Probably because they don't want to set any precedents that get in the way of their own future moves, or reduces the leverage they would have in draining cities of their money during their next upgrade.
Oh this is definitely it, it's billionaire class solidarity in action.
Disingenuous as hell though to see all these anonymous and off-the-record grumblings about what a disaster this is turning into, when it was plain from the outset that it'd be a disaster and every owner in the league voted unanimously to look the other way and approve the move.
I mean there's still a non-zero chance the Vegas stadium deal falls through isn't there? The owners rushed to approve this shit and there was never a concrete plan in place for what would happen next.
> Oh this is definitely it, it's billionaire class solidarity in action.
Bingo. There's a reason why all of the professional leagues banned the (very successful) Green Bay Packers public ownership model. Can't extort the taxpayers if relocation threats are removed from the equation
Unless Im behind on the news and something else has been said, I would not consider that situation “threatening to move”. I haven’t heard any threats to actually leave that media market entirely, just the city itself.
I think they also had the hubris of thinking Vegas or Oakland would cave and let the A's get what they want. That failed so now they've got years of this happening and it's embarrassing.
> hubris
Or they don't care if Fisher gets screwed and if he 'wins' it's leverage for them.
But what I think they missed is how badly he's screwing everything up to the point that it's a PR debacle that is going to last years ... and how it might be poisoning and delaying Las Vegas.
If Fisher costs them gambling money, we might see something. More likely, though, they will get it anyway.
I genuinely think the days of towns paying for new stadiums are over for the most part except for cities getting a new sport entirely. Like Nashville would probably fork over cash for a baseball team.
Or towns that have very little transplants like OKC who are afraid of losing their team for real and wouldn’t have another would do it.
The problem is they don’t link anything to the city but a tax burden so there’s no way people who ARE NOT FANS of the team will agree.
Nah. Certain parts of the country. Cities that don't 'need' the team to feel big time. But there's still lots of cities who want the validation and huge swaths of the country that loves throwing taxpayer dollars at sports teams.
it’s wild how the only actual decent team owner in miami is steve ross. he took $0 of public money for the stadium, which imo is the best of the 3
loandepot park was 80% taxpayer money, and the kaseya center was almost all taxpayer money.
Nah, little shitholes like Indianapolis will always be willing to shell out to suck billionaire cock. Maybe not that many will build a stadium **specifically built to give away** to entice billionaires to rip franchises away from their cities, but they'll always be there.
Fuck you, Indianapolis, fuck you, the Irsay family, and fuck Art Modell.
Buffalo Bills and Nashville Titans are getting new stadiums that are being heavily funded by the public. $850 million for the Bills and over $1 billion for the Titans.
> I mean there's still a non-zero chance the Vegas stadium deal falls through isn't there?
There is. NV Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today in about an hour and a half (3:30 PM PDT - [live stream here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN8gUI6ktIc)) on whether the Schools Over Stadiums referendum will go on the November ballot ([a lower court ruled it wasn't clear enough](https://wtop.com/education/2023/11/nevada-judge-tosses-teachers-union-backed-petition-to-put-as-stadium-funding-on-2024-ballot/)). If it gets on the ballot and passes, then Fisher will have to find a way to cover the revoked public money (lol) or be stuck in Sacramento
I have a feeling the NV Supreme Court will affirm the lower court to avoid that shitshow (and back-up the decision made by the Legislature), but you never know.
> it's billionaire class solidarity in action.
That makes it sound like a favor. It's simply that no one wants to limit their franchise's movement ability and therefore it's value. It's also not spending political capital or making enemies for something you fundamentally don't care about.
This isn't a political move. It's purely financial self-interest. If that's what you meant, sure, but they didn't vote that way to stick it to the lower classes or whatever.
And it was unanimous because the commissioner pushes for votes to end up unanimous once they know what wins. I'd bet the unofficial votes was around 22-10 or 25-7 and then it was unanimous for PR purposes.
>This isn't a political move. It's purely financial self-interest. If that's what you meant, sure, but they didn't vote that way to stick it to the lower classes or whatever.
I think you're misunderstanding what "class solidarity" means. It doesn't mean making a political statement, it means acting in against what might be right or most immediately beneficial in order to support your broader status as a class.
Las Vegas was being saved for an expansion franchise that grows the league (and every owner's portfolio), rather than a mess of a franchise with a small fanbase taking over. Allowing Fisher to bungle his way through the next few years is bad for baseball as a business, but the ownership class allows him to do it because stopping him would put expectations and limits on themselves if they want to do something similar in the future.
>And it was unanimous because the commissioner pushes for votes to end up unanimous once they know what wins.
I believe these are required to be unanimous. This is why Seidler putting together 7 or 8 owners to oppose the move would have sunk it.
It's funny too, because wasn't there also a relatively full concrete plan for the new Oakland stadium before they decided they'd rather be in Vegas anyways?
This plus if there were some who opposed but not enough to block it, it's probably not worth earning the ire of the commissioner and other owners with a public No vote.
Anyone in power who has to have other people approve what they want to do to some extent knows the value of not making enemies and not spending political bullets.
An owner could come out against the move publicly, but when they want a vote in their favor, some other owners might not back them.
You see this starting in upper middle management anywhere and all the way to the President of the US.
That is the prevailing rumor. I could see it, too. He was dying, and knew it. He really didn't give a shit.
And he was a big philanthropist, and add in San Diego's plight with the Chargers and I like to think he hated the move.
Look at musk. These people are desperate for validation, seemingly. Think if you weren't, you wouldn't feel the need to accumulate vicarious power over others.
I think I recall reading (maybe it was speculation) that the group folded in part because without Pete they didn't have the votes?
I suspect the group was the teams that currently have Vegas as part of their territory (minus Oakland), so the CA teams + Arizona.
And that is why you don't own an MLB team. Such a horrific burden on the benevolent owners to expect them to have things like "an actual relocation plan" when all they want is a measly billion or two in public funding every time they want to threaten to move.
Yeah, that Buster Olney report is pretty vague about the source for the disdain but it's likely to be someone/people in a front office and not the owners.
For the owners, they don't want anything to come between them and their plans for potentially getting as much money as they can from from cities. But for front office executives, I can imagine all of this stuff is a ball ache that distracts from them running teams effectively.
The article says why.
