buying the team. Selig may have agreed to protect the territory for Magowan as part of the deal to buy the Giants ,but that's it. Selig is a two bit car dealer compared to Magowan who was the Chairman of Safeway and whose maternal side are the Merrills of Merrill Lynch. They know how to put a deal together without Selig.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 08:17 pm:

Rono, I didn't mean to imply that Magowan would have needed Selig to put a group of investors together to buy the Giants. I don't mean to say Magowan is not a good deal maker or some dummy.

What I meant to say is that Selig and his cohorts are the ones who decide who they allow and give thumbs up in to their Cartel. They are very careful not let people in that might upset their MO.

Money alone is not enough and that is why I said the Dolich/Piccinini group was well funded but didn't fit Selig/Reinsendorfs and Co.
Without their approval, Magowan would have never bought the Giants and they would have been sold to TB.
Selig even made Lurie put 10 million back into the team to complete the deal.

Selig makes no secret in saying that it was a HUGE mistake to allow the A's to move into the Bay Area because it hurt the Giants. You know Magowan shares that opinion especially when you know he was one of the owners in favor of contraction.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rono on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:03 pm:

The point I am making is that the sale fell through because Schott did not want it to go through.Put the blame where it belongs, If Schott and Hofmann really wanted to sell the team, the sale would have been approved. Magowan was probably against it but his opinion was irrelevant here. Piccinni and Dolich would have made a great ownership team which would have acceptable as men to the other owners. The problem was the price was low and the owners really did not want to sell. The Royals were sold
at an even lower price whuch was approved because the old ownership needed to sell and no body would get in their way.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 07:41 am:

Rono, I agree and I know Schott didn't want to sell the team.
But he was bound by the lawsuit settlement to sell within the period of time the deal was put together. Selig worked along with Schott and made sure the deal got tabled...I never doubted the sale was bogus. And I agree Magowan knew all along no sale would take place and was indeed not a player on that deal.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 06:17 pm:

I'll always have a part of me that thinks McGowen will play a role, big or small, in the future of the A's in Oakland.

He's living free without the A's being big competitors in the media and everybody knows Schott won't help he A's in that venue. You think McGowen and his dozen cronies of owners will allow to the Giants to lose anything they've gotten if the A's get sold to a owner willing to compete with the Giants both on and off the field.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 08:06 pm:

Read a few days ago in the Tribune Crowley defending the Schott ownership group and he spewed a few reasons why Schott is the right owner for the A's.

Failed to mention though the bs that Schott and Selig spewed during the Piccinni/Dolich offer and the fact that Schott never went or sent any A's represenative to the Oakland City Hall meetings in the spring of 2002 regarding a new park in Oakland.

I haven't yet heard Schott say that the future of the A's is in Oakland. He's never given the city a chance and until he does so, he can stick his it where the sun don't shine.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By 5thtimethecharm on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 06:24 pm:

Crowley responds:

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~11680~2260221,00.html


Oakland Tribune


Newhouse's bias gets in the way


Thursday, July 08, 2004 - DAVE NEWHOUSE, in his column June 26 ("Piccinini remains right man for A's"), has once again allowed his personal bias against the ownership of the Oakland A's to severely taint his ability to clearly and objectively present all of the facts. This column misleads his readership regarding the A's current ownership and a group that, five years ago put forth an unsuccessful ownership bid.

Upon purchasing the club in 1995, Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann laid out a very specific plan on both the baseball and business side of the organization that would restore the glory to one of baseball's most storied franchises. Four straight postseason appearances, the most wins in baseball over a four-year span, an increase in attendance each of the last five seasons, two Most Valuable Players, one Cy Young Award winner and two organization of the year awards speak for itself.

It has been under this ownership's watch that the A's were able to orchestrate the two most lucrative contracts in the history of the organization. Additionally, they invested over $20 million dollars in the minor league system over the past five years -- the same minor league system that has produced players like Eric Chavez, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Bobby Crosby and Rich Harden.

