OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Fremont A's
| By rono on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 12:05 am:|
Last week a planning commissioner in Fremont advocated an A's move to that fair city. He was admonished by a city council woman for speaking out on the subject since he was not an elected public official and since his comments might disrupt discussions already underway. I didn't get the link but it was a small article in the Trib. It went unnoticed else where including this Forum.Since the A's on noncommittal on the preferred sites in Oakland, I wouldn't be surprised if they are working this deal. It costs more but it gets them closer to corporate dollars and Silicon Valley. Let's be very observant on this one.
| By jeffreyb on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 08:31 am:|
Glenn Dickey this morning:
A'S LEASE: Behind-the-scenes negotiations reportedly are close to producing a proposal for the extension of an A's lease, which is necessary before plans for a new park can go forward. State Senator Don Perata apparently has had some input, which is only fitting because Perata likely will be the Oakland mayor when and if construction starts on a new park.
Scott Haggerty has been working very closely with the A's owners and there is no coincidence that he was the one who privately drew up the lease extension proposal...I've smelled this rat for quite awhile now....
But frankly, this may push the Oakland politicians who are on the fence to take a stance once and for all or they may indeed lose the A's to Fremont. And I tell you something else...I would hate to see the A's leave Oakland, but if the Mayor of Oakland and some of his side kick politicians like DLF, and many Oakland residents who refuse to show their support, are going to continue to derail any possibility for this to happen, then...
more power to Fremont if they can at least keep the A's in the East Bay.
Oakland needs to realiaze they can't have the cake and eat it.
| By kevink on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 09:10 am:|
What corporate dollars in Silicon Valley?
Have you checked the stock market lately? Or the numbers? Unemployment is over 7% in Santa Clara county last time I checked.
The Silicon Valley corporate dollar factor is overrated. The fact is that industry in the East Bay is more diverse and doesn't get hit as hard during recessions like the one we are in. Right now I don't think too many Valley companies are going to be banging on the A's door for naming rights or to sign up for luxary boxes.
Keep em in Oakland.
| By tekgraf on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 09:11 am:|
I don't think they (A's) will build in Fremont for the simple fact that the residents in that area are not interested in having a ball park in their neighborhood. There are also factions within government who don't want to spend city money on such an endeavor. I believe that Perata and other influencial politcos and local Oakland, eastbay corporate types are closer than we think in getting the finances together soon. But then I could be wrong. But believe me the A's aren't going to Fremont or anywhere else.
| By rono on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 08:45 pm:|
I hope you are right. Perata is very powerful, but I don't remember him as a Oakland resident. He is originally from Alameda and I believe his district extends well to the south. I guess he could be Mayor. Jerry Brown wasn't a resident a long time either. If Perata gets behind the stadium effort, he is as likely to push Fremont as Oakland unless this Mayor stuff is real.
| By tekgraf on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 10:06 pm:|
Perata is an Oakland boy. He is always looking out for this city. And since he wants to be Oakland's next mayor you can damn well bet that he will be behind this ball park project. Espeically since the polls show that most Oakland residence support the effort if it's coupled with a downtown redevelopement scheme.
Perata is our man for the A's
| By jeffreyb on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 08:56 am:|
well...he's got a deep alliance with Jerry Brown, too. my own opinion (hope?) is that Brown is being tough on the A's with the intent to get a good deal, not to be a monkey wrench.
| By rono on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 07:48 pm:|
My sources at City Hall confirm our fears. The Mayor views the stadium as a bigger risk than benefit to him politically. For this reason he will sit on the sideline. He will let the Fremont deal either succeed or collapse under its own weight. If it falls apart,it puts Oakland in a better bargaining position and might bring in more county money. If the Forest City deal fails, it makes that site more politically acceptable for a stadium filled with subsidies. If Fremont and Forest City fly he comes out ahead.
Yes Rono, but I now think, from what I've observed, the Mayor is doing more than just standing on the sideline. I think the Mayor is being downright obstructive. I fear for members of his administration and worry heads may roll if they continue their strong efforts to keep this ballpark project going for Oakland. Hope I'm wrong.
| By jeffreyb on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 02:39 pm:|
It is certainly possible to view what Brown is doing much more optimistically. Here's what he says:
"I haven't seen one penny from the A's yet," Brown said in a recent interview, explaining why he believes the downtown-ballpark plan should remain on the shelf. "Let's hear from the A's first. Otherwise, we're negotiating with ourselves."
