Some comments from Lease & Uptown
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Some comments from Lease & Uptown
I highlighted DLF's part, maybe he's happy too be part of the process/attention & for the first time seems to be lightening up. This is from the A's website;
The agreement, with the Forest City Developers group, is not finalized, though, and a new ballpark on the site is not out of the question, according to De La Fuente.
"Nothing is a done deal until we sign an agreement," he said. "Forest City is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination."
De La Fuente said he would only support a new stadium in the Uptown area. "I believe that a baseball stadium out of all the sites -- Uptown is the only site I will seriously support because it brings additional benefit to the city -- housing, retail, you name it."
With much work still be done in choosing a site, Schott said that those details would need to be worked out before a clearer picture would emerge on how a new stadium would be financed.
He did say, though, that any deal would need to include public financing. "We certainly can't finance a 100-percent private park. It's not going to work," said Schott.
| By rono on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 03:19 pm:|
Please call me when the stadium is done. Does anybody out there understand that a 120 day out makes this whole lease extension totally meaningless? Why are they even bothering to do this? The A's will constantly use this clause as a threat if they don't get everything they want. Are we ready for a Bud Selig deal? That is, the city/county puts up $400 million and the owners promise to pay off $50 million over 30 years which with interest means 4-5 million per year. Oh by the way Bud totally rejected a downtown ball park which the Milwaukee politicians wanted very badly. Bud was also on a short term lease. Any of this sound familiar.
You mean Schott signed a lease extension through 2005 (three year options after that), with 90-day escape clause? So, rather than being here through 2010, Schott could be gone in 90-days if he so choose? What sort of deal is that? Goofy.
| By ronc on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 03:39 pm:|
The lease is till 10/2007 with three one year club options till 10/2010.
The lease may cancelled by the A's if
a) A's give 120 days notice and they move to a 40k+ facility within Alameda County
b) A's give 120 days and pay remaining lease payments thru the fixed term (10/2007) plus $250k
| By chris_d on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 06:59 pm:|
I disagree with you, rono and gregorymark. This is a great first step for the A's and the city/county to start talking seriously about a new ballpark.
Is this a perfect deal? No. A 30 year lease that will have ancillary economic benefits to both the A's and the city of Oakland is a perfect deal. How do we get that? By building a successfully executed new downtown Oakland park. How do we get that? By getting the A's and the city/county officials in the same room to hammer out the details (finally, once and for all). What was the biggest roadblock for that scenario (according to the A's)? Getting the lease extension done. So, now the ball is in the A's court -- and in MLB's court. The city and county have played ball with them and have forged a new bond with the A's owners. If the A's don't want to play even remotely fair with Oakland/Alameda in negotiating a financing plan for the new ballpark, the city/county can always give the A's a big middle finger, and collect between $500,000-$700,000 a year for the next 5-8 years, while still holding the option of further negotiations. It takes 4 years to plan and build a stadium, anyway, so the East Bay has at least half that time to work something out with A's ownership.
So, this lease extension is a symbol to MLB and
Schott/Hofmann and the fans that the city/county isn't a total mess when it comes hammering out a deal with the A's. That was something, quite frankly, many of us weren't 100 percent sure of. So, this is very encouraging.
Also, if there really is a long, ugly work stoppage on the horizon, it'll make this lease extension even better, because the city/county can always credibly say to the press/MLB/Schott: "Look, we were on our way to a new ballpark and then MLB shot itself in the foot again. When you get your house in order, let's talk again."
Or they could have "hardballed" the A's and just watched the A's go back to their TOTALLY FREE year to year lease. But what does that solve? Or build on? Nothing.
This direction is the best chance we have to keep the A's in Oakland. Let's stop and enjoy it for a few minutes -- and then tomorrow let's resume working like hell as fans to show support for the Uptown site and looking toward July 23 as our chance to remind the Oakland City Council that they should allow the A's to negotiate
Though nearly all of us have used this space to handwring about the A's future and Schott/Hofmann's past behavior -- most often for very legitimate reasons -- I think this is a day to really savor. For the first time in a while, I think a lot of us feel truly optimistic after today about our chances to build a new Oakland ballpark and keep the A's in Oakland for damn near forever.
I agree with you Chris. The mere fact that Schott gave interviews stating that he is making a commitment to stay, and looking into the cameras saying to the Oakland A's fans that this is a message to them is something to savor and enjoy.
Out clause or no out clause, the only thing that will give us the peace of mind of knowing the A's are here to stay for a good long time is a new ballpark.
Today was a step in the right direction and we just have to keep this torch going until the final run to the first pitch in 2006.
| By jeffreyb on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 08:56 pm:|
Looking at it from the viewpoint of the A's owners, i see no reason for the A's to seek a lease now, compared to the more favorable free year to year lease they have right now, other than the short term out clause.
Minnesota stadium attorneys convinced a judge that the absence of an out clause meant that they still had a case against contraction, EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE TERM WAS OVER.
i strongly suspect that MLB attorneys are behind this new lease, having learned the lessons from the Minnesota case.
I, for one, am quite happy that everyone involved is making kissy face for the moment. I'll post a response I got from Jerry Brown within the next day. I'm waiting to see if I got a response to the reply.
| By jeffreyb on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:46 pm:|
you're right about that last point. if this lease, which isn't logically part of, or necessary to doing a stadium deal, turns out to be the impetus of trust building and the easier doing of a stadium deal, i'll be very happy that my fears will be unrealized.
| By eyleenn on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:51 pm:|
The A's have maintained all along that they would not address the ballpark issue until the lease extension was in place. No they have no excuses.
| By jeffreyb on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 09:31 am:|
yep. they've been consistent about that. no one though, has come close to providing a reason WHY they took that stance.
did they fear eviction? no way!
they were paying less, why did they need it?
the only answer i can come up with is the out clause, at the initiation of MLB attorneys due to what they saw happened in Minneapolis.