Commitment to Oakland? Mr. Schott and Mr. Hofmann stepped up and bought the A's franchise in 1995 when no other local buyers were willing to do so, thus saving the team from potentially moving out of the area. In July of 2002, the A's extended the lease at the Coliseum through 2007 with three one-year club options through 2010.

Not to be overlooked is the fact that this ownership has donated millions of dollars and in-kind donations to various Oakland and East Bay community organizations over the years, including the Oakland Public School District, the Oakland Parks and Recreation Department and the Boys and Girls Club of Oakland. Most recently, Mr. Schott made a generous contribution to the Oakland School District and through the organization raised funds to help avoid the elimination of the athletic programs in the West Contra Costa School District.

Also, for Mr. Newhouse to suggest the attendance would be higher under a different ownership is without fact. We are proud of the fact that the A's are one of two teams to increase their attendance each of the last five years and are currently ahead of the attendance pace of last season. The team's attendance increase over the years is a result of a shared vision between our owners, baseball executives, front office staff, the hard work of the players on the field and the commitment of the organization to provide an affordable entertainment product in a clean and safe environment.

Our ownership is committed to securing a new baseball-only facility that the A's and their fans throughout the Bay Area can call home for years to come. It is our hope the stadium can be built in Oakland or somewhere in Alameda or Contra Costa County. Wherever the stadium is ultimately built, it will be in an area that will assure the club's long-term viability.

Under the guidance of Mr. Schott and Mr. Hofmann, the A's will continue to be a leader in the East Bay community and a franchise that serves as a sense of pride for all sports fans throughout the Bay Area.

Michael Crowley

President,
Oakland Athletics


-- Nice-sounding words. As the old saw goes, they are "significant if true."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 08:21 pm:

Where in Contra Costa are they now talking about? That's news to me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 11:03 pm:

Pleasanton. But in a resent interview, Wolff said that the suburbs were not a good area for the club. He said that they're looking at an urban area. Either downtown Oakland or somewhere in or near their existing home.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 08:33 am:

tekgraf, Pleasanton is Alameda County.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rono on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:37 pm:

People's Park in Berkeley is still available.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By goldtymer on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 08:40 pm:

Where in Pleasanton?

If they were going to screw around out there, they had the area off Doherty.

They should keep the Coliseum Site and add a BB only park.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 11:35 pm:

Right! I meant Pleasant Hill?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 02:04 am:

"They should keep the Coliseum Site and add a BB only park."

I keep reading A's fans wanting to build a baseball only park at the net's parking lot and my question is why?

If you're going to spend 300-400 million on a park, you best get the best out everything a new park will offer you. That means redevelopment and although there will be redevelopment around the coliseum site, it's still not the best area to build a park. That should automatcially make the downtown area of Oakland the best and only option in my opinion as an Oakland resident who wants the best bang for my buck.

Another reason why the coliseum site wouldn't be a good site is the lack of scenic area around the park. The park looking towards the Oakland hills isn't enough. A park near the downtown area would either have a view of the waterfront or it would focus on the downtown area itself which the area is in desperate need of recognition from the media and even the people of Oakland that don't know what's happening in the downtown area.


Ask the Giant fans what they'd rather have, a new park built at around the stick or where SBC is loacted now where it's not just only near the downtown area but has maybe the best views out of all the parks in mlb.

The coliseum has it's pluses with the abundance of parking and the transportation around the net but I'd trade all that in for a park in downtown Oakland.

Instead of a park like Anaheim's, White Sox's, or the Brewers, parks that are relatively new but are placed out in the middle of nowhere really; the A's and we fans deserve a park like SBC, Jacobs, PNC, Petco, Safeco and the other parks that are built near the downtown area and are considered jewels because of all the pluses that these parks achieve with their beauty from within and the great revitalizations they create around the park.


