New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-674458-city-officials.html

San Diego officials have chosen Sept. 11 as the deadline for the NFL’s Chargers to agree on a new stadium in Mission Valley and thus commit to staying in San Diego.

City officials told the Chargers on Tuesday the two sides need to reach a deal by the September deadline on the proposed $1.1 billion stadium in order to meet legal requirements that would enable a Jan. 12 special election to be held for the stadium.

City and San Diego county officials also outlined a financing plan, according to NFL senior vice president Eric Grubman, for “a public/private project requiring very significant funding from NFL and Chargers sources.”

The Sept. 11 deadline, other key dates and the financing plan were outlined by city officials during a 3 1/2 hour meeting with Grubman on Tuesday in San Diego that was also attended by Chargers representatives. City and county officials and members of a stadium task force appointed by San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer made presentations to Grubman and the team on four primary areas: stadium design, an environmental impact report on the venue, funding the project and what the city plans to present to a six-owner NFL committee on the Los Angeles situation during an Aug. 10 meeting in Chicago.

“Lots of questions were asked, but there were no negotiations,” Grubman said in an email to the Register.

Grubman told city and task force officials to focus – leading up to the Chicago meeting – on the financing plan and reducing the risk of the plan being invalidated by the courts.

The Chargers walked away from negotiations with the city and the task force last month, calling the city’s EIR timetable “completely unrealistic” and inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Carmen Policy, the point man for a proposed stadium in Carson backed by the Chargers and Raiders, told the Register last week he is confident the NFL will approve the two teams relocating to Los Angeles County this fall.

“We’ve taken our case straight to the NFL and league officials have encouraged us to continue moving forward,” Faulconer said. “The game isn’t over. We’re entering the fourth quarter and time remains to negotiate a fair and responsible agreement for voter approval if the Chargers return to the negotiating table. Our environmental report is on schedule and we will continue moving forward toward a stadium solution.”

City and county officials on Tuesday said they hope to release a draft of an EIR on Aug. 10. That would require the CEQA-mandated 45-day public review period. The Sept. 11 date is important because that is the deadline to place the EIR on the city council's docket for a Sept. 14 meeting. To call a Jan. 12 special election, the City Council must begin the process by directing the City Attorney to prepare ordinances by Sept. 14. Faulconer said he will not ask the city council to the stadium proposal on the ballot without a deal between the city and the Chargers. If an agreement is reached the city council would call for a special election on Oct. 12 or 13. The final EIR would also have to be certified by then.

“Timing/Approvals were discussed,” Grubman wrote in the email. “They emphasized that this is a thorough EIR procedure, and that it deals with the replacement of an existing stadium at an existing site.”

But team and league officials have several concerns about the EIR issue, the most pressing being timing. San Diego officials are trying to do in less than a month what has taken other California stadium projects on a similar scale more than a year to complete. In the past 10 years there have been three EIRs completed on proposed NFL stadiums in California: the Anschutz Entertainment Group’s Farmers Field project in downtown Los Angeles, a plan proposed by real estate developer Ed Roski for a City of Industry stadium and Levi’s Stadium, the San Francisco 49ers’ year-old facility in Santa Clara. The average time it took to complete the EIRs for those three projects was 15 months.

City and county officials told Grubman and the Chargers that the expedited EIR process is possible because it is on the “reconstruction of an existing facility of a smaller capacity on the same site,” referring to the proposed stadium’s proximity to Qualcomm Stadium, the Chargers’ current home. AECOM, a planning firm hired by the city, has more than 90 employees, many working extended hours on the project to complete it to be released for public comment on Aug. 10.

Another major concern is that the EIR will face several challenges in court, especially given the condensed period in which it was completed. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins said she would push for legislation that would limit the window in which the EIR could be challenged. The Farmers Field and City of Industry projects received similar legislation.