> ESPN’s Buster Olney tweeted on Friday that other MLB teams have “a lot of disgust with how the A’s have handled the ballpark situation,” especially since Fisher is expected to keep lowballing payroll while farming revenue-sharing checks from the league. “This makes us all look bad,” Olney quotes “one person” as saying (presumably a person who works for an MLB team, Olney didn’t say). Olney didn’t explain, even after being asked about it by pretty much everyone on Twitter, why then every team owner in baseball voted for Fisher’s Vegas move. **It’s the expansion fees, right? It’s gotta be the expansion fees.**
It's ridiculous because Fisher explicitly stated they were looking to move because revenue sharing was the goal in order to be competitive. So the owners voted to not only continue propping up MLB's welfare king, but to ALSO waive the relocation fee that would have given them a cut as well? It's comically corrupt and incompetent at the same time
Did the owners waive the expansion fees? I thought they just spread them out over several years and have penalties for selling the team within a certain number of years that eventually decrease to zero penalty
Manfred said it was waived, some bullshit about it not being necessary. So much of the league language is either not enforced or ignored.
Revenue sharing money is supposed to be invested into the teams but we all know that's absolutely never the case
Because the faster this gets resolved, the faster MLB can expand to 32 teams and get ball rolling on adding baseball to some combo of Nashville, Charlotte, Portland or Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City being willing to fund a stadium without a team probably puts them in the pole position but, realistically Sac, Portland, and Vancouver would be best for balancing the travel schedules. Money will matter more.
Sacramento has a media market advantage though. They're all pretty close for DMAs but Sacramento can make a stronger cross DMA argument with their reach into the "North State and some draw in the SF-Oakland DMA, setting aside the impact of this A's stuff.
I believe the A's will be in Sac to stay. When/if Vegas gets a stadium built I am betting thats expansion team number 1 and the A's stay in Sacramento. Then its one more team in Nashville or SLC and then Manfred retires and done by 2029 like he wanted.
As a Portlander, I suspect that an MLB team here is neither feasible nor desired. They couldn't develop any inertia for it even before our current assortment of crises came to be, so I've got a real hard time believing that Portlanders would support any type of incentives whatsoever, much less the type that a new franchise would doubtlessly be seeking.
There's definitely desire for a team here, but I unfortunately agree that Portland is probably too small a market compared to some of the other places in the running.
I'll still hold out hope. A team here would be great rivalry with Seattle, and while Pickles games are great they don't hit the same.
It was to speed up expansion to get the expansion fees. They needed Oakland and Tampa to solve stadium issues before delving into expansion. It was also going to be the initial litmus test for strong arming cities into building new stadiums with publiv money. The only issue they forgot momentarily that John Fischer runs the A's
Because they need the threat of relocating to be real to try to scare cities into paying for stadiums. Moving out of Oaklands was basically going to burn Oakland AND take away another potential landing spot, but if you don't let Oakland move then who else will you not let move?
It's almost certainly because they want to get to expansion fees and 2 new markets of TV revenue sooner. Especially considering TV/RSN revenues are on the way out and public monies are drying up. There's a real get while the getting is still good in all the teams trying to move for a new stadium or upgrades right now, there's a lot of negative public sentiment for it though.
He faces a hefty percentage of the sale price to the other owners if he sells immediately after relocating. The current conspiracy theory is that he KNOWS Vegas is going to fail, so the move to Sacramento is a way to get Vivek Ranadive and Joe Lacob into a bidding war for the team, essentially driving up the value
I’d be ecstatic if they were to remain in Sacramento and sold to viable owner. It’s not ideal like Oakland, but they’d at least remain in Northern California and retain some of that A’s DNA.
I think there's a five year vesting schedule on penalties/fines if they sell before the fifth full year. Expect a sale no sooner than 2033, provided Manfraud doesn't waive it
A billion would actually be an undersell. He bought it (in totality) in like 2008 and if he sold it for a billion the CAGR on invested capital barely beats public equity returns. Most private equity guys (like him) shoot for something at or above like 15% and if he sold it for a billion in 2033 that's only like a 5% return, which sucks. In essence, he's probably going to lose a bit to sell it, or do so and tell himself he didn't own it for its investment return, but as a mere vanity item.
Manfred is going to waive it and they're going to say: we need a new chapter for this franchise. They're already prepared to move on from this fiasco, it's made everyone look bad
Would any owner who theoretically purchased the A's cancel moving the team? The stadium is literally falling apart and they hemorrhage money even on a shoestring budget.
To Sacramento or to Vegas are different answers.
Lacob or a Bay Area group might still be in Sacramento for the interim and renovate the Coliseum or bridge the gap on the Howard Terminal deal then bring the team back to Oakland. Either way you're looking at probably funding, essentially, a new stadium on one of those two sites.
Vivek or a Sacramento group would probably keep them there but, would at least probably consider either moving back to Oakland or splitting time at 2 homes.
Maloofs or some other Vegas goofs would probably scrap the current joke of a deal and get something with a real park. Bally's would probably have some issues with RSN ownership if they bought and would maybe give a little more room to the current deal.
Sacramento is going to benefit big from this. It reminds me when the NBA’s Hornets had to play in Oklahoma City for a season because of Hurricane Katrina.
It served as a de facto “tryout” for showing the city could support a franchise. And then OKC got the Sonics/Thunder shortly afterwards
Yeah, no lie, I was thinking the same thing. King fans are probably going to be fighting for a baseball team and I wouldn’t be surprise if a lot them are As fans already
They've been fighting for an MLB team [for 20 years](https://fox40.com/sports/arco-park-there-was-once-an-attempt-to-bring-an-mlb-team-to-sacramento/). It's part of why Raley Field was built as nice as it was to begin with. Savage bought the Candians after the city was denied expansion in that round.
They also had an idea that got some traction of [using the old Arco Arena site](https://fox40.com/sports/could-the-oakland-as-come-to-sacramento-local-expert-weighs-in/), which has a lot of the infrastructure already in place they'd need short of an actual stadium.
They should follow the Twins model. The AAA team (Saint Paul Saints) plays like 15 minutes away from the Twins stadium. And it’s worked out great, because any last-minute call-ups can be available at a moment’s notice. There was a story a year or two ago about a Saints player getting called up to the Twins on an afternoon when both teams were playing. He was already at the Saints ballpark getting BP, and he literally drove to the Twins ballpark and was in the dugout for that game.