There's a LOT of truth in that. However much fan enthusiasts, and even politicians, want a new ballpark, the toughest nut to crack is a local population, fearful of previous bad deals and of inappropriate public expenditures. THAT citizenry is the real ball to keep one's eye on, and i think that's what Jerry Brown is doing. or at least that's what i hope.
He HAS to appear to be, and actually be a little tough on the A's. The deal is not gonna fly without that. The government NEEDS some negotiating power to get Schott to pony up his fair portion of the deal. To me, Brown's comments give hope to the idea that he views the Forest City deal as a bargaining chip with the A's, and not a intended to be killer of the deal.
I don't believe Bobb would have gone as far as he has without working quietly in agreement with Jerry Brown. That's not the nature of their relationship.
| By jeffreyb on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 02:48 pm:|
why must a lease get done first?
because the A's say so?
July 23 is deliberately a long time out. If the A's want a stadium deal, all they really need to do is sit down with Jerry Brown and cut an overall deal.
If they lock in and vote for giving the ENA to Forest City, they are killing the possibility to negotiate with the A's owners over the 20th and Telegraph site for one year.
The only site which would be a benefit to the city is the 20th and Telegraph site.
If the Mayor stops the city from showing the proposal to the A's owners, how can the proposal be negotiated and how can the owners come to the table.
I don't see how anybody can see this on a positive light. The only way to get things done is by negotiation. By giving an exclusive negotiation agreement to Forrest City for one year, there will be no chance to negotiate with the A's owners.
| By jenmed on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 05:09 pm:|
I don't for a second think that Jerry Brown is using the Forest City deal as a bargaining chip with the A's.
Forest City is his pet project and as soon as the ballpark proposal starting gaining steam, he rammed a vote on Forest City down the throat of the city council (and by extension, down the throats of all Oakland residents.)
He is intent on Forest City happening, and we cannot forget the fact that Forest City's chief lobbyist has done fundraising for him. I think it's pretty transparent, and pretty disgusting.
| By jeffreyb on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 07:30 am:|
the real vote on Forest City is on July 23, a month away. you both could be right that he really wants Forest City...i'm trying to say that another interpretation is possible, that is, he wants Schott to feel pressure to cut an overall deal with him before that date.
| By jeffreyb on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 07:42 am:|
and for that matter, there could be a 'second vote' or some such thing after July 23.
it sure seems to me that if Schott stepped forward anytime between now and then, and said, 'let's make a deal,' that a deal could be made.
think for a moment. why do the A's insist on doing a lease first? is that really necessary, or is it negotiation positioning, to string the government out as long and as far as possible without having to commit to anything?
i admit it may just be hope, but the hope is based on the knowledge that Brown is smart, has an agenda here about a ballpark, and has been deliberately quiet about what that agenda is. the financing plan is prob. done by now, but not released. so now, Brown has some cards in his hands, and, i hope, is saying let's play poker. Brown authorized Bobb to do what he's done so far, that too is clear. he doesn't want to commit political capital until he knows he can have a deal; is that so hard to understand?
and it sure seems to me that a deal is possible, given that 'naming rights' is gonna pay a large percentage of the freight.
So, in your opinion Jeff, Mayor Jerry Brown:
1. Forced an (ENA) an exclusive negotiating agreement with Forest City.
2. Issued a gag order to his staff, preventing them to talk to anybody, including the A's owners, about the revitilization plan incorporating the ballpark, including its financial package.
BECAUSE he really deep in his heart wants to have a ballpark in the 20th and Telegraph site.
| By jeffreyb on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 12:15 pm:|
As i tried to make clear, I don't have an opinion; i mearly speculate of a different interpretation of events. he could well have done those things in an attempt to gain some bargining leverage. the reason i speculate is that in Sunday's article, when asked to defend Forest City deal, he speaks of the A's deal. i read that as an invitation to the A's to come to the table.
moreover, i ask anyone here:
WHY a lease extention now?
The lease extension was never an issue until Haggerty started his very private negotiations.
The ballpark, if started now, would take until the year 2006 to be ready, thus the need to extend the lease until the ballpark is ready.
