Skip to content

Oakland to reject the new A’s lease again

Jul 2, 2014, 11:03 AM EDT

Seattle Mariners v Oakland Athletics Getty Images

Last week the City of Oakland held up approval of the new Oakland Athletics lease on the Coliseum by ordering the members of the city council who serve on the Coliseum Authority not show up to the meeting where it would be voted on, preventing a quorum from being achieved and putting everything on hold. This week they city is going to act more decisively:

The City Council late Tuesday ordered its four members on the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority to reject the deal at a meeting scheduled for Thursday. Instead the city will release its own proposed lease extension addressing several of the council’s concerns, including reduced rent payments for the A’s, Councilman Larry Reid said.

And the A’s will solider on in a substandard ballpark, seemingly forever.

To see what is apparently not happening with Coliseum upgrades and lease details, go read this somewhat more optimistic article about it all. Keys: new plumbing and a new scoreboard.

(thanks to Wendy Thurm for the heads up)

  1. trbmb - Jul 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

    Certainly Budfuddled Selig will rise up from his eternal coma and sentence this issue to committee analysis. Bud is in charge, thus this will not get resolved.

    • paperlions - Jul 2, 2014 at 3:05 PM

      Man, thumbs up for “Budfuddled”….how that is not his common nickname after all these years, I have no idea.

  2. gdobs227 - Jul 2, 2014 at 11:24 AM

    Such a shame that two of the better run organizations have to play in a dump of a stadium. (TB & OAK)

    • roundballsquarebox24 - Jul 2, 2014 at 2:22 PM

      Hey, Tropicana is not a bad stadium. It is definitely not in a very well-placed location for Tampa/Central Florida residents to access. Going to a Rays game is admittedly a hassle because the darned place is in St. Petersburg. But, the stadium itself is not bad. Of course, the air-conditioned dome setting kind of takes away from the baseball experience in my opinion. But, that is a must-have in this state (nevermind the scorching heat, add in those daily summer rains that we get!). But, I definitely wouldn’t call the Trop a dump, in any way. It is a nice, modern facility.

      • gdobs227 - Jul 2, 2014 at 4:05 PM

        Balls in play bouncing off of catwalks = dump of a stadium.

      • APBA Guy - Jul 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM

        Have to disagree with you, Round Ball. Tropicana is pretty bad, I have it 30th out of 30, with even the Mausoleum being better (sunshine, great field, better parking). My family lives in FL, in Orlando, and I’ve been to the Trop a couple of times.”Dump” may be harsh, but “lousy” is accurate.

      • roundballsquarebox24 - Jul 2, 2014 at 4:30 PM

        Hmm.. I guess everybody has their opinion, but I have had no problems with Tropicana. I have been there several times throughout the years and have never had any issues (besides actually getting there, and like you mentioned, parking). But, my overall experience there has been positive. Never had an issue of any sort. I am not a Rays fan in any sense, I just live in the area and love a good ballgame a few times a year. I will say that I don’t have many other stadiums to compare it to, though. Other than Tropicana the only MLB stadiums that I have been to have been Fenway and Wrigley. Those parks felt more “genuine” for a baseball game, but they also seemed (because they ARE!) older and less “comfortable” for the fans. But, that means that I have visited 3/30 MLB stadiums, so my analysis is obviously not very valid. Just stating my opinion….

  3. hcf95688 - Jul 2, 2014 at 11:28 AM

    And yet, San Jose, the 10th largest city in the US, home to some of the biggest corporations in the world, a city with a near shovel ready downtown ballpark site is just 40 miles away. Forty miles, I’ll add, further away from San Francisco, but the Giants (because the Bay Area is for some reason operates under different rules than NY, Chi, LA, Balt/Wash – the other two team markets) are able to block this no-brainer of a move.

    Denying San Jose to the A’s defines logic.

    • hcf95688 - Jul 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM

      Nice typo: I meant “defies” logic. The only logic it “defines” is head up the ass logic.

    • SocraticGadfly - Jul 2, 2014 at 12:50 PM

      What about Sacto? Or something in between, somewhere around Davis?

      • clydeserra - Jul 2, 2014 at 2:13 PM

        no. Not big enough. No industry there

      • SocraticGadfly - Jul 2, 2014 at 3:05 PM

        I’ll bet a fair chunk of A’s fans come from that far; I’ll certainly bet that a fair chunk of actual or potential lux suite buyers live out there … dunno if there’s been marketing studies or not.

        Look at football. Everybody laughed when the Lions built the Silverdome “way out there.”

      • billybawl - Jul 2, 2014 at 7:07 PM

        The Giants would likely happily pay for an A’s stadium in Sacramento. It’s not about fan support at the park as much as corporate sponsorships and TV revenues.

    • jkcalhoun - Jul 3, 2014 at 12:04 PM

      While denying San Jose to the A’s may defy trust-free logic, if you think that the greater distance of San Jose from San Francisco constitutes a logical justification for the move, you’re just not paying attention.

      New Jersey has more to do with it than those 40 extra miles.

  4. APBA Guy - Jul 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM

    There is a lot of East Bay politics involved in the lease approval, concerning the City of Oakland’s obvious favoritism towards the Raiders and the City’s pipedream of the Howard Terminal (waterfront) site for a multi-stadium complex. Opposed to that is the County of Alameda’s preference for redevelopment of the current Mausoleum site, and a deal more favorable to the A’s. Unfortunately both sit on the JPA, the authority that negotiates the lease deal with the A’s. Imagine if the Nationals had to negotiate their stadium lease with the current Congress and you get the picture.

    Anyway, the lease doesn’t expire until 2015, so there is plenty of time for more posturing and grandstanding.

    • clydeserra - Jul 2, 2014 at 2:10 PM

      if the A’s paid the $5M in parking fees that they collected and owe to the city, I bet the lease goes through pretty easily.

      But yeah, Howard terminal is never happening, Jack london square is not really better.

    • sportsfan18 - Jul 2, 2014 at 4:26 PM

      Even a shovel ready location couldn’t be ready if you began today by the time the lease expires next year…

  5. mustbechris - Jul 2, 2014 at 12:44 PM

    They could, you know, finance their own ballpark without begging for taxpayer-funded corporate welfare.

    • daveitsgood - Jul 2, 2014 at 2:23 PM

      Hi you must be new here to make an uninformed comment such as this. The A’s are planning to privately finance their new ballpark, however the issues have been where to build, not so much who is paying for it. But good on you for contributing to the conversation, albeit in a pedantic, meaningless way.

      • tmc602014 - Jul 2, 2014 at 7:22 PM

        Dave, you are such a diplomat!

      • mustbechris - Jul 2, 2014 at 8:09 PM

        I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3497)
  2. G. Stanton (2692)
  3. H. Ryu (2449)
  4. A. Rizzo (2425)
  5. J. Hamilton (2271)
  1. M. Trout (2230)
  2. N. Arenado (2171)
  3. C. Kershaw (2121)
  4. E. Gattis (2071)
  5. D. Ortiz (1962)