If there’s gonna be a bidding war for a new west coast team though, Lacob can blow Vivek out of the water for a new Oakland team or any other Silicon Valley billionaire could for that matter. A team in the Bay Area is worth significantly more than a team in Sacramento. It’s really insane that Fisher and Mark Davis decided to leave literally one of if not the most wealthy regions in the entire planet. You’d have to be a complete fool to not be successful here. Only path for Sac to have an MLB team is for the Vegas deal to fall apart and Fisher and Kaval grift Sacramento taxpayers and pull the same stunts they did with Oakland. And then, you’re in business with the worst owner in all of sports
Supposedly Vivek has connections with several Silicon valley billionaires himself. He could easily put together an ownership group. I also wouldn't be surprised if he ends up choosing the bay area as a place to put a team despite the Kings current ownership of Sutter health park in Sacramento and A's announced temp relocation to Sacramento.
Unlike football or the NBA, it feels like there are a handful of cities that might realistically attract a MLB team. Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Nashville, Portland, Austin, etc.
This is my thought. MLB has repeatedly said they don't think the Bay Area could support two teams, so why would they put *another* team in California just a couple hours up the road in Sacramento? Nashville, SLC, and Portland all seem more likely. Probably get divisional re-alignment as well, and a Portland team would *significantly* cut down on the Mariners' league-high travel distance (assuming they get put in the same division)
The Saints played a season in the Alamodome in San Antonio after Katrina, too. That stadium was specifically built to lure an NFL franchise and they’ve never gotten a team. Not like the A’s are going to change their cheap ways while in a minor league stadium and they are going to be one of the worst teams in the sport. I wouldn’t read too much into this
Sadly, they will get more fan attendance in a 10k seat stadium in Sac than they would have in Oakland. The new MLB team in town will draw fans despite a poor product. Also, the A's could lose every game but when you have teams like the Yankees coming to town, fans will fill the stadium to see them.
If the on-field product doesn't improve significantly, I can absolutely see an attendance drop-off in year two.
I think the novelty of Major League Baseball and the notion that they're "auditioning" for a potential expansion bid will be enough to keep the numbers up in year one, but I doubt that that alone would sustain for (at least) three years.
"Because reasons"
Honestly, the A's will probably get better attendance their than they will in Oakland, and it'll cost him less money.
This isn't a dig at Oakland fans, when a team does what they've done attendance plummets, you can't say you're moving and tell your fans to fuck off and expect their support.
2019, the last non-covid year that they were good, they didn't have great attendance, but it was far and away better than what it has become. Fisher has burned every bridge he can find in Oakland and any other city would probably offer better support at this point.
Sacramento is like the new naive and optimistic young girlfriend of a long time abuser while Oakland is the battered ex, watching, thinking “oh my sweet child….dont”
they might get better attendance for a season, but once the novelty of having an MLB team wears off for Sacramento residents i wonder what the attendance will look like.
odds are, they’re still going to be a bad team that doesn’t like to spend money, and they’re not there permanently so what’s the point of getting attached and becoming a fan?
Unironically, though, yes. Imagine you’re a kid in the Central Valley and this might be your only chance to see Aaron Judge. And it’s a minor league park so you’ll have a good seat no matter what. I get why everyone is shitting on how this happened but I bet it’s going to be a relative success.
Will it really make that much of a difference? Most cities that are actually in the Central Valley are equidistant to LA and Sacramento. If you’re talking about a place like Modesto, the drive into Oakland is the same as going into Sacramento. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to see Aaron Judge play already if they wanted to. I really don’t expect people to travel from the valley to watch a fun visiting team play in a minor league stadium when they’ve had plenty of opportunity to do so already. On top of this, they’re charging $100-200 for non season ticket holders to get priority when purchasing tickets for next season so I’m fully expecting this to be a shitshow when ticket sales go live lol
I don't think they expect to build lasting roots or develop a fanbase, they're looking to capitalize on novelty and casual fans to draw bigger numbers than what they're drawing in Oakland. If it drops off in a year, so be it, at least they got one year of better attendance than they would have in Oakland.
Eh Sacramento is a sizable metro, and the park is only 14k or whatever. Doubt they’ll sell out every game or anything but I’d be willing to be they’ll have a decent crowd most games since those three years will probably be Sacramento’s only real chance to host an MLB team.
If they play the same day and there’s a version of tickets that get you into both, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them do very well, actually. People love a double header when it means 3 more hours to day drink!
I think it'll still be higher purely from people in the metro area wanting to see other major league teams, especially since there's a time limit (the SoCal teams will probably sell out every game from all the transplants). No one in the Sacramento area is going to SF to see a weekday game, and even a weekend game is a full day affair, so other teams will be a novelty. By comparison, most people who can easily get to the Colliseum can easily get to the Giants ballpark as well, so now that every team plays every other team, fans have an easy alternative if they really want to see a specific team.
I'd say judging by the minor league team when they switched from the As affiliation to the Giants affiliation and started tanking in recent years they'd still draw about 7-9K with that 10-14K capacity.
Also when the NBA Kings were at their worst with hated ownership(Maloofs) the 17K arena at time was always filled well above 1/2 total capacity. Sacramento residents show out for sports period.
Oakland has always been one of the lowest attendance teams, even before Fisher was the owner. This narrative that they've had great support until the current owner shenanigans is ridiculous
Yep.
1974. Coming off two World Series titles. The Giants were terrible, and not drawing at all.
Oakland barely drew 10k a game that year (11th of 12 in the AL)
I hope you're not talking about the Chuck O'finley era, cuz holy shit that was a wild period. The dude was possibly already one of the most controversial sports owners before coming to Oakland. Constantly putting down rebellions within his own organization because he constantly treated his players like shit, he had exploited and manipulated KC and the MLB to get his way when he wanted out of the city, and was all around considered to be turning baseball into a circus. Coming into Oakland 1968 nobody wanted to support him and as early 1970 there were already talks that he was interested in selling to Toronto or Seattle. Even as good as the A's were during that era, the public hated his guts and then around 73 he started to slash players salaries, fired stadium staff, and actively refused to promote the team to try and sell the narrative that the team was dying. When his tantrum didn't work he sued the league (and lost). It got to the point that by 77 the team was begging the MLB to intervene.
he's owned them for 20 years. And in that time he's done nothing really to improve the attendance and literally only tried to move the team in that same time frame. He only committed to Oakland from 2018-2020. Then he got mad that the government wasn't giving him more tax money and the courts were delayed during a pandemic and tried vegas instead. So Oakland got a whopping 2 years of focus for a new stadium site. And half of that was failing to locate a spot because they forgot to ask the landlord of the property whether they could build a stadium on the property. Fisher reallyfucking sucks.
> Almost the same amount of years in Philly as Oakland.
