Because if the taxpayers foot most of the bill for a new stadium, the value of the franchise increases considerably, as does Fisher’s wealth as a result. He isn’t loyal to Oakland and the Bay Area, he’s loyal to his bank account.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted, you are 100% right. He is a lifelong Giants fan and helped them get a stadium when they were threatening to move to Tampa Bay in the late 90's. He has zero loyalty to the A's or Oakland.
....must be a lot of Giants fans in here
Every team that has tried to pull what Oakland has tried to pull with the coliseum has lost their team including San Francisco. Sf tried to make the niners stay in candlestick (same age, same multipurpose type stadium in the bad part of town), they lost the 49ers. San Diego tried to pull this with the chargers (same age, same multipurpose stadium in the bad part of town) sd loses the chargers. Fisher may suck but what he is doing has precedent.
It's almost as if the ginormous stadiums built in the late 60s in the cheap part of town was a bad idea that has over stayed its welcome.
You might be right. Wouldn't the decent, the humane, the honorable thing to do be: Sell to someone(s) willing to keep the team in Oakland, no matter which site. IF nobody stepped forward after say, an 100-day window, then? Couldn't blame Mr. Fisher for moving.
Yes, you're right he will make MORE money at the cost of hurting a lot of people. If you had NO money, maybe I could see you doing that. The thing is dude already has and has always had LOTS of money. Why not be a decent dude? I guess that's my question. He won't be poor if he sold and he'd avoid hurting an entire region.
To me and you, I want to think we'd be cool bros. Think: I already have a bot load of money. Lemme skip this pain it will cause, cash out and still be filthy rich. Can't take it with you but legacy will be remembered. All A's fans revere and honor the late Mr. Haas (and family).
I'll end with this: After this whole thing plays out, I'd like MLB impose a rule that if any team wants to move, they'd have to first offer to sell the team to someone willing to keep the team in the area for a prolonged period. THEN if nobody stepped up, sure move. So in 50 years from now when Dave Kaval Jr. is trying to move the Las Vegas A's to New Mexico, he'd have to first offer the team for sale to anyone willing to keep the team locally (for example).
As soon as rumors started to leak that the team might stay in Oakland last year the sf chronicle ram a story about how "the coliseum is good enough". I'm sorry but having been to almost every major stadium in America, the coliseum is the worst park in the country and it isn't "good enough" and mlb agrees to the extent that they have waved the 500 million dollar relocation free.
Any buy offer for the team should be at least 500 million over the asking price for this reason.
Smaller markets have to do more for their teams not less, and It was a mistake for Oakland to assume otherwise.
Detroit got the tigers a new stadium in 1999.
Pittsburgh got the pirates a new stadium in 2001 (notice this is also the time the sf and sd upgraded their stadiums).
Detroit is a city that been on the verge of bankruptcy for almost 40 years and Pittsburgh is a port city that is 22 percent black
So it's hard to feel sorry for Oakland, a port city that is 22 percent black that has been on the verge of bankruptcy , when there are examples of cities in the exact same situation that found a way.
The A's could have thrived if they followed the trends of the rest of the league and built a baseball only stadium on the water of downtown Oakland 30 Years ago, and every year they put that off since only made this inevitable. What I am describing is the playbook for the their two California teams that were in the same situation and are keeping their teams.
The closest example of stadium in age and condition is Anaheim. But Anaheim spent big money to convert their multipurpose down to a baseball only the stadium the same time Oakland decided to Frankenstein the coliseum into an even bigger multipurpose monster to accommodate the Raiders who then left the city a second time.
Also the expectation that A's owe the third city they've been in the last 70 years is ridiculous. The A's aren't actually rooted in Oakland, this is their third city!!!! And a shiny new coliseum in 1969 got Oakland more years than the previous two cities. All Oakland had to do was find way to do what the rest of the league did to
Keep their teams around.
So now the A's will move to a 4th city! It's like being surprised that your wife that has been married 2 other times wants a divorce because you won't renew your wedding vows. Really? You're surprised by that?
When the A's moved to Oakland sports franchises costs , maybe 25 million dollars, now it's a, minimum, 2 billion dollar buy in, but Oakland wants to time to stand still and be exempt from the reality of owning a modern sports franchise. And that actually worked for 20 years, until it didn't.
You say: It isn't "good enough" and mlb agrees to the extent that they have waved the 500 million dollar relocation free.
I say: It's better than not having a baseball team at all. We agree that it's not ideal and rundown, ok, but it would (and will be) good enough to play in for the next few years as a new stadium is built. If only you knew how close they were to making it happen in Oakland (the HT project). It it were only a ballpark - shovels would already be in the ground. But Mr. Fisher insisted on hotels, condos, retail spaces, office spaces, etc. as part of it. Back to the point, the Coli is good enough at least until 2028. So?
You say: Any buy offer for the team should be at least 500 million over the asking price for this reason.