I really to hate to sound like a broken record because I've posted these kind of messages here before but the A's need a park in DOWNTOWN OAKLAND.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 05:01 am:

This goes back some time,but there was talk of building a ballpark in Concord. Concord is the only city with any site big enough to do the job.
I seem to remember a site near the Naval Weapons station,pretty good access. The only other property out this way which may be big enough would be a shopping center in Pleasant Hill that they're trying to redevelop. They would have to tear the place down,but a ballpark could fit there. right next to the freeway.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 11:26 am:

"The Pleasant Hill A's"
Works for me!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 06:11 pm:

It would be closer for Me,but I don't mind the trip to Oakland. As long as BART can get Me there.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By goldtymer on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 08:34 pm:

The Coliseum site is and always has been fine. Transportation to the game is excellent, the location is good and there is and always has been room to make the required improvements. Scenicly speaking, there are a few (and I mean few) parks that are on a river or Bay that look good. We don't need that. The only problem with the current location is that the area around it has not been properly revitalized or developed.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:19 am:

The net's location will always be that of Hunter's Point where Candlestick is located. Now, the area around the net isn't as bad as it is around the stick but it's still not the most desireable location in the city of Oakland to build a park that will bring in an excess of almost 3 million people to that location.

To bring in 3 million people to downtown Oakland or anywhere near the area near the Lake is the biggest plus that the city of Oakland can get. The media and pr attention a park built near downtown Oakland is well worth the money. I don't think the same can be said if you built a park in the parking lot near the arena/net.

Don't get me wrong, I want the area around the arena and net to become better and if this was any other project other than a park, I would be all for it to build it at that location but like I've said in my last post in this topic. You need to get the best bang for you buck for a 350+ million dollar project and the coliseum site won't have the impact that park built near downtown Oakland will have.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 04:02 am:

The Coliseum site is and has been the second best site for a new park in My mind,uptown being tops from the first time I visited the area,which was about a year before HOK showed up. The coliseum area is ready to get redeveloped,and a ballpark would be a good fit. I've always felt that wherever a ballpark is built, the Net should get an additional minor renovation,to better accomidate football AND soccer (MLS,World CUP).this could be done fairly cheap,probably less than 10 million.The Net looks like it does because it was a rush job,but You can improve upon it. I am starting on a new uptown design,making an assumption on location. any site near BART works for Me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ballparkfrank on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 07:56 am:

I would like to add San Quentin to the list. It has everything: a great view, splash hits, excellent security, convenient to ferry and freeway, and a captive crowd at all times. Even the inmates wear jumpsuits the same color as the Coli vendors' shirts!

Now if we could only convince Bud Selig to spend some time there!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:20 pm:

"this could be done fairly cheap,probably less than 10 million.The Net looks like it does because it was a rush job,but You can improve upon it."


What can you exactly say are improvements that would make the net any better than it is today. For football, I hear that they once thought of building a fourth deck around the original structure so the capacity could go over 70k so Oakland could land the Super Bowl but that idea has probably gone out the window.

Face it, the way they designed Mt Davis was a mistake for both baseball and football.

The Mt Davis seats are a joke for baseball and are even a bigger eyesore when the park is half filled but it seems even more empty when you see that sea of green seats up there.

Even though they aren't bad football seats, they still too high when you compare it to the newer stadiums being built by the other nfl teams.

My honest opinon that it would've been better to have built a new stadium for the Raiders rather than ruining the net. The total cost for renovating the net was much higher than the expected 100 million when it first started out. The cost of a stadium back around the mid 90s when the Raiders came back wasn't as high as it is today so the price of building the Raiders a new stadium probably wasn't much higher than it was to refurnish the net. Maybe it was but I'd rather spend that extra 50 or so million on a new brand new stadium that would've been a jewel than renovate a 30 year old venue that wasn't all that great to watch football in the first place before it was renovated.

You ask most Raider fans like I have with my friend who have season or partial season tickets and they'll even tell you that they'd rather have a venue that was totally new like there is in other cities than to renovate the net.