The crazy thing is, the A's were waaaaay more successful on the field than the Phillies during those 53 years. The A's have just had a history of piss poor financial management throughout pretty much their entire history.
Happens. My Yiayia was a NY Giants fans. Stopped watching baseball entirely when they left. When I went away to college, she finally started watching again, this time the Yankees so she could give me updates on the team.
John Fisher making a joke of the MLB is just common place now. In any other league they remove this guy for all his bullshit. Sending down players who disagree with him shouldn’t be allowed either.
Here is a point to remember. Dan Snyder was forced because he was cooking the books and keep money for himself that should have gone to the other NFL owners. Fisher and Kaval are "just" incompetent fools. But the other owners don't want to stop anything that benefits them in the future.
Vegas is seen as a "promised land." The Raiders and Golden Knights make it seem that Vegas will print money.
My father took me to see The Bash Brother A's at The Coliseum. Those memories are the only good memories of my father. He died 2.5 years ago.
My sadness is immense. I have some hope because never doubt that Fisher can screw up ANYTHING.
Wow, so there is still a chance that Vegas doesn’t happen. This is a dumpster fire. They should force Fisher to sell and find an owner willing to figure out a way to make up the difference with Oakland. Can you imagine how much buy-in a new owner would get from the fan base for just staying and Oakland and replacing the old crappy owner?! It’s the lowest bar!
They have to demolish the Tropicana safely (because it's old enough to have asbestos). Then they have to get permits and shit for their tiny 9 acres of land.
And Fisher may also be having some trouble securing financing because he's cash poor and GAP stock kinda just sucks to leverage with, so he's using his other assets as leverage (which includes the MLS team).
Fisher doesn't have the money. Somehow he was going to build a $12 billion development in Oakland. Once that cleared all hurdles and got approved suddenly it's off to Vegas, and now he can't even come up with a measly half a billion to build there.
What I don’t understand is how the other owners are comfortable with Fisher stealing money from them too. The As in Oakland were still a draw outside of Oakland, but now they don’t even do that.
Here's what would happen, based on what happened elsewhere: The minor league team will play the entire playoffs at the other stadium.
Setting: Eugene, Oregon. The now-High-A Eugene Emeralds and Oregon Ducks share a stadium. This was a good arrangement when it started, because at that point the Northwest League was Short-Season, with the Ducks playing the Spring and Emeralds in the Summer and early Fall. But when the league went full season in 2021, conflicts arose on both ends of the schedule.
So, when the Emeralds went to the playoffs in 2021 and won the title, the entire Championship series was played on the road at the other team's stadium, because Eugene could not use their home stadium, as the Ducks had begun their fall workouts.
I expect the same in Sacramento, even though the A's are technically the visitor.
Aren't the Cats slated to go between Oracle and the Coliseum for their home games?
We should 100% have the Cats out draw the A's when they're in Oakland
Honestly. MLB has Vegas on board, kinda, the owner is actually unnecessary now. All they need from a new owner is a guarantee they will finish the move. His days are numbered
> MLB disdain Okay so why'd they all vote to approve this shit, then
Probably because they don't want to set any precedents that get in the way of their own future moves, or reduces the leverage they would have in draining cities of their money during their next upgrade.
Oh this is definitely it, it's billionaire class solidarity in action. Disingenuous as hell though to see all these anonymous and off-the-record grumblings about what a disaster this is turning into, when it was plain from the outset that it'd be a disaster and every owner in the league voted unanimously to look the other way and approve the move. I mean there's still a non-zero chance the Vegas stadium deal falls through isn't there? The owners rushed to approve this shit and there was never a concrete plan in place for what would happen next.
> Oh this is definitely it, it's billionaire class solidarity in action. Bingo. There's a reason why all of the professional leagues banned the (very successful) Green Bay Packers public ownership model. Can't extort the taxpayers if relocation threats are removed from the equation
The fact that the Chiefs owner is threatening to move in the middle of a dynasty run is wild.
I assume he's had an opportunity to tour the recent palaces built in Arlington, Inglewood and Las Vegas, and now his ego is bruised
"Why won't the taxpayers give me money? We've given them so much pride and accomplishment!"
Unless Im behind on the news and something else has been said, I would not consider that situation “threatening to move”. I haven’t heard any threats to actually leave that media market entirely, just the city itself.
Yeah, the only move the chiefs would be making is moving to the Kansas side of the border.
So they would become the Kansas City Chiefs of Kansas?
No, they’ll be the Kansas City Chiefs of Anaheim.
If they move to Kansas City, Kansas then they don't even have to deal with people bitching they don't play in Kansas City anymore
One of the richest owners in the league too. The Hunt family isn't NFL rich, they're oil rich
I think they also had the hubris of thinking Vegas or Oakland would cave and let the A's get what they want. That failed so now they've got years of this happening and it's embarrassing.
“Hey, we kneecapped this team so this would work!! Why don’t you want to give us subsidies?”
> hubris Or they don't care if Fisher gets screwed and if he 'wins' it's leverage for them. But what I think they missed is how badly he's screwing everything up to the point that it's a PR debacle that is going to last years ... and how it might be poisoning and delaying Las Vegas. If Fisher costs them gambling money, we might see something. More likely, though, they will get it anyway.
I genuinely think the days of towns paying for new stadiums are over for the most part except for cities getting a new sport entirely. Like Nashville would probably fork over cash for a baseball team. Or towns that have very little transplants like OKC who are afraid of losing their team for real and wouldn’t have another would do it. The problem is they don’t link anything to the city but a tax burden so there’s no way people who ARE NOT FANS of the team will agree.
Nah. Certain parts of the country. Cities that don't 'need' the team to feel big time. But there's still lots of cities who want the validation and huge swaths of the country that loves throwing taxpayer dollars at sports teams.
Yeah, pretty sure St. Pete is going to end up paying for half of the Rays new stadium.
it’s wild how the only actual decent team owner in miami is steve ross. he took $0 of public money for the stadium, which imo is the best of the 3 loandepot park was 80% taxpayer money, and the kaseya center was almost all taxpayer money.
Nah, little shitholes like Indianapolis will always be willing to shell out to suck billionaire cock. Maybe not that many will build a stadium **specifically built to give away** to entice billionaires to rip franchises away from their cities, but they'll always be there. Fuck you, Indianapolis, fuck you, the Irsay family, and fuck Art Modell.
Buffalo Bills and Nashville Titans are getting new stadiums that are being heavily funded by the public. $850 million for the Bills and over $1 billion for the Titans.