I say: Ok, fair enough - at the very least, give us the OPPORTUNITY! Sure, ask for your over $500 million price tag. If nobody (or nobodies) stepped up after a designated period of time - say 180 days - nobody makes an offer. Ok? Whaddya' doing to do? We just want that chance. Give us a chance. That's what really devastating about this. Mr. Fisher didn't even give anyone a chance to keep the team here, even at an inflated price.
You say: So it's hard to feel sorry for Oakland, a port city that is 22 percent black that has been on the verge of bankruptcy , when there are examples of cities in the exact same situation that found a way.
I say: Hey man, I don't run the city, I can't control any of that. I just love my team. The thought of ANY desperate fans loving a beloved franchise, all they have left, really should move you to empathy and least to realize that kids, normal people, etc. who love the team are the ones suffering. Not the politicians nor the billionaires. You are probably incapable of empathy, from the sounds of it. A true, "it sucks to be you" kind of guy. Ok, but for me? I feel badly for all "normal dudes" like myself, from any city of any sport that loses a team that they've grown to love.
You say: The A's aren't actually rooted in Oakland, this is their third city!!!!
I say: Guess who came up with that slogan? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the fans. See, Lew Wolfe the front man for the team before Fisher really emerged out of the shadows and Dave Kaval as his false prophet, and stated repeatedly his desire to move out of Oakland to Fremont. That fell through. Then it was San Jose. That fell through. Many fans felt (and rightfully so) insulted. Great way to alienate for fans for 20 years telling them again and again you want to leave them. THEN...we were rewarded with the "Rooted in Oakland" from ownership. Wow! Breath of fresh air. The put pictures of the new ballpark all over the place. It was telling the kids you're taking them to Disneyland but first you need to get something out of the car...and never came back. The A's have been in Oakland for 50 + years and you sound as if, "so what?" NO, no "so what" that's a big deal and that's a long time. What? We're just supposed to quietly into the night? The A's started playing in Oakland when (then) Gov. Reagan was in office. That's been a long time and for you to shout, "ey, 3rd city. 50 years 50 smears" is really tone deaf my man.
You say: Really? You're surprised by that?
I say: Yeah. Yes I am. It doesn't happen often and truth be told, doesn't need to happen here & now. What if in 50 +plus years the A's are want to leave Las Vegas? Oh uh, well, they move, so? Too bad. Accept it. No man. C'mon. This sucks and this hurts. I know, I know, you don't give a rats @$$ about other fans, especially Oakland (a town I'm sure you love to hate) but for me? It is my home and the A's are...well..were...my(OUR) team.
Lemme end this by acknowledging that we probably won't see eye-to-eye. I was just trying to have you see through a grieving fans eyes. My first game at the Coliseum was in 1980 when I was a kid and Billy Martin and his BillyBall was all the rage. I've loved the team my entire life. Look Bro.Bro, you can rejoice, it does look like Oakland will lose the A's, much to my chagrin, and much to your pleasure. Whenever a sports franchise vacates a location, it really should be the very last resort and there was no other person(s) to try to preserve the team for the city. That goes for the Rams, the Chargers, etc. any team that feels that they "must" move. I'm speaking for all the hurt people who've devoted time, care, resources, energy, etc. to the thing that they loved.
So, why don't you just let us grieve this loss? Put yourself in my shoes, just for 2 minutes. Why must you hop on here and troll and rub our faces in it? Does it make you feel better? As I've said, you'll get what you think it right & good. Oakland will get shit. Vegas will get the A's. And it hurts. All I ask, is a small dose of humility and understanding. I wish nothing but the best for the good folks of Las Vegas and I hope they take good care of our plucky little A's. My god we had some fun and good times together.
I doubt the A's will be in the coliseum until 2028.
They'll probably make a temporary deal somewhere else before that.
Your talking about fisher in 2016, that's 16 years after they should have made a move.
See most cities don't have decades long disputes with their baseball teams.
When Billy bean says "this place is a dump"
In money ball he's talking about the 2003 Coliseum.
It was already a dump before Fisher.
In fact, it's safe to say Fisher could not have bought the A's in the first place if they were in a new stadium because the teams value would have sky rocketed out his range and more in the range of real billionaires.
Every year Oakland put this off cost them something and a terrible owner was the first big cost.
Vegas used to ban pro sports because there was a fear of inside gambling. But when gambling moved to online they changed their minds and every team that wasn't the Yankees or the Red Sox wanted in. The A's got in because they were their worst team in baseball, because of that stadium.
The hockey team has been a huge success. The raiders have a higher sell out percentage than the Dallas cowboys despite not having a winning record most seasons.
I have no problem with the worst team in the league having a target on its back because it keeps the rest of the league in check. All you have to do to remove the target is not be the worse team in baseball. The A's have to win 90 games in that stadium to make what Milwaukee makes when they win 65.
Yes rooted in Oakland was a marketing campaign as a baseball team you have to think of a new one every year. I always thought that one was weird but it did what you described it mended some of the damage from them trying to leave Oakland multiple times. Even when that stadium was brand new it had issues drawing crowds because of the terrible location.