Face it, the net isn't the most attractive venue to go to when you compare it to the 20+ new venues teams have built since the net was renovated in 97.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:37 am:

A coupla years ago,when they were going after the super bowl, they had plans to add some 7000 seats,which would have cost about 12 million.
Make no mistake,the last renovation was for the Raiders,period. At 130 feet,Mt. Davis is no higher than most of the stadiums in the NFL,new and old.
You have to put the seats somewhere. In fact, in the majority of the new BALLPARKS,the upper decks are anywhere from 100 to 112 feet,thanks mostly to the addition of private suites. And as far as the Net being unattractive,I go to football games to watch football. If the seats are good,that's all that counts. I think that a renovation geared to make it more football (and soccer) friendly would be a good thing,for around 10 million.
FYI- A new football stadium meeting todays NFL standards would cost around 400 million plus.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 06:54 pm:

"FYI- A new football stadium meeting todays NFL standards would cost around 400 million plus."


Yes, in today's age a new stadium would cost 400 million dollar but that price would be a lot lower back in 95-96 when the Raiders moved back to Oakland. Instead of ruining the coliseum forever with the building of Mt. Davis, they could've found some other ways to help fund the extra cost it would have taken to build the Raiders a new venue of their own back in the mid 90s before all the lawsuits took place.

I think it matters what fans and others around the league think of the net being outdated. Like I posted a while ago here, George Atkinson who might be one of the biggest Raider homers alive said that the net is a horrible venue when you compare it to the other venues around the league being built. He said it during last year's pregame show against the Titans when he was there at Titans Stadium. He said that the bay area had two of the most successful franchises yet both play in the two worst venues in the league.


"A coupla years ago,when they were going after the super bowl, they had plans to add some 7000 seats,which would have cost about 12 million."


Yes, it was the fourth deck idea I explained but the nfl won't give the city of Oakland a super bowl. If a super bowl will ever happen here, it'll be when the Niners build a new stadium and who knows when that'll ever happen when that weasel York owning the team.


I don't know where you get the idea of getting soccer played at the net. It's not happening. I heard on the radio that there's going to be a soccer exhibition sometime soon happening in the bay area and it was being held at SBC.

How would adding more seats to the net be more friendly to the soccer heads. How could you improve the net anyway to be more soccer friendly.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:25 am:

In 95 dollars, a new football venue would still be in the 300 million range,depending on the architect.
I remember george atkinson making the comments,and
compared to what other teams have, he's right.
As for My mentioning soccer,I do so because it would be wise to get a MLS team to make up a few of the event dates that would be lost should the A's get their ballpark. And the 10 million I mention could be spent on making the Net more football/soccer friendly,that's all.
in My view, a new ballpark should be built for the a's,move the raiders to berkely for a season, and tear down the rest of the original coliseum,and finish what they started in 95. You could do over the Net for around 200 million,maybe less,and a ballpark for less than what HOK estemates,as much as 100 million less.
The renovation was a rush job,but one that could be improved upon.
As for the 49ers,they're moving in 2007 to LA,You heard it here first,I think.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:56 pm:

First of all, the nfl won't allow a team of the Niners stature to leave SF. If any team is moving there, there are the Colts who need a new venue to play in because of the RCA Dome is a joke, you don't think the nfl won't want to see Peyton Manning playing in the second biggest media market in the country. Then you got other teams like the Chargers and Vikes who are themselves threatening to leave if they don't get a new venue to play in.

I think it was a precedent that no team will leave the city of SF. IF the mlb didn't allow the Giants to move out of SF, you think the nfl juggernaut is going to let the Niners leave SF, no way.


Soccer here in the US isn't and hasn't worked. There's world a few weeks ago that the Earthquakes might move out of SJ and that area is more likely to support a soccer team than probably either SF or Oakland so I don't see the city of Oakland getting a soccer team here because they'll draw even less than the Earthquakes do in SJ and even more upsetting is that the mls isn't lighting the country on fire.

This country wants the best and the best play in Europe so you won't see the likes of Beckham or Renaldo playing here. Sure, the mls has some great young players like Donavan and Adu but they're probably leave to play in Europe because that's where the best competition plays and where they probably could make the most money.