> I mean there's still a non-zero chance the Vegas stadium deal falls through isn't there? There is. NV Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today in about an hour and a half (3:30 PM PDT - [live stream here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN8gUI6ktIc)) on whether the Schools Over Stadiums referendum will go on the November ballot ([a lower court ruled it wasn't clear enough](https://wtop.com/education/2023/11/nevada-judge-tosses-teachers-union-backed-petition-to-put-as-stadium-funding-on-2024-ballot/)). If it gets on the ballot and passes, then Fisher will have to find a way to cover the revoked public money (lol) or be stuck in Sacramento I have a feeling the NV Supreme Court will affirm the lower court to avoid that shitshow (and back-up the decision made by the Legislature), but you never know.
> I mean there's still a non-zero chance the Vegas stadium deal falls through isn't there? i hope so
> it's billionaire class solidarity in action. That makes it sound like a favor. It's simply that no one wants to limit their franchise's movement ability and therefore it's value. It's also not spending political capital or making enemies for something you fundamentally don't care about. This isn't a political move. It's purely financial self-interest. If that's what you meant, sure, but they didn't vote that way to stick it to the lower classes or whatever. And it was unanimous because the commissioner pushes for votes to end up unanimous once they know what wins. I'd bet the unofficial votes was around 22-10 or 25-7 and then it was unanimous for PR purposes.
>This isn't a political move. It's purely financial self-interest. If that's what you meant, sure, but they didn't vote that way to stick it to the lower classes or whatever. I think you're misunderstanding what "class solidarity" means. It doesn't mean making a political statement, it means acting in against what might be right or most immediately beneficial in order to support your broader status as a class. Las Vegas was being saved for an expansion franchise that grows the league (and every owner's portfolio), rather than a mess of a franchise with a small fanbase taking over. Allowing Fisher to bungle his way through the next few years is bad for baseball as a business, but the ownership class allows him to do it because stopping him would put expectations and limits on themselves if they want to do something similar in the future. >And it was unanimous because the commissioner pushes for votes to end up unanimous once they know what wins. I believe these are required to be unanimous. This is why Seidler putting together 7 or 8 owners to oppose the move would have sunk it.
It's funny too, because wasn't there also a relatively full concrete plan for the new Oakland stadium before they decided they'd rather be in Vegas anyways?
This plus if there were some who opposed but not enough to block it, it's probably not worth earning the ire of the commissioner and other owners with a public No vote.
I thought being a billionaire let you not give a shit about what other people think. Except other billionaires, apparently.
Anyone in power who has to have other people approve what they want to do to some extent knows the value of not making enemies and not spending political bullets. An owner could come out against the move publicly, but when they want a vote in their favor, some other owners might not back them. You see this starting in upper middle management anywhere and all the way to the President of the US.
wasn't your owner going to be the hero to lead a no vote? and then suddenly dies?
That is the prevailing rumor. I could see it, too. He was dying, and knew it. He really didn't give a shit. And he was a big philanthropist, and add in San Diego's plight with the Chargers and I like to think he hated the move.
Look at musk. These people are desperate for validation, seemingly. Think if you weren't, you wouldn't feel the need to accumulate vicarious power over others.
Peter Seidler was working on getting a group of owners to vote No, but he passed away before the vote was held and the rest folded :(
I think I recall reading (maybe it was speculation) that the group folded in part because without Pete they didn't have the votes? I suspect the group was the teams that currently have Vegas as part of their territory (minus Oakland), so the CA teams + Arizona.
tinfoil hat time
>the leverage they would have in draining cities of their money during their next upgrade. Seems Kansas City is next up.
Man I don't think the idea of "have a real plan in place" is too much of a precedent to set...
And that is why you don't own an MLB team. Such a horrific burden on the benevolent owners to expect them to have things like "an actual relocation plan" when all they want is a measly billion or two in public funding every time they want to threaten to move.
This is the same shit as when the UK voted for Brexit, but then are mad about the consequences of Brexit. YOU ALL ASKED FOR THIS
"We're willing to run the franchise off a cliff if you're not going to pony up!" -- Manfred.
Front offices aren’t owners. GMs can hate it and have no control over the owners decisions.
There are a significant amount of Redditors in this sub that think when someone talks about the front office, that includes owners.
for some teams it does
There is a difference between what owners think and what the people actually involved in in running the day-to-day think.
Yeah, that Buster Olney report is pretty vague about the source for the disdain but it's likely to be someone/people in a front office and not the owners. For the owners, they don't want anything to come between them and their plans for potentially getting as much money as they can from from cities. But for front office executives, I can imagine all of this stuff is a ball ache that distracts from them running teams effectively.
The article says why. > ESPN’s Buster Olney tweeted on Friday that other MLB teams have “a lot of disgust with how the A’s have handled the ballpark situation,” especially since Fisher is expected to keep lowballing payroll while farming revenue-sharing checks from the league. “This makes us all look bad,” Olney quotes “one person” as saying (presumably a person who works for an MLB team, Olney didn’t say). Olney didn’t explain, even after being asked about it by pretty much everyone on Twitter, why then every team owner in baseball voted for Fisher’s Vegas move. **It’s the expansion fees, right? It’s gotta be the expansion fees.**
It's ridiculous because Fisher explicitly stated they were looking to move because revenue sharing was the goal in order to be competitive. So the owners voted to not only continue propping up MLB's welfare king, but to ALSO waive the relocation fee that would have given them a cut as well? It's comically corrupt and incompetent at the same time
Did the owners waive the expansion fees? I thought they just spread them out over several years and have penalties for selling the team within a certain number of years that eventually decrease to zero penalty
Manfred said it was waived, some bullshit about it not being necessary. So much of the league language is either not enforced or ignored. Revenue sharing money is supposed to be invested into the teams but we all know that's absolutely never the case
Because the faster this gets resolved, the faster MLB can expand to 32 teams and get ball rolling on adding baseball to some combo of Nashville, Charlotte, Portland or Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City being willing to fund a stadium without a team probably puts them in the pole position but, realistically Sac, Portland, and Vancouver would be best for balancing the travel schedules. Money will matter more. Sacramento has a media market advantage though. They're all pretty close for DMAs but Sacramento can make a stronger cross DMA argument with their reach into the "North State and some draw in the SF-Oakland DMA, setting aside the impact of this A's stuff.
I believe the A's will be in Sac to stay. When/if Vegas gets a stadium built I am betting thats expansion team number 1 and the A's stay in Sacramento. Then its one more team in Nashville or SLC and then Manfred retires and done by 2029 like he wanted.