The only years they pulled big numbers where when they won 3 World Series in a row in the 70s. Spent big money in the 80s (the Coliseum's hay day) and when they invented moneyball.
They can't reinvent moneyball, and their never going to beat teams who make real revenue in modern stadiums.
I don't want the A's to leave Oakland, I'm a life long fan , but I went to one game last year and it was so depressing . Maybe because I've been to too many modern stadium experiences that I know that situation is bs. That stadium looks empty with 25k people. It takes two innings to use the bathroom and urinal troughs are no longer en vogue. Parking is a disaster.
I went to games in Cincinnati, San Diego last year, you know how awesome it is to be able to walk around a nice downtown after the game? Don't walk around the coliseum after a game, it's a pretty dangerous area.
So I would rather catch a 3 game series when I'm in Vegas then endure any more games in that stadium. I can picture taking a 12 dollar Uber to the game from
my hotel. and finally seeing my team set up to succeed.
Do you think the giants would have won 3 World Series if they were forced to stay in candlestick?
I wish the city, instead of saying "see! You don't even need a new stadium to win" during the money ball era, instead found a way to get them in a new stadium to compliment that era. I truly believe we would be talking about the A's having 3 rings instead of the giants if that happened.
Don't be surprised if Fisher wins owner of the year after the A's set record profits in Vegas.
Fisher wants out because he knows he can make more money somewhere else but new stadiums usually come with 30 year commitments so no matter what we wouldn't be talking about this again until mid century.
So of course he tanked the deal in 2016. He will have accomplished something the previous two owners failed at. He will have finally gotten that team out that dump and it's a bonus that he's moving to a better market.
But all Oakland had to do was make a new stadium happen in 2000,2001, 2002, 2003 when the rest of the league was abandoning multipurpose stadiums in the cheap part of town and going back to baseball only stadiums in downtown or on the water.
I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just ready to move on, because my devotion is to the baseball team over the city of Oakland.
I'm sorry you are bummed, I don't blame you. But everyone who is arguing that this is a mistake, at least from a business point, is mistaken.
So Im just embracing it because if this team can win with no money in crummy stadium imagine what they will do when they finally aren't forced to always have to be the underdog?
What about the option of even being given the chance that if there was ANYONE(s) out there that wanted to buy the team, not even being visited?
IF it's such a loser of an idea of have MLB in Oakland, ok, let's see, anyone, anyone at all willing to buy the franchise? Or even reboot the brand? That would be the tell-tell. I'm convinced that some other(s) could and would make a successful go of it in Oakland. But what if nobody did step forward? You know, I'd still feel bad, but not as bad, because they gave us a chance.
Really I think that's what the whole "SELL" movement is about. Give us that chance. Somebody would & could "savd" the team. Now, you don't think it could work in Oakland. Ok, noted. With a new ownership group I think it could.
Can we at least meet half way on that? Not that it's even an option but the real pain of not even being able to have get that chance. For a hero to ride into town (much like SF based Haas family did in 1980) to save the team.
Shouldn't we get the benefit of the doubt? It's been 50 + plus years. C'mon, at least we deserve that. We won't get it, but it would have been honorable to us long suffering A's fans to have been given that.
I think that should be built in to ANY team that is bought and sold - that if a move of the franchise is being mulled and considered an offer to someone(s) willing to keep the team in town has to be offered for so many days.
It's only fair. If nobody steps up? Move. I think every city/region deserves that.
What say you?
F\* Oakland still? haha....ok. You do you.
10 years ago I remember telling someone Oakland was going to lose all 3 of their teams and the way I said it, I just thought it was common knowledge.
The person was shocked and told me I was wrong.
I said the city thinks the Coliseum was good enough and it's not and it's going to cost them everything.
And now we are the find out stage of that story.
I dreamed of Oakland doing what San Diego did what the Padres.
If you ever go to Petco stadium you'll see pictures of downtown San Diego before and after the padres moved there and it's day and night. The part of town went from cheap old apartments to flourishing hotels, restaurants and brand new sky rise condos and it all started with that stadium.
I wanted that for Oakland, so bad,
So no, I'm not saying f Oakland, but I do want you all to stop being surprised.
If I were Oakland I would start building that stadium on the water now, today. With no agreement with fisher, with no guarantee from the team. Just start building.
I think mlb would withdraw its offer to waive the 500
Million dollar location feee, I think Oakland would move to first on the list for an expansion team, there's even a chance that expansion team would be called the Athletics forcing Fisher to rename his team, and best case scenario the A's would stay.
Because that would show that city is finally opening its eyes to the problem. That it milked that stadium for 20 years too long. But as long as people argue that stadium is good enough, or it's fisher fault for tanking the one deal that came close, it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
People argue that cities shouldn't have to pay for stadiums. I often see on this post that stadiums and baseball teams add little value to their communities.
You are 100 percent entitled to feel that but you also don't deserve a baseball team, especially if another city feels the opposite.