You say improvements for the net for football, what else can you do to improve it? Give specifics because I can't think of any other ways.


As for rebuilding the net again, won't happen. If any team in Oakland is ever going to get a new venue to play in, it's the A's and if that ever happens, I don't see the city ever building a new venue for a sports team or renovating a venue ever again. If you were to rebuild the net for the Raiders so it would look and feel like a real football stadium rather than a tweener, it would cost too much to demolish the orignial structure and then rebuild a section that would actually match Mt. Davis. I would like to see it happen but it won't because if that did happen, the stadium would look like Raymond James or Heinz Field with the two huge structures behind each sideline with some seats in the endzone. Will never happen though.

The A's park I think shouldn't cost more than 400 million. If SBC was built for 385 million in today's money, then the A's can build a park for at least the same price and maybe lower. The A's don't need a fancy bells and whistles park with cute little nuiances like what Houston.

Something simple and clean like what Pittsburg didn wtih PNC and they built that park for over a little 300 million.

Now it all depends on where the park would be located it but how would a park on the waterfront cost the estimated 525 million that is used as the most costly price tag to build a park in Oakland. That's why I loved the uptown idea, it would benefit the city the most out of all the sites that were mentioned and it would've been the cheapest.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By yc2578 on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:06 pm:

The idea of the 49ers moving to L.A. is simply laughable even with the sorry state of the current ownership.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 09:47 am:

Oaktownfan,
If I got Your hackles up,it was not My intention to do so. Let Me be clear.I think that it would be great if both the A's and raiders had new venues.
Short of that,should the A's get their ballpark (which I hope to have some involvement)they could at least spend some additional funds to make the Net more football friendly.Yes,it would be a band aide solution. I mentioned soccer only to suggest that having another tenant to fill in some 20 days of the 80 that the a's take up now would be a good thing. An empty stadium is an unprofitable stadium.
I was not offering an opinion one way or the other on the MLS. It's here,some of the teams play in NFL stadiums,that's all I have to say about that.
As I mentioned before,a new NFL stadium would be around 400 million.I think that once the A's get their ballpark, the raiders could have a hippie season,maybe two, in Berkely,and the Net could could get the renovation it deserves,hopefully looking better than Raymond James. With demolition and reconstruction,it could cost some 200 million,maybe a little more.But it would be a football stadium.Or they could blow the net back to the stone age,and build a new place.
The total cost for SBC was 357 million,309 million just for the ballpark.PNC I think cost about 270 million,but seats 4000 fewer than SBC.HOKs generic ballpark used in it's studies,be it Oakland or Minnesota,costs 340 million for 42,000 seats. I hope to present a design for a 42000 seat ballpark that could be as much as 100 million less than the HOK estimate. It would be great to have a site near Uptown,I have a design for the prefered location,but the coliseum site would be pretty good just because of BART and the freeway access.
I hope this clears things up some.If not, forgive Me, I've been up all night.
As for the forty niner comment,I'm half joking.
just some things to think about.First,SF voters approved a 100 million bond for a football stadium,which would be paid back by revenues generated from a connected shopping mall.this was approved back in 1997,some seven years ago. Last time I checked, there has not been a groundbreaking ceremony as of yet for the project.
second,the forty niners' lease is up in 2006,with no new stdium in sight.I really don't believe the niners will move,except maybe to the penninsula.
If i were a betting man, I would think either the Saints or the Colts would relocate to La La land,but You never know.........

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:04 pm:

What makes you think that the city of Oakland or Alameda County will fork another 200 plus million dollars to the Raiders for either renovating the net to look better or to build them a new venue on a whole.

This area is still suffering from the Mt. Davis disaster and I don't think with all the problems Oakland has, that they'll pony up tax dollars for the Raiders who might leave again from Oakland knowing how much Davis loves the LA market.

Like I posted earlier, the A's I think are the only team that can get a new venue in Oakland that taxpayers here will support. Maybe not be thrilled about but the A's have given this city the most noriety out of all the sports teams here and they deserve a new park.