“We want the Chargers to stay in San Diego if the right agreement can be reached,” Atkins said. “As I have said before, if an agreement is reached, I am committed to making sure San Diego can benefit from state legislation that is consistent with what other cities have received for their sports facilities.”

But there remains a concern within the NFL that a lawsuit challenging the EIR or the stadium’s funding plan could drag out in California’s court system for more than a year. The stadium’s funding and cost are also likely to be greeted with skepticism next month in Chicago. There is a widespread belief within the NFL that the city and county cannot build a stadium for $1.1 billion, especially since the project also requires tearing down Qualcomm.

The price tag for the Carson project is $1.75 billion. A proposed stadium in Inglewood backed by Rams owner Stan Kroenke would cost $1.86 billion. Levi’s Stadium came with a $1.3 billion price tag.

==============================================================

found the bold part interesting @The Ripper . I think the fact that was said shows there is some merit to some issues that have been raised in SD.

 

[RamFan503]

Since the lease terms were fulfilled completely, your question about comfort is moot.

Well, I was using blue font, not really making any argument or statement. But I believe the the point was that the NFL was supportive if we got our ducks lined up, not that it would be a game set and match. We realize that Stan needs to buy in. I do believe that this means that if we get our stuff lined out the NFL will push a little to keep St Louis as an NFL market, especially since it doesn't seem likely that the other two situations will be solved in their home markets. That's all.

Seems logical to me.

To be honest my comment was more a touch of sarcasm. Lately it seems that any news or argument that seems to look good for ST Louis is raked over looking for flaws. Almost gleefully at times. Any statement resembling "this may be good" is guaranteed to get a multi paragraph response pointing out how very little is good for ST Louis.

As you may know, I have read every post in this thread. The same can be said for anything on the Inglewood project or any time the San Diego task force comes up with anything or in the case of the proposal in Oakland. It's only natural I suppose. People who want the Rams to stay in St Louis aren't inclined to see the negatives or holes in a St Louis proposal and the same goes in reverse for those wanting the Rams back in LA. I'm honestly not seeing any more or less of it in any one direction.

At this point, I'm convinced that some people just participate in this thread just for the sake of the debate.

Well hell - I could have told you that 560 pages ago.

Isn't time to move on from what we think the CVC could have/should have done and focus on the here and now? No one wins the blame game.

Unfortunately it is difficult to extricate the blame game from all of this. I mention the CVC's part in this not to blame them for not spending $700 million on the dome (or whatever figure it really would have been). But I have to consider it as part of the overall picture when I think about not only how the NFL will view their obvious low ball offer, their lack of action, and how that played into Stan's possible decision to move on. I also have to think about how that looks in the future. Does it demonstrate reason for confidence that the CVC will step up in the future? I just don't think it can be ignored.

Where was I combative? I just said that I would need to see the permits, which are public record, to believe Roggin.

Not sure but I think he was talking about the idea that only the LA crowd is poking holes in the St Louis proposals when every time a story comes out about Carson or Inglewood, or San Diego, Many from the Lou are quick to jump. A great example is that letter that we now know is a hoax.

Unfortunately, it's likely to be that way as long as this thread runs. I am more concerned how people go about doing the inevitable and how they treat each other than that they are doing it.

That being said, I didn't care much for the "He can't help himself" comment or the two gecko posts. It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. There's 560 pages of "he can't help himself" if you think about it.

 

[RamFan503]

Do you know how facepalms work? Not sure what the use is here.

Not sure what the use was the first time. Let's cool that - mkay?

 

[ChrisW]

Not sure what the use was the first time. Let's cool that - mkay?

BEcause he kept pushing the "CVC hopes the NFL will do what they couldn't." referring to making the Rams stay, even after I told him that's not the case. It was 100% facepalm worthy. But now that I've explained myself, I'll drop it.

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-674458-city-officials.html

San Diego officials have chosen Sept. 11 as the deadline for the NFL’s Chargers to agree on a new stadium in Mission Valley and thus commit to staying in San Diego.