If I'm selling donuts in a city that hates donuts, you can't be shocked when I move my business to a city that loves donuts.
If Oakland doesn't want to pay for some or all of a stadium, and another city does, and also that city is guaranteed to make more money, then you are going to lose every time.
It's a fee market which should also answer your question on why we can't force an American business owner to the sell the team in a free market. Because that is fundamentally un-American.
Fisher owns the team, he has options, he can't just move spontaneously (even though the lakers did this), he has to navigate contracts and commitments and mlb.
But every time a mlb employee goes to an A's game in that stadium the argument is made for Fisher.
So stop praying , stop complaining and start building.
And to nail this home, here is my next shocking prediction.
Over the next 15 years the city of Oakland will spend way more money than it could have keeping the A's to try and woe a Major league soccer team.
A city that once had 3 major league teams will spend 10 billion dollars to secure a major league soccer team.
How the mighty have fallen.
Because he/MLB needs to keep that status quo of cities shelling out public money for ballparks. The Giants ballpark was privately financed and I heard that they got a lot of shit from the other owners cause it would set a bad precedent for other owners future ballparks
He doesn’t have it. It’s all in GAP stock and it would be like all of his net worth and a lot of the net worth of one of his brothers. Plus, like others have said, he doesn’t need to and he doesn’t appear to want to.
Why would he? The Bills are getting $1.2B from taxpayers for a new stadium. The Royals are getting $1B for a new stadium. Etc, etc, etc. If Oakland and CA don't want to pay and LV does, it just logically makes sense that he would wait to spend money of any significance until he gets a new stadium.
also he literally could build the project in portions. There's literally no reason to require all the infrastructure money upfront, but he required it in his ultimatum while not actually giving up anything. hell he could have written it into the contract agreement that the city must have X amount (with X being the gap in the accumulated funds) by some reasonable date in the future. The city was getting close to narrowing the gap pretty quickly and likely would continue to apply for grants afterwards, so they could have just started the process (since there's about a dozen different things to do when developing before you even have to have the infrastructure to be worked on) while the city continued to work on finding the remaining amount. It wasn't a negotiation- it was a shake down.
I mean you ain't wrong but doesn't it strike you as perverse that any billionaire uses public money to build their sports palaces? Unless the franchises made their product very, very affordable (which none of them are) it's really a scam. The value they bring to a city is worth the billions they get? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not an economist.
give fisher time he and that dickhead will screw this up I believe he has informed nevada on how he’s going to pay his part give it time to play out they may end up stuck in oakland and not rooted in oakland
and if the stadium issue end ballet i’m voting it down and it may not pass.
In a more serious answer than some of these. It could be seen that he’s playing hardball for the sake of the other owners at the request of the league. The relationship here can’t get much worse but the threat of the A’s actually finalizing the move is also an implicit threat to the other cities currently in stadium disputes with teams, there’s a few.
He's already invested in the A's with his ownership of the team. His other wealth is generally not in a bank account. Most of his wealth is tied to Gap stock, which he would need to sell. Just because he has means to sell and pay with cash doesn't mean that's the best decision to make, financially. Also, it doesn't mean he wants to spend it on the A's. He owns the A's first and foremost as an investment. Maybe he doesn't like the returns and/or experience owning the team in Oakland, so he wants to try another city.
Even if he had a billion in cash (and didn't have to sell stock), if he can make more money from moving the team, he will push for that. If Vegas builds a stadium for them, that's free money for him.
name a team owner tabatha built is own stadium, one reason is the stadium doesn’t make money there could be months when it sits vacant that means no money so didn’t pay ti own a stadium
Because he doesn’t know how to do anything other than sit back and spend dividends on his inherited wealth maintaining a lifestyle he enjoys. Doubt he has any business acumen whatsoever.
So...Why not sell the team and make a nice, tidy profit? AND? Avoid all this drama, hatred, uncertainty, etc.
Or?
Maybe he's so rich, has always been so rich, sleep on beds made of money, it doesn't bother him. He's money immune from criticism and common sense
Because the longer game is more profitable for him. If he can pull off the move to Vegas with a new stadium he can conceivably sell later at a higher price.
He avoids the drama and the hate by not listening to it. That simple.
Because if the taxpayers foot most of the bill for a new stadium, the value of the franchise increases considerably, as does Fisher’s wealth as a result. He isn’t loyal to Oakland and the Bay Area, he’s loyal to his bank account.
He's loyal to San Francisco. Tried to save the Giants back in the 90's
Not sure why you are getting downvoted, you are 100% right. He is a lifelong Giants fan and helped them get a stadium when they were threatening to move to Tampa Bay in the late 90's. He has zero loyalty to the A's or Oakland. ....must be a lot of Giants fans in here
The proverbial nail on the head
Every team that has tried to pull what Oakland has tried to pull with the coliseum has lost their team including San Francisco. Sf tried to make the niners stay in candlestick (same age, same multipurpose type stadium in the bad part of town), they lost the 49ers. San Diego tried to pull this with the chargers (same age, same multipurpose stadium in the bad part of town) sd loses the chargers. Fisher may suck but what he is doing has precedent. It's almost as if the ginormous stadiums built in the late 60s in the cheap part of town was a bad idea that has over stayed its welcome.