Regarding the net's use when there's no baseball or football, there should be some events scheduled there. Concerts I know have been taken place there before. But remember that there is the SBC factor here. With SBC, you got a brand new venue that can hold many events there and it's close to SF's downtown area which is a plus when you think of it. Where's the net, miles away from downtown Oakland and from SF and you even even say that SBC is closer to downtown Oakland then the net is. So if you're a promoter of soccer/concerts/truck racing and etc, where would you rather have your event being taken place.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:33 pm:

I've never said that taxpayers in Oakland would support spending more money on the Net,I've only suggested that it could be an option. In the long term,it would be wise to either build a new venue for the raiders,or look at totaly redoing the existing stadium to make it a football venue.doing over the Net is the cheaper option,You still end up with a new venue.

As for location,the coliseum location is as good as any,good access from both the freeway and public transit. The Harry Truman complex is several miles from downtown KC,and it does quite well.
As for the Raiders moving back to LA,there's no way the NFL will allow it. it's entirely possible that the NFL will put at least one expansion team there,the LA area is not far behind New York in population. watch for the Saints or Colts to move there,probably to the Home Depot center in Carson (in a new football stadium).
SBC Park? The only advantage it has is that it's new.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By yo_pauly on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 04:39 pm:

"As for the Raiders moving back to LA,there's no way the NFL will allow it."

Hi all, by way of introducing myself, let me say that I spent my summers growing up on Davis street in San Leandro, just a couple BART stops from the Coliseum, and my cousin and I spent many a summer evening/day at the ballpark. I am a long time lurker, who lives in eureka, ca and I am ecstatic that the a's ownership has at least made a committment to the Oakland area.

I must say, however, that the above quote from bpark, almost made me lose my lunch from laughing so hard. No disrespect AT ALL to the poster, but but the NFL didnt "allow" Al Davis to move to LA the first time either, and he hit the other owners' pocketbooks pretty hard when he won a lawsuit which affirmed his right to move. I was 20 years old when they moved the first time, and I will say this - it took away the naivete that i held towards professional sports as representing our hometowns.....

anyway, cheers,

paul

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 05:40 pm:

Hey Paul,
I understand Your cynicisim,but allow Me to point out that since the raider's and the colt's moves back in the 80's, the league has made it more difficult for teams to relocate.and recently,the raider's have had little luck winning lawsuits,one of which the raiders claimed to have rights to the LA market (that one may still be ongoing). I would be concerned,however,with the nfl commish holding a press conference sometime down the road,saying that the raiders need a new stadium,or else. That's what happened in Seattle and SF when they had stadium measures on the local ballots. While the niner's stadium has yet to appear, the people of seattle,king county,and the state of washington are on the hook for close to a billion dollars in new stadiums,and some 180 million in debt left over from the kingdome.
besides,no one in LA wants Al Davis to come back.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:25 pm:

Taxing Oakland for a new stadium is not a good idea, even for the short term. There needs to be another way.

LA does not have a love affair with the Raiders, so I have no idea why the Raiders would end up back there. What is wrong with the Coliseum for Football? It's not the prettiest stadium in the NFL, but it seems to work just fine.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 08:53 pm:

"I've never said that taxpayers in Oakland would support spending more money on the Net,I've only suggested that it could be an option. In the long term,it would be wise to either build a new venue for the raiders,or look at totaly redoing the existing stadium to make it a football venue.doing over the Net is the cheaper option,You still end up with a new venue."

Okay, who's going to pay for rebuilding the net or building a stadium all together. If not the taxpayers, you think Al Davis is willing to put in the money necessary to help make the net more football friendly, yeah right.


"LA does not have a love affair with the Raiders, so I have no idea why the Raiders would end up back there. What is wrong with the Coliseum for Football? It's not the prettiest stadium in the NFL, but it seems to work just fine."

I think it's Al who has a love affair with LA, the glamour and the money it brings.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.