City officials told the Chargers on Tuesday the two sides need to reach a deal by the September deadline on the proposed $1.1 billion stadium in order to meet legal requirements that would enable a Jan. 12 special election to be held for the stadium.

City and San Diego county officials also outlined a financing plan, according to NFL senior vice president Eric Grubman, for “a public/private project requiring very significant funding from NFL and Chargers sources.”

The Sept. 11 deadline, other key dates and the financing plan were outlined by city officials during a 3 1/2 hour meeting with Grubman on Tuesday in San Diego that was also attended by Chargers representatives. City and county officials and members of a stadium task force appointed by San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer made presentations to Grubman and the team on four primary areas: stadium design, an environmental impact report on the venue, funding the project and what the city plans to present to a six-owner NFL committee on the Los Angeles situation during an Aug. 10 meeting in Chicago.

“Lots of questions were asked, but there were no negotiations,” Grubman said in an email to the Register.

Grubman told city and task force officials to focus – leading up to the Chicago meeting – on the financing plan and reducing the risk of the plan being invalidated by the courts.

The Chargers walked away from negotiations with the city and the task force last month, calling the city’s EIR timetable “completely unrealistic” and inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Carmen Policy, the point man for a proposed stadium in Carson backed by the Chargers and Raiders, told the Register last week he is confident the NFL will approve the two teams relocating to Los Angeles County this fall.

“We’ve taken our case straight to the NFL and league officials have encouraged us to continue moving forward,” Faulconer said. “The game isn’t over. We’re entering the fourth quarter and time remains to negotiate a fair and responsible agreement for voter approval if the Chargers return to the negotiating table. Our environmental report is on schedule and we will continue moving forward toward a stadium solution.”

City and county officials on Tuesday said they hope to release a draft of an EIR on Aug. 10. That would require the CEQA-mandated 45-day public review period. The Sept. 11 date is important because that is the deadline to place the EIR on the city council's docket for a Sept. 14 meeting. To call a Jan. 12 special election, the City Council must begin the process by directing the City Attorney to prepare ordinances by Sept. 14. Faulconer said he will not ask the city council to the stadium proposal on the ballot without a deal between the city and the Chargers. If an agreement is reached the city council would call for a special election on Oct. 12 or 13. The final EIR would also have to be certified by then.

“Timing/Approvals were discussed,” Grubman wrote in the email. “They emphasized that this is a thorough EIR procedure, and that it deals with the replacement of an existing stadium at an existing site.”

But team and league officials have several concerns about the EIR issue, the most pressing being timing. San Diego officials are trying to do in less than a month what has taken other California stadium projects on a similar scale more than a year to complete. In the past 10 years there have been three EIRs completed on proposed NFL stadiums in California: the Anschutz Entertainment Group’s Farmers Field project in downtown Los Angeles, a plan proposed by real estate developer Ed Roski for a City of Industry stadium and Levi’s Stadium, the San Francisco 49ers’ year-old facility in Santa Clara. The average time it took to complete the EIRs for those three projects was 15 months.

City and county officials told Grubman and the Chargers that the expedited EIR process is possible because it is on the “reconstruction of an existing facility of a smaller capacity on the same site,” referring to the proposed stadium’s proximity to Qualcomm Stadium, the Chargers’ current home. AECOM, a planning firm hired by the city, has more than 90 employees, many working extended hours on the project to complete it to be released for public comment on Aug. 10.

Another major concern is that the EIR will face several challenges in court, especially given the condensed period in which it was completed. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins said she would push for legislation that would limit the window in which the EIR could be challenged. The Farmers Field and City of Industry projects received similar legislation.

“We want the Chargers to stay in San Diego if the right agreement can be reached,” Atkins said. “As I have said before, if an agreement is reached, I am committed to making sure San Diego can benefit from state legislation that is consistent with what other cities have received for their sports facilities.”