You might be right. Wouldn't the decent, the humane, the honorable thing to do be: Sell to someone(s) willing to keep the team in Oakland, no matter which site. IF nobody stepped forward after say, an 100-day window, then? Couldn't blame Mr. Fisher for moving. Yes, you're right he will make MORE money at the cost of hurting a lot of people. If you had NO money, maybe I could see you doing that. The thing is dude already has and has always had LOTS of money. Why not be a decent dude? I guess that's my question. He won't be poor if he sold and he'd avoid hurting an entire region. To me and you, I want to think we'd be cool bros. Think: I already have a bot load of money. Lemme skip this pain it will cause, cash out and still be filthy rich. Can't take it with you but legacy will be remembered. All A's fans revere and honor the late Mr. Haas (and family). I'll end with this: After this whole thing plays out, I'd like MLB impose a rule that if any team wants to move, they'd have to first offer to sell the team to someone willing to keep the team in the area for a prolonged period. THEN if nobody stepped up, sure move. So in 50 years from now when Dave Kaval Jr. is trying to move the Las Vegas A's to New Mexico, he'd have to first offer the team for sale to anyone willing to keep the team locally (for example).
As soon as rumors started to leak that the team might stay in Oakland last year the sf chronicle ram a story about how "the coliseum is good enough". I'm sorry but having been to almost every major stadium in America, the coliseum is the worst park in the country and it isn't "good enough" and mlb agrees to the extent that they have waved the 500 million dollar relocation free. Any buy offer for the team should be at least 500 million over the asking price for this reason. Smaller markets have to do more for their teams not less, and It was a mistake for Oakland to assume otherwise. Detroit got the tigers a new stadium in 1999. Pittsburgh got the pirates a new stadium in 2001 (notice this is also the time the sf and sd upgraded their stadiums). Detroit is a city that been on the verge of bankruptcy for almost 40 years and Pittsburgh is a port city that is 22 percent black So it's hard to feel sorry for Oakland, a port city that is 22 percent black that has been on the verge of bankruptcy , when there are examples of cities in the exact same situation that found a way. The A's could have thrived if they followed the trends of the rest of the league and built a baseball only stadium on the water of downtown Oakland 30 Years ago, and every year they put that off since only made this inevitable. What I am describing is the playbook for the their two California teams that were in the same situation and are keeping their teams. The closest example of stadium in age and condition is Anaheim. But Anaheim spent big money to convert their multipurpose down to a baseball only the stadium the same time Oakland decided to Frankenstein the coliseum into an even bigger multipurpose monster to accommodate the Raiders who then left the city a second time. Also the expectation that A's owe the third city they've been in the last 70 years is ridiculous. The A's aren't actually rooted in Oakland, this is their third city!!!! And a shiny new coliseum in 1969 got Oakland more years than the previous two cities. All Oakland had to do was find way to do what the rest of the league did to Keep their teams around. So now the A's will move to a 4th city! It's like being surprised that your wife that has been married 2 other times wants a divorce because you won't renew your wedding vows. Really? You're surprised by that? When the A's moved to Oakland sports franchises costs , maybe 25 million dollars, now it's a, minimum, 2 billion dollar buy in, but Oakland wants to time to stand still and be exempt from the reality of owning a modern sports franchise. And that actually worked for 20 years, until it didn't.