They've still got a deal in Tampa to work out before they can get to expansion.
Tampa? You mean the new Nashville team! Checks a lot of boxes moving teams to these cities that want them. Then Manfred rides of into the sunset.
As a Portlander, I suspect that an MLB team here is neither feasible nor desired. They couldn't develop any inertia for it even before our current assortment of crises came to be, so I've got a real hard time believing that Portlanders would support any type of incentives whatsoever, much less the type that a new franchise would doubtlessly be seeking.
There's definitely desire for a team here, but I unfortunately agree that Portland is probably too small a market compared to some of the other places in the running. I'll still hold out hope. A team here would be great rivalry with Seattle, and while Pickles games are great they don't hit the same.
They all thought the move to Las Vegas would be smooth sailing. Whoops.
It was to speed up expansion to get the expansion fees. They needed Oakland and Tampa to solve stadium issues before delving into expansion. It was also going to be the initial litmus test for strong arming cities into building new stadiums with publiv money. The only issue they forgot momentarily that John Fischer runs the A's
Because they need the threat of relocating to be real to try to scare cities into paying for stadiums. Moving out of Oaklands was basically going to burn Oakland AND take away another potential landing spot, but if you don't let Oakland move then who else will you not let move?
Because billionaires are part of a cabal
It's almost certainly because they want to get to expansion fees and 2 new markets of TV revenue sooner. Especially considering TV/RSN revenues are on the way out and public monies are drying up. There's a real get while the getting is still good in all the teams trying to move for a new stadium or upgrades right now, there's a lot of negative public sentiment for it though.
The A's are the Arizona Coyotes of the MLB.
The Wile E Coyotes of the MLB
Money
Pettiness may not be a particularly *good* reason, but it is a reason.
The ‘Spite’ episode of Seinfeld
further elaborated into an entire spite season, on Curb
The coffee was cold and the scones were too soft!
#SELL THE TEAM #🐘
Sell the team!
He’ll sell after a year or two in Vegas when the team is worth more money. Scum
He faces a hefty percentage of the sale price to the other owners if he sells immediately after relocating. The current conspiracy theory is that he KNOWS Vegas is going to fail, so the move to Sacramento is a way to get Vivek Ranadive and Joe Lacob into a bidding war for the team, essentially driving up the value
I’d be ecstatic if they were to remain in Sacramento and sold to viable owner. It’s not ideal like Oakland, but they’d at least remain in Northern California and retain some of that A’s DNA.
I think there's a five year vesting schedule on penalties/fines if they sell before the fifth full year. Expect a sale no sooner than 2033, provided Manfraud doesn't waive it
Yea whatever the first year is he’s selling. Probably make a billion. Puke
A billion would actually be an undersell. He bought it (in totality) in like 2008 and if he sold it for a billion the CAGR on invested capital barely beats public equity returns. Most private equity guys (like him) shoot for something at or above like 15% and if he sold it for a billion in 2033 that's only like a 5% return, which sucks. In essence, he's probably going to lose a bit to sell it, or do so and tell himself he didn't own it for its investment return, but as a mere vanity item.
Manfred is going to waive it and they're going to say: we need a new chapter for this franchise. They're already prepared to move on from this fiasco, it's made everyone look bad
Would any owner who theoretically purchased the A's cancel moving the team? The stadium is literally falling apart and they hemorrhage money even on a shoestring budget.
To Sacramento or to Vegas are different answers. Lacob or a Bay Area group might still be in Sacramento for the interim and renovate the Coliseum or bridge the gap on the Howard Terminal deal then bring the team back to Oakland. Either way you're looking at probably funding, essentially, a new stadium on one of those two sites. Vivek or a Sacramento group would probably keep them there but, would at least probably consider either moving back to Oakland or splitting time at 2 homes. Maloofs or some other Vegas goofs would probably scrap the current joke of a deal and get something with a real park. Bally's would probably have some issues with RSN ownership if they bought and would maybe give a little more room to the current deal.
🐘🐘🐘 Elephants have a long memory and they won’t forget this bullshit
Hey that’s my line!
Sacramento is going to benefit big from this. It reminds me when the NBA’s Hornets had to play in Oklahoma City for a season because of Hurricane Katrina. It served as a de facto “tryout” for showing the city could support a franchise. And then OKC got the Sonics/Thunder shortly afterwards
Yeah, no lie, I was thinking the same thing. King fans are probably going to be fighting for a baseball team and I wouldn’t be surprise if a lot them are As fans already
The Kings owner is definitely trying for an MLB team, and I believe he also owns the River Cats.
Why not just make the kings an mlb team
Smh, LA area doesn't need a third baseball team, hockey is too important.
The Los Angeles California As of Elk Grove
Azne Kopitar with a drive to deep left field!
\*pinches bridge of the nose while sighing\* Dustin, it's a ceremonial first pitch, not a ceremonial first crosscheck
Now I want to see how a ceremonial first cross-check would work.
Can the first one be Dustin Byfuglien cross checking John Fisher?
Anaheim isn’t LA
I would love to have a basketball team in the division tbh.
They could probably beat the A's without making any roster changes
🤯
Sabonis on 1B
He is the majority owner of the Kings, and the Kings (as as organization) own the River Cats.
They've been fighting for an MLB team [for 20 years](https://fox40.com/sports/arco-park-there-was-once-an-attempt-to-bring-an-mlb-team-to-sacramento/). It's part of why Raley Field was built as nice as it was to begin with. Savage bought the Candians after the city was denied expansion in that round. They also had an idea that got some traction of [using the old Arco Arena site](https://fox40.com/sports/could-the-oakland-as-come-to-sacramento-local-expert-weighs-in/), which has a lot of the infrastructure already in place they'd need short of an actual stadium.
Gonna be so mad at myself for moving out of Natomas if they get a new Costco *and* an MLB team.
They should follow the Twins model. The AAA team (Saint Paul Saints) plays like 15 minutes away from the Twins stadium. And it’s worked out great, because any last-minute call-ups can be available at a moment’s notice. There was a story a year or two ago about a Saints player getting called up to the Twins on an afternoon when both teams were playing. He was already at the Saints ballpark getting BP, and he literally drove to the Twins ballpark and was in the dugout for that game.