But there remains a concern within the NFL that a lawsuit challenging the EIR or the stadium’s funding plan could drag out in California’s court system for more than a year. The stadium’s funding and cost are also likely to be greeted with skepticism next month in Chicago. There is a widespread belief within the NFL that the city and county cannot build a stadium for $1.1 billion, especially since the project also requires tearing down Qualcomm.

The price tag for the Carson project is $1.75 billion. A proposed stadium in Inglewood backed by Rams owner Stan Kroenke would cost $1.86 billion. Levi’s Stadium came with a $1.3 billion price tag.

==============================================================

found the bold part interesting @The Ripper . I think the fact that was said shows there is some merit to some issues that have been raised in SD.

Wonder how much of this is San Diego calling the Chargers' bluff. The thing that has always struck me is that Fabiani is trying to compare the timing on three projects where there was never a stadium with one that already houses a stadium. That would be akin to comparing a new construction permit to a rebuild.

What about the Carson site says no litigation? And isn't the QUALCOMM property worth approx. $500 million? Does that make the project a $1.6 billion project?

It would appear that Grubman raised the concern over the EIR and possible litigation in the meeting. Is it because Fabiani is trumpeting that and he has to placate everyone? Or is it because he actually sees a problem there?

I suppose the good news coming out of this is that if SD holds to their timeline, we should have some resolution to at least that stadium in about a month.

 

[The Ripper]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-674458-city-officials.html


Grubman told city and task force officials to focus – leading up to the Chicago meeting – on the financing plan and reducing the risk of the plan being invalidated by the courts.


found the bold part interesting @The Ripper . I think the fact that was said shows there is some merit to some issues that have been raised in SD.

Thanks. I wouldn't have seen that I stopped looking at the OC Register 15 years ago.

The article didn't address the dropping at least for now the land sale and the increase in real $'s that both the city and the county are committing to the project. The land wasn't removed because they couldn't sell it but to make the EIR easier




I think the most interesting part was the surprise guest that SD brought to the table.

Another major concern is that the EIR will face several challenges in court, especially given the condensed period in which it was completed. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins said she would push for legislation that would limit the window in which the EIR could be challenged. The Farmers Field and City of Industry projects received similar legislation.

“We want the Chargers to stay in San Diego if the right agreement can be reached,” Atkins said. “As I have said before, if an agreement is reached, I am committed to making sure San Diego can benefit from state legislation that is consistent with what other cities have received for their sports facilities.”

 

[OldSchool]

Where was I combative? I just said that I would need to see the permits, which are public record, to believe Roggin.

Not sure but I think he was talking about the idea that only the LA crowd is poking holes in the St Louis proposals when every time a story comes out about Carson or Inglewood, or San Diego, Many from the Lou are quick to jump. A great example is that letter that we now know is a hoax.

Unfortunately, it's likely to be that way as long as this thread runs. I am more concerned how people go about doing the inevitable and how they treat each other than that they are doing it.

That is exactly what I was referring to. As 503 says people from both St Louis and LA are very quick to attack plans/ideas/info from the competing stadium idea. Only one side really complains about it though. I wasn't pointing a finger at any one statement by anybody you just had a comment on the subject that I decided to quote.

As for the permits they started the processing/filing for permits back in February and will have them finalized by December. That's well ahead of any other stadium proposal.

 

[OldSchool]

Thanks. I wouldn't have seen that I stopped looking at the OC Register 15 years ago.

The article didn't address the dropping at least for now the land sale and the increase in real $'s that both the city and the county are committing to the project. The land wasn't removed because they couldn't sell it but to make the EIR easier




I think the most interesting part was the surprise guest that SD brought to the table.

Another major concern is that the EIR will face several challenges in court, especially given the condensed period in which it was completed. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins said she would push for legislation that would limit the window in which the EIR could be challenged. The Farmers Field and City of Industry projects received similar legislation.