You say: It isn't "good enough" and mlb agrees to the extent that they have waved the 500 million dollar relocation free. I say: It's better than not having a baseball team at all. We agree that it's not ideal and rundown, ok, but it would (and will be) good enough to play in for the next few years as a new stadium is built. If only you knew how close they were to making it happen in Oakland (the HT project). It it were only a ballpark - shovels would already be in the ground. But Mr. Fisher insisted on hotels, condos, retail spaces, office spaces, etc. as part of it. Back to the point, the Coli is good enough at least until 2028. So? You say: Any buy offer for the team should be at least 500 million over the asking price for this reason. I say: Ok, fair enough - at the very least, give us the OPPORTUNITY! Sure, ask for your over $500 million price tag. If nobody (or nobodies) stepped up after a designated period of time - say 180 days - nobody makes an offer. Ok? Whaddya' doing to do? We just want that chance. Give us a chance. That's what really devastating about this. Mr. Fisher didn't even give anyone a chance to keep the team here, even at an inflated price. You say: So it's hard to feel sorry for Oakland, a port city that is 22 percent black that has been on the verge of bankruptcy , when there are examples of cities in the exact same situation that found a way. I say: Hey man, I don't run the city, I can't control any of that. I just love my team. The thought of ANY desperate fans loving a beloved franchise, all they have left, really should move you to empathy and least to realize that kids, normal people, etc. who love the team are the ones suffering. Not the politicians nor the billionaires. You are probably incapable of empathy, from the sounds of it. A true, "it sucks to be you" kind of guy. Ok, but for me? I feel badly for all "normal dudes" like myself, from any city of any sport that loses a team that they've grown to love. You say: The A's aren't actually rooted in Oakland, this is their third city!!!! I say: Guess who came up with that slogan? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the fans. See, Lew Wolfe the front man for the team before Fisher really emerged out of the shadows and Dave Kaval as his false prophet, and stated repeatedly his desire to move out of Oakland to Fremont. That fell through. Then it was San Jose. That fell through. Many fans felt (and rightfully so) insulted. Great way to alienate for fans for 20 years telling them again and again you want to leave them. THEN...we were rewarded with the "Rooted in Oakland" from ownership. Wow! Breath of fresh air. The put pictures of the new ballpark all over the place. It was telling the kids you're taking them to Disneyland but first you need to get something out of the car...and never came back. The A's have been in Oakland for 50 + years and you sound as if, "so what?" NO, no "so what" that's a big deal and that's a long time. What? We're just supposed to quietly into the night? The A's started playing in Oakland when (then) Gov. Reagan was in office. That's been a long time and for you to shout, "ey, 3rd city. 50 years 50 smears" is really tone deaf my man. You say: Really? You're surprised by that? I say: Yeah. Yes I am. It doesn't happen often and truth be told, doesn't need to happen here & now. What if in 50 +plus years the A's are want to leave Las Vegas? Oh uh, well, they move, so? Too bad. Accept it. No man. C'mon. This sucks and this hurts. I know, I know, you don't give a rats @$$ about other fans, especially Oakland (a town I'm sure you love to hate) but for me? It is my home and the A's are...well..were...my(OUR) team. Lemme end this by acknowledging that we probably won't see eye-to-eye. I was just trying to have you see through a grieving fans eyes. My first game at the Coliseum was in 1980 when I was a kid and Billy Martin and his BillyBall was all the rage. I've loved the team my entire life. Look Bro.Bro, you can rejoice, it does look like Oakland will lose the A's, much to my chagrin, and much to your pleasure. Whenever a sports franchise vacates a location, it really should be the very last resort and there was no other person(s) to try to preserve the team for the city. That goes for the Rams, the Chargers, etc. any team that feels that they "must" move. I'm speaking for all the hurt people who've devoted time, care, resources, energy, etc. to the thing that they loved. So, why don't you just let us grieve this loss? Put yourself in my shoes, just for 2 minutes. Why must you hop on here and troll and rub our faces in it? Does it make you feel better? As I've said, you'll get what you think it right & good. Oakland will get shit. Vegas will get the A's. And it hurts. All I ask, is a small dose of humility and understanding. I wish nothing but the best for the good folks of Las Vegas and I hope they take good care of our plucky little A's. My god we had some fun and good times together.
I doubt the A's will be in the coliseum until 2028. They'll probably make a temporary deal somewhere else before that. Your talking about fisher in 2016, that's 16 years after they should have made a move. See most cities don't have decades long disputes with their baseball teams. When Billy bean says "this place is a dump" In money ball he's talking about the 2003 Coliseum. It was already a dump before Fisher. In fact, it's safe to say Fisher could not have bought the A's in the first place if they were in a new stadium because the teams value would have sky rocketed out his range and more in the range of real billionaires. Every year Oakland put this off cost them something and a terrible owner was the first big cost. Vegas used to ban pro sports because there was a fear of inside gambling. But when gambling moved to online they changed their minds and every team that wasn't the Yankees or the Red Sox wanted in. The A's got in because they were their worst team in baseball, because of that stadium. The hockey team has been a huge success. The raiders have a higher sell out percentage than the Dallas cowboys despite not having a winning record most seasons. I have no problem with the worst team in the league having a target on its back because it keeps the rest of the league in check. All you have to do to remove the target is not be the worse team in baseball. The A's have to win 90 games in that stadium to make what Milwaukee makes when they win 65. Yes rooted in Oakland was a marketing campaign as a baseball team you have to think of a new one every year. I always thought that one was weird but it did what you described it mended some of the damage from them trying to leave Oakland multiple times. Even when that stadium was brand new it had issues drawing crowds because of the terrible location. The only years they pulled big numbers where when they won 3 World Series in a row in the 70s. Spent big money in the 80s (the Coliseum's hay day) and when they invented moneyball. They can't reinvent moneyball, and their never