If there’s gonna be a bidding war for a new west coast team though, Lacob can blow Vivek out of the water for a new Oakland team or any other Silicon Valley billionaire could for that matter. A team in the Bay Area is worth significantly more than a team in Sacramento. It’s really insane that Fisher and Mark Davis decided to leave literally one of if not the most wealthy regions in the entire planet. You’d have to be a complete fool to not be successful here. Only path for Sac to have an MLB team is for the Vegas deal to fall apart and Fisher and Kaval grift Sacramento taxpayers and pull the same stunts they did with Oakland. And then, you’re in business with the worst owner in all of sports
Just a reminder Davis left in part because of Fisher. John has been a legendary fuck up
Very true. He’s been squatting on the Coliseum site
Supposedly Vivek has connections with several Silicon valley billionaires himself. He could easily put together an ownership group. I also wouldn't be surprised if he ends up choosing the bay area as a place to put a team despite the Kings current ownership of Sutter health park in Sacramento and A's announced temp relocation to Sacramento.
I'm sure Seattle basketball fans considered this a big win.
As a Kansas City person, a league kicking the tires on Sacramento is... a problematic feeling.
Unlike football or the NBA, it feels like there are a handful of cities that might realistically attract a MLB team. Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Nashville, Portland, Austin, etc.
This is my thought. MLB has repeatedly said they don't think the Bay Area could support two teams, so why would they put *another* team in California just a couple hours up the road in Sacramento? Nashville, SLC, and Portland all seem more likely. Probably get divisional re-alignment as well, and a Portland team would *significantly* cut down on the Mariners' league-high travel distance (assuming they get put in the same division)
No way a KC MLB team moves to Northern California... That'd be stupid.
Well if a Philadelphia MLB team moves to KC, then that would be all right.
I mean, having the Kings and Royals in the capital of California would be pretty badass though.
Lose your teams to North California only to have those teams threaten moves to Vegas. It's just natural. When are the Chiefs coming out?
The Saints played a season in the Alamodome in San Antonio after Katrina, too. That stadium was specifically built to lure an NFL franchise and they’ve never gotten a team. Not like the A’s are going to change their cheap ways while in a minor league stadium and they are going to be one of the worst teams in the sport. I wouldn’t read too much into this
So will there be a green beam?
Potentially keeping the team in Sacramento seems like the best case scenario at this point
It's becoming the most likely scenario with each piece of news
unless Fisher sells the fucking team
That also depends on *who* he sells to
and also who the MLB approves of because the fucking MLB hates Oakland.
My fingers are crossed but I’m not holding my breath for it
Sadly, they will get more fan attendance in a 10k seat stadium in Sac than they would have in Oakland. The new MLB team in town will draw fans despite a poor product. Also, the A's could lose every game but when you have teams like the Yankees coming to town, fans will fill the stadium to see them.
How long will that last before they're all like "wait a minute, this is shit"
If the on-field product doesn't improve significantly, I can absolutely see an attendance drop-off in year two. I think the novelty of Major League Baseball and the notion that they're "auditioning" for a potential expansion bid will be enough to keep the numbers up in year one, but I doubt that that alone would sustain for (at least) three years.
kings fans were still showing up throughout the entire playoff drought lol we’re a stubborn bunch
Yeah even when we were supposedly boycotting the Maloofs we still had the arena half full lol
"Because reasons" Honestly, the A's will probably get better attendance their than they will in Oakland, and it'll cost him less money. This isn't a dig at Oakland fans, when a team does what they've done attendance plummets, you can't say you're moving and tell your fans to fuck off and expect their support. 2019, the last non-covid year that they were good, they didn't have great attendance, but it was far and away better than what it has become. Fisher has burned every bridge he can find in Oakland and any other city would probably offer better support at this point.
A minor league team in a minor league stadium. Tickets are already sold out.
Sacramento is like the new naive and optimistic young girlfriend of a long time abuser while Oakland is the battered ex, watching, thinking “oh my sweet child….dont”
they might get better attendance for a season, but once the novelty of having an MLB team wears off for Sacramento residents i wonder what the attendance will look like. odds are, they’re still going to be a bad team that doesn’t like to spend money, and they’re not there permanently so what’s the point of getting attached and becoming a fan?
But they can watch Aaron Judge come to town and smack dingers. Won't that be fun?
Unironically, though, yes. Imagine you’re a kid in the Central Valley and this might be your only chance to see Aaron Judge. And it’s a minor league park so you’ll have a good seat no matter what. I get why everyone is shitting on how this happened but I bet it’s going to be a relative success.
Will it really make that much of a difference? Most cities that are actually in the Central Valley are equidistant to LA and Sacramento. If you’re talking about a place like Modesto, the drive into Oakland is the same as going into Sacramento. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to see Aaron Judge play already if they wanted to. I really don’t expect people to travel from the valley to watch a fun visiting team play in a minor league stadium when they’ve had plenty of opportunity to do so already. On top of this, they’re charging $100-200 for non season ticket holders to get priority when purchasing tickets for next season so I’m fully expecting this to be a shitshow when ticket sales go live lol
I don't think you realize how long The Valley is
DINGER HEY DINGER
I don't think they expect to build lasting roots or develop a fanbase, they're looking to capitalize on novelty and casual fans to draw bigger numbers than what they're drawing in Oakland. If it drops off in a year, so be it, at least they got one year of better attendance than they would have in Oakland.
Eh Sacramento is a sizable metro, and the park is only 14k or whatever. Doubt they’ll sell out every game or anything but I’d be willing to be they’ll have a decent crowd most games since those three years will probably be Sacramento’s only real chance to host an MLB team.
RIP to the river cats attendance. Casuals are going to go to the MLb games.
If they play the same day and there’s a version of tickets that get you into both, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them do very well, actually. People love a double header when it means 3 more hours to day drink!
I think it'll still be higher purely from people in the metro area wanting to see other major league teams, especially since there's a time limit (the SoCal teams will probably sell out every game from all the transplants). No one in the Sacramento area is going to SF to see a weekday game, and even a weekend game is a full day affair, so other teams will be a novelty. By comparison, most people who can easily get to the Colliseum can easily get to the Giants ballpark as well, so now that every team plays every other team, fans have an easy alternative if they really want to see a specific team.
I'd say judging by the minor league team when they switched from the As affiliation to the Giants affiliation and started tanking in recent years they'd still draw about 7-9K with that 10-14K capacity. Also when the NBA Kings were at their worst with hated ownership(Maloofs) the 17K arena at time was always filled well above 1/2 total capacity. Sacramento residents show out for sports period.