“We want the Chargers to stay in San Diego if the right agreement can be reached,” Atkins said. “As I have said before, if an agreement is reached, I am committed to making sure San Diego can benefit from state legislation that is consistent with what other cities have received for their sports facilities.”

I'm curious has anybody come out and say they'd challenge in court the EIR? Or is Fabiani creating problems?

 

[RamzFanz]

San Diego officials have chosen Sept. 11 as the deadline for the NFL’s Chargers to agree on a new stadium in Mission Valley and thus commit to staying in San Diego.

September 11th?

ILLUMINATI! JET BEAMS CAN'T MELT STEEL FUEL! RUUUUUUUN!

 

[RamzFanz]

The Rams can't leave because I'm putting down an offer to purchase 1/12 of an acre at my secret spot and plan on selling tickets...

...after I kill "the tree".

 

[MrMotes]

BEcause he kept pushing the "CVC hopes the NFL will do what they couldn't." referring to making the Rams stay, even after I told him that's not the case. It was 100% facepalm worthy.

I remember the part where i said the CVC hopes the NFL will stop the Rams from moving and i remember the gecko but i think i missed the part where you showed the CVC doesn't want the NFL to stop the Rams from leaving St. Louis...

 

[The Ripper]

I'm curious has anybody come out and say they'd challenge in court the EIR? Or is Fabiani creating problems?

Yes, one firm based in LA saying Qualcomm is a historic landmark. One of the firm's partners is based in La Jolla and is very active in Democratic Party. Just happens that someone else is also based in La Jolla and also very active.

 

[blue4]

As you may know, I have read every post in this thread. The same can be said for anything on the Inglewood project or any time the San Diego task force comes up with anything or in the case of the proposal in Oakland. It's only natural I suppose. People who want the Rams to stay in St Louis aren't inclined to see the negatives or holes in a St Louis proposal and the same goes in reverse for those wanting the Rams back in LA. I'm honestly not seeing any more or less of it in any one direction.

I would disagree with that. Many reasons why I won't go into, but suffice it to say I think that this would look a lot different if it was 1994 and I was making some of the same statements about LA, it's officials, and the support from the fan base. And then waiting 50 pages and making them again. And then waiting 20 pages and making them again. And so on. I realize there going to be disagreement on issues, but I've been on this thread from day 1 and there is a DEFINITE difference in tone. JMO.

 

[OldSchool]

Yes, one firm based in LA saying Qualcomm is a historic landmark. One of the firm's partners is based in La Jolla and is very active in Democratic Party. Just happens that someone else is also based in La Jolla and also very active.

So they're challenging the tearing down on the old stadium not the EIR though?

 

[The Ripper]

So they're challenging the tearing down on the old stadium not the EIR though?

The EIR that SD is preparing is based on replacing a stadium not building a new one so anything that threatens that would be an issue for the exemptions that they're seeking.

 

[RamFan503]

I would disagree with that. Many reasons why I won't go into, but suffice it to say I think that this would look a lot different if it was 1994 and I was making some of the same statements about LA, it's officials, and the support from the fan base. And then waiting 50 pages and making them again. And then waiting 20 pages and making them again. And so on. I realize there going to be disagreement on issues, but I've been on this thread from day 1 and there is a DEFINITE difference in tone. JMO.

No one can answer your first premise. I will say however that I am trying to be as neutral as possible being a former LA Rams fan and now living about as far away from each and also not wanting my Rams to move yet again as well as having formed some friendships with several St Louis Rams fans. I won't get any more opportunity to watch them play in LA than I do in St Louis. The times I have watched them play since they left LA have been as visitors.

I watch this thread and see how both sides glom onto anything that leans their way. Again, that is not to discredit anyone here. If I lived in LA or St Louis or had a real stake in this, I'd likely do the same. I have gone after posters from both sides for going too much toward the attacking angle.