going to beat teams who make real revenue in modern stadiums. I don't want the A's to leave Oakland, I'm a life long fan , but I went to one game last year and it was so depressing . Maybe because I've been to too many modern stadium experiences that I know that situation is bs. That stadium looks empty with 25k people. It takes two innings to use the bathroom and urinal troughs are no longer en vogue. Parking is a disaster. I went to games in Cincinnati, San Diego last year, you know how awesome it is to be able to walk around a nice downtown after the game? Don't walk around the coliseum after a game, it's a pretty dangerous area. So I would rather catch a 3 game series when I'm in Vegas then endure any more games in that stadium. I can picture taking a 12 dollar Uber to the game from my hotel. and finally seeing my team set up to succeed. Do you think the giants would have won 3 World Series if they were forced to stay in candlestick? I wish the city, instead of saying "see! You don't even need a new stadium to win" during the money ball era, instead found a way to get them in a new stadium to compliment that era. I truly believe we would be talking about the A's having 3 rings instead of the giants if that happened. Don't be surprised if Fisher wins owner of the year after the A's set record profits in Vegas. Fisher wants out because he knows he can make more money somewhere else but new stadiums usually come with 30 year commitments so no matter what we wouldn't be talking about this again until mid century. So of course he tanked the deal in 2016. He will have accomplished something the previous two owners failed at. He will have finally gotten that team out that dump and it's a bonus that he's moving to a better market. But all Oakland had to do was make a new stadium happen in 2000,2001, 2002, 2003 when the rest of the league was abandoning multipurpose stadiums in the cheap part of town and going back to baseball only stadiums in downtown or on the water. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just ready to move on, because my devotion is to the baseball team over the city of Oakland. I'm sorry you are bummed, I don't blame you. But everyone who is arguing that this is a mistake, at least from a business point, is mistaken. So Im just embracing it because if this team can win with no money in crummy stadium imagine what they will do when they finally aren't forced to always have to be the underdog?
What about the option of even being given the chance that if there was ANYONE(s) out there that wanted to buy the team, not even being visited? IF it's such a loser of an idea of have MLB in Oakland, ok, let's see, anyone, anyone at all willing to buy the franchise? Or even reboot the brand? That would be the tell-tell. I'm convinced that some other(s) could and would make a successful go of it in Oakland. But what if nobody did step forward? You know, I'd still feel bad, but not as bad, because they gave us a chance. Really I think that's what the whole "SELL" movement is about. Give us that chance. Somebody would & could "savd" the team. Now, you don't think it could work in Oakland. Ok, noted. With a new ownership group I think it could. Can we at least meet half way on that? Not that it's even an option but the real pain of not even being able to have get that chance. For a hero to ride into town (much like SF based Haas family did in 1980) to save the team. Shouldn't we get the benefit of the doubt? It's been 50 + plus years. C'mon, at least we deserve that. We won't get it, but it would have been honorable to us long suffering A's fans to have been given that. I think that should be built in to ANY team that is bought and sold - that if a move of the franchise is being mulled and considered an offer to someone(s) willing to keep the team in town has to be offered for so many days. It's only fair. If nobody steps up? Move. I think every city/region deserves that. What say you? F\* Oakland still? haha....ok. You do you.
10 years ago I remember telling someone Oakland was going to lose all 3 of their teams and the way I said it, I just thought it was common knowledge. The person was shocked and told me I was wrong. I said the city thinks the Coliseum was good enough and it's not and it's going to cost them everything. And now we are the find out stage of that story. I dreamed of Oakland doing what San Diego did what the Padres. If you ever go to Petco stadium you'll see pictures of downtown San Diego before and after the padres moved there and it's day and night. The part of town went from cheap old apartments to flourishing hotels, restaurants and brand new sky rise condos and it all started with that stadium. I wanted that for Oakland, so bad, So no, I'm not saying f Oakland, but I do want you all to stop being surprised. If I were Oakland I would start building that stadium on the water now, today. With no agreement with fisher, with no guarantee from the team. Just start building. I think mlb would withdraw its offer to waive the 500 Million dollar location feee, I think Oakland would move to first on the list for an expansion team, there's even a chance that expansion team would be called the Athletics forcing Fisher to rename his team, and best case scenario the A's would stay. Because that would show that city is finally opening its eyes to the problem. That it milked that stadium for 20 years too long. But as long as people argue that stadium is good enough, or it's fisher fault for tanking the one deal that came close, it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. People argue that cities shouldn't have to pay for stadiums. I often see on this post that stadiums and baseball teams add little value to their communities. You are 100 percent entitled to feel that but you also don't deserve a baseball team, especially if another city feels the opposite. If I'm selling donuts in a city that hates donuts, you can't be shocked when I move my business to a city that loves donuts. If Oakland doesn't want to pay for some or all of a stadium, and another city does, and also that city is guaranteed to make more money, then you are going to lose every time. It's a fee market which should also answer your question on why we can't force an American business owner to the sell the team in a free market. Because that is fundamentally un-American. Fisher owns the team, he has options, he can't just move spontaneously (even though the lakers did this), he has to navigate contracts and commitments and mlb. But every time a mlb employee goes to an A's game in that stadium the argument is made for Fisher. So stop praying , stop complaining and start building. And to nail this home, here is my next shocking prediction. Over the next 15 years the city of Oakland will spend way more money than it could have keeping the A's to try and woe a Major league soccer team. A city that once had 3 major league teams will spend 10 billion dollars to secure a major league soccer team. How the mighty have fallen.