The lease extension became a bargaining chip for the owners. I think the timing of this lease and Haggerty being involved was not by accident. I think there are opposing forces acting on this lease extension right as we speak.
This is pure stipulation of my part.
| By rono on Friday, July 05, 2002 - 03:53 pm:|
In an article in the Trib on Wed July 26, it mentions that A's representatives have asked the mayor of Fremont for a meeting. No date set. During a talk to a the Niles/Fremont Rotary club , Mary Lurie said the A's are not even talking to Oakland officials, but it said he didn't know about Fremont.
| By jenmed on Friday, July 05, 2002 - 09:26 pm:|
There is a lot going on behind the scenes that few people know anything about. I don't believe that Marty Lurie is privy to all the information about who the A's management is and is not talking to. I would take his comments with a grain of salt.
| By jesse on Saturday, July 06, 2002 - 10:23 am:|
Here is the June 26th Article from the Tribune.
A's want to meet, Fremont mayor told
By Conan Knoll
FREMONT -- In the first indication the Oakland A's may consider Fremont a viable alternative for a new ballpark, Mayor Gus Morrison says he has been told the team may want to meet with him.
Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, the leading proponent of bringing the A's to town, told Morrison the team would like to set up a meeting, the mayor said.
"I'm told they want a meeting," Morrison said. "I will meet if they want to meet, sure."
It was "before June" that Haggerty told him about the potential meeting, Morrison said. He said he doesn't know when a meeting could happen and said a possible ballpark is the only topic of discussion he knows of.
"Everybody's welcome to apply. We entertain all kinds of applicants for all kinds of projects," Morrison said. "You never know what the facts are until somebody asks the questions."
Haggerty could not be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, the Planning Commission has backed off inviting the A's to discuss a potential ballpark, which would be located in Warm Springs.
The A's, disappointed with the Coliseum's expansion for the Oakland Raiders, is seeking a new stadium. A 107-acre site north of New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., in Warm Springs, is among those at the top of a list of proposed Alameda County sites.
Until Morrison's comments, the team has given no indication it would be interested in Fremont. The other top sites all are in Oakland.
In May, Planning Commissioner Bob Wieckowski asked the city staff to invite the A's to meet with the commission, which also discussed asking Haggerty to give a presentation about the plans.
But city staff members said the meeting was premature and recommended against it, said Councilmember Steve Cho, who has spoken with Wieckowski and Haggerty about the team. Earlier this week, Marty Lurie, who hosts the A's pre-game show on radio station KFRC, spoke with the Niles Rotary Club, Cho said.
Lurie talked mostly about how the team was playing this season, but he did respond to some questions about the possibility of the team coming to Fremont, Cho said.
The announcer said the team wasn't even talking to the city of Oakland right now and he see's no problem with staying in the Coliseum, Cho said. But Lurie also said the team is not opposed to talking to Fremont, Cho said.
Fremont could fit the team's strategic plan of locating near its fan base and possible corporate sponsors in Silicon Valley, Cho said.
The team tried to get a stadium deal in Santa Clara, but that bid failed because it infringed on San Francisco Giants' territorial rights.
"If there is a choice between Oakland and Fremont and everything else being equal, of course I think they may want to build it closer to their fan base so they can have a long life here," Cho said.
But Cho warned that if Fremont is aggressive it might wind up costing the city. Fremont could not win a bidding war with Oakland to keep the team, he said.
"If we are going into it knowing we don't want to tax our community and they understand that, I'm willing to open it up to discussion right now," he said. "Because it's true if we wait too long we may miss the boat as well. That's the other side of it."
| By jesse on Saturday, July 06, 2002 - 10:24 am:|
If the A's moved to Fremont would they still be the Oakland A's?
| By eyleenn on Saturday, July 06, 2002 - 09:29 pm:|
It wouldn't surprise me if Haggerty made the whole thing up about the A's wanting to talk to the mayor of Fremont. He's the one who wants the A's to move to Fremont.
This will be the 4th? annual ENA with Forest City. If it falls through again, that may be enough political cover for Brown to get out of the way of a stadium deal. On the other hand, Forest City may realize this is their last best chance at that site and actually get the ball rolling enough to block the A's even if they never put up a stick. Perata is the key. He's the politician that pulls all the big strings in the Oakland area.