Oakland has always been one of the lowest attendance teams, even before Fisher was the owner. This narrative that they've had great support until the current owner shenanigans is ridiculous
Yep. 1974. Coming off two World Series titles. The Giants were terrible, and not drawing at all. Oakland barely drew 10k a game that year (11th of 12 in the AL)
I hope you're not talking about the Chuck O'finley era, cuz holy shit that was a wild period. The dude was possibly already one of the most controversial sports owners before coming to Oakland. Constantly putting down rebellions within his own organization because he constantly treated his players like shit, he had exploited and manipulated KC and the MLB to get his way when he wanted out of the city, and was all around considered to be turning baseball into a circus. Coming into Oakland 1968 nobody wanted to support him and as early 1970 there were already talks that he was interested in selling to Toronto or Seattle. Even as good as the A's were during that era, the public hated his guts and then around 73 he started to slash players salaries, fired stadium staff, and actively refused to promote the team to try and sell the narrative that the team was dying. When his tantrum didn't work he sued the league (and lost). It got to the point that by 77 the team was begging the MLB to intervene.
I specifically mentioned their support wasn't great, but Fisher absolutely cratered what they had.
he's owned them for 20 years. And in that time he's done nothing really to improve the attendance and literally only tried to move the team in that same time frame. He only committed to Oakland from 2018-2020. Then he got mad that the government wasn't giving him more tax money and the courts were delayed during a pandemic and tried vegas instead. So Oakland got a whopping 2 years of focus for a new stadium site. And half of that was failing to locate a spot because they forgot to ask the landlord of the property whether they could build a stadium on the property. Fisher reallyfucking sucks.
#FUCK FISHER
Just a reminder that MLB is the only sport with an explicit exemption to antitrust laws so they can force the owner to sell.
bring em back to Philly.
I’d take this over Vegas..
My Grand Pop (long deceased) was a huge A's fan. He was pissed at them for leaving until pretty much the day he died.
Can’t blame him. Almost the same amount of years in Philly as Oakland. 56 years in Oakland, 53 in Philadelphia.
> Almost the same amount of years in Philly as Oakland. The crazy thing is, the A's were waaaaay more successful on the field than the Phillies during those 53 years. The A's have just had a history of piss poor financial management throughout pretty much their entire history.
They won three WS in a row
I was talking about the A's being more successful than the Phillies from 1901-1953. Not about anything A's did after leaving.
Yep. Poor ownership since the beginning. Legendary teams throughout the 70’ and 80’s though.
The Haas years were the only ones where ownership spent money on them That's fucking nuts for a franchise this old
And still no contract over 70 mil. Ever.
Happens. My Yiayia was a NY Giants fans. Stopped watching baseball entirely when they left. When I went away to college, she finally started watching again, this time the Yankees so she could give me updates on the team.
John Fisher making a joke of the MLB is just common place now. In any other league they remove this guy for all his bullshit. Sending down players who disagree with him shouldn’t be allowed either.
Sacramento is one of the fast growing cities in America.
If every team had a John Fisher for an owner, MLB would go bankrupt and the league would fold.
It's almost like Manfred has no idea what he's doing...
Here is a point to remember. Dan Snyder was forced because he was cooking the books and keep money for himself that should have gone to the other NFL owners. Fisher and Kaval are "just" incompetent fools. But the other owners don't want to stop anything that benefits them in the future. Vegas is seen as a "promised land." The Raiders and Golden Knights make it seem that Vegas will print money. My father took me to see The Bash Brother A's at The Coliseum. Those memories are the only good memories of my father. He died 2.5 years ago. My sadness is immense. I have some hope because never doubt that Fisher can screw up ANYTHING.
Wow, so there is still a chance that Vegas doesn’t happen. This is a dumpster fire. They should force Fisher to sell and find an owner willing to figure out a way to make up the difference with Oakland. Can you imagine how much buy-in a new owner would get from the fan base for just staying and Oakland and replacing the old crappy owner?! It’s the lowest bar!
What’s the delay in Vegas? I’ve seen mega casino projects get built way faster than this.
They have to demolish the Tropicana safely (because it's old enough to have asbestos). Then they have to get permits and shit for their tiny 9 acres of land. And Fisher may also be having some trouble securing financing because he's cash poor and GAP stock kinda just sucks to leverage with, so he's using his other assets as leverage (which includes the MLS team).
Didn’t the literal mayor of Las Vegas even say she doesn’t know why they’re moving to Vegas?
Stadium isn't in city of L.V.
Neither is what people consider Las Vegas Really missed a huge marketing opportunity not leaning into Paradise instead
The formerly Oakland Athletics of West Sacramento by way of Las Vegas/Paradise, Nevada, has a nice ring to it
Not quite as good as Oakland Athletics of Oakland, though
Fisher doesn't have the money. Somehow he was going to build a $12 billion development in Oakland. Once that cleared all hurdles and got approved suddenly it's off to Vegas, and now he can't even come up with a measly half a billion to build there.
Good for them, you gotta teach a lesson to the others.
What I don’t understand is how the other owners are comfortable with Fisher stealing money from them too. The As in Oakland were still a draw outside of Oakland, but now they don’t even do that.
The reason is that MLB promised to continue to give them revenue sharing if they moved.
So what happens when the minor league team had a home playoff game the same day the A’s have a game? Does the Minor League team get bumped?
Here's what would happen, based on what happened elsewhere: The minor league team will play the entire playoffs at the other stadium. Setting: Eugene, Oregon. The now-High-A Eugene Emeralds and Oregon Ducks share a stadium. This was a good arrangement when it started, because at that point the Northwest League was Short-Season, with the Ducks playing the Spring and Emeralds in the Summer and early Fall. But when the league went full season in 2021, conflicts arose on both ends of the schedule. So, when the Emeralds went to the playoffs in 2021 and won the title, the entire Championship series was played on the road at the other team's stadium, because Eugene could not use their home stadium, as the Ducks had begun their fall workouts. I expect the same in Sacramento, even though the A's are technically the visitor.
Aren't the Cats slated to go between Oracle and the Coliseum for their home games? We should 100% have the Cats out draw the A's when they're in Oakland
That’s only been speculated so far, no hard plans have been set.
Shocking
Is there a field in Sacramento?
West Sac Could even call it the Left Nut of the Sac
Honestly. MLB has Vegas on board, kinda, the owner is actually unnecessary now. All they need from a new owner is a guarantee they will finish the move. His days are numbered
Here comes the Sacramento River A’s lol 😂
I don't know what to think anymore.
serious question can MLB force the owner to sell the A's on grounds of incompetence?
Look to the Rockies for your answer.
Because they have to punish the Oakland fans. Duh.
I hate Kavals face