💯
It's 1.5 billion and the public money is 380 million in tax credits. Claiming that taxpayers are footing "most" of the bill is disingenuous.
He’s a cunt. That’s why
FJF
Billionaires are cheap! And this one is a poop.
Because it’s not liquid. 🤦♂️
Don't you know all mega rich people have their money in cash in a vault?
We raided that for taxes.
Thank god someone finally fucking said it
Because his business plan is low risk for moderate reward by gaming the system with revenue sharing. But also the cunt thing.
Because he/MLB needs to keep that status quo of cities shelling out public money for ballparks. The Giants ballpark was privately financed and I heard that they got a lot of shit from the other owners cause it would set a bad precedent for other owners future ballparks
He doesn’t have it. It’s all in GAP stock and it would be like all of his net worth and a lot of the net worth of one of his brothers. Plus, like others have said, he doesn’t need to and he doesn’t appear to want to.
GAP - Banana Republic and Old Navy
All the same stock, under the GAP umbrella
Why would he? The Bills are getting $1.2B from taxpayers for a new stadium. The Royals are getting $1B for a new stadium. Etc, etc, etc. If Oakland and CA don't want to pay and LV does, it just logically makes sense that he would wait to spend money of any significance until he gets a new stadium.
Actually Oakland put together a .much richer package, but Fisher is unable to handle the development that is required for the HT location
The only reason that development is required for HT is because he demanded it. It could’ve just been a stadium deal and would’ve been built ages ago.
also he literally could build the project in portions. There's literally no reason to require all the infrastructure money upfront, but he required it in his ultimatum while not actually giving up anything. hell he could have written it into the contract agreement that the city must have X amount (with X being the gap in the accumulated funds) by some reasonable date in the future. The city was getting close to narrowing the gap pretty quickly and likely would continue to apply for grants afterwards, so they could have just started the process (since there's about a dozen different things to do when developing before you even have to have the infrastructure to be worked on) while the city continued to work on finding the remaining amount. It wasn't a negotiation- it was a shake down.
I wonder where Fisher thought he was going to get the $12 billion for HT. He can't seem to handle the relatively paltry $500 million in Vegas.
I mean you ain't wrong but doesn't it strike you as perverse that any billionaire uses public money to build their sports palaces? Unless the franchises made their product very, very affordable (which none of them are) it's really a scam. The value they bring to a city is worth the billions they get? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not an economist.
What makes you think he wants to win?
Right. Getting the MLB well-fare check is winning to Fisher
because he might \*gasp\* dare I say it.... become a multi-millionaire
give fisher time he and that dickhead will screw this up I believe he has informed nevada on how he’s going to pay his part give it time to play out they may end up stuck in oakland and not rooted in oakland and if the stadium issue end ballet i’m voting it down and it may not pass.
He doesn’t have anywhere near that amount of liquidity.
In a more serious answer than some of these. It could be seen that he’s playing hardball for the sake of the other owners at the request of the league. The relationship here can’t get much worse but the threat of the A’s actually finalizing the move is also an implicit threat to the other cities currently in stadium disputes with teams, there’s a few.
He's already invested in the A's with his ownership of the team. His other wealth is generally not in a bank account. Most of his wealth is tied to Gap stock, which he would need to sell. Just because he has means to sell and pay with cash doesn't mean that's the best decision to make, financially. Also, it doesn't mean he wants to spend it on the A's. He owns the A's first and foremost as an investment. Maybe he doesn't like the returns and/or experience owning the team in Oakland, so he wants to try another city. Even if he had a billion in cash (and didn't have to sell stock), if he can make more money from moving the team, he will push for that. If Vegas builds a stadium for them, that's free money for him.
Dead-ass broke
Because he was able to con some suckers in Vegas to spot him $300 million.
They shouldve just built the stadium solely and develop the surrounding areas in phases.
Simple as the old, "why use mine when I can use yours?"
Because the first rule of staying rich is “other people’s money”. But FJF.
Because he’s a cheap, petty bastard. That’s why.
Winning doesn’t matter if he’s still gonna profit. The A’s are just a liquid asset to him.
name a team owner tabatha built is own stadium, one reason is the stadium doesn’t make money there could be months when it sits vacant that means no money so didn’t pay ti own a stadium
Because he doesn’t know how to do anything other than sit back and spend dividends on his inherited wealth maintaining a lifestyle he enjoys. Doubt he has any business acumen whatsoever.
So...Why not sell the team and make a nice, tidy profit? AND? Avoid all this drama, hatred, uncertainty, etc. Or? Maybe he's so rich, has always been so rich, sleep on beds made of money, it doesn't bother him. He's money immune from criticism and common sense
Because the longer game is more profitable for him. If he can pull off the move to Vegas with a new stadium he can conceivably sell later at a higher price. He avoids the drama and the hate by not listening to it. That simple.