It seems to me that fans from St Louis view the LA fans as someone relishing in the stealing of the Rams when I see them merely wanting their Rams back. It doesn't make the LA fans right or the St Louis fans wrong or vice verse. Frankly, I'd be much more pissed at fans that have the attitude of "fine - don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" - which I saw plenty of when the Rams left LA and to a lesser extent with fans in the Lou.

Most of what I have seen from the LA fans has actually been quite complimentary of the St Louis fan base. The CVC? Not so much. But from my perspective, the CVC is quite deserving of a lack of respect. I don't say that as a LA fan. I say that as someone who would rather this issue wasn't in front of us right now - someone who would like to be talking right now about the 2015 season for our Rams. I firmly believe that the CVC and its directors screwed the pooch for years and I didn't just come to that conclusion when Stan bought the Inglewood property. I have been pretty consistent on that for years.

I am not sure how anyone can really look at what has been posted here for all these pages and think that both sides haven't brought back up the same arguments only to rehash them to death. It's just the ebb and flow of this thread and why we didn't even want to allow it on ROD to begin with.

Sorry man and I know you have minded your Ps and Qs in all of this. I am honestly amazed at how most everyone else has as well. I thought this thread would last about 5 pages before it blew itself up.

I would only like to remind everyone that being a fan is almost purely emotional. It is extremely difficult to check your emotions at the door when you are - in the hearts of St Louis fans, about to rip their team from their city or in the hearts of LA fans, talking about righting what they view as a huge wrong.

If your girlfriend leaves you, you are not going to put much stock in the idea that she hated that you didn't squeeze the toothpaste tube from the bottom or that you left the toilet seat up. But her girlfriends will all say, " I can't believe you put up with that." Bitches.

Cheers man. I will be away for the most part through this weekend doing a Bones and Brew event. Yawlz treat each other like you'd want to be treated.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Kroenke has already started building in Inglewood:

per Fred Roggin, right now......He said he found out last night..Sewers and all the stuff thats below the ground are being installed for the stadium..This is from Inglewood Project builders....So the whole lets have a meeting before December before Kroenke starts building the thing, is moot.

That's stuff they have to do regardless, so it would be done even if they're building a shopping center. I'm sure Kroenke will go right up to the point of no return until he gets a greenlight and then move past it. It'll show the NFL he doesn't need to wait for shit though. They say yes, he puts a shovel in the ground. Wins lots of points there.

 

[iced]

wonder how or if this changes things

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...a214ae&cmpid=twitter-premium+via+@sfchronicle

Alameda County wants out as A’s, Raiders’ Coliseum landlord

Alameda County leaders want out of the pro sports business and have told Oakland officials that they are ready to sell their stake in the Coliseum complex, which houses the Raiders, A’s and Warriors.

The move would be a major game changer in the negotiations to keep the three teams playing in the East Bay — talks that have often been contentious and confusing for all parties involved.

“It’s been extremely challenging to negotiate a deal with the city, the county, two public entities and three sports teams,” county Supervisor Nate Miley, vice chairman of the joint Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority, which oversees the sports complex, told us Wednesday.

“So let’s just get out of this and let the city negotiate whatever deals it wants,” Miley said. “Because, frankly, Oakland is going to benefit much more from this than the county.”

If the city is interested — and there’s every sign it is — Oakland and Alameda County officials would have to agree on the value of the five-decade-old property. Then the city would have to come up with the many millions of dollars it would take to buy out the county’s share.

RELATED

An aerial view of the McAfee Coliseum, home of the Raiders and Athletics on 12/6/05 in Oakland, Calif. Oakland officials discuss new Raiders stadium with developer
Miley said county representatives delivered the message Wednesday to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and NFL executives at a meeting at the Raiders’ Alameda headquarters. The full county Board of Supervisors has told staffers to get to work on the details, although a vote would be required to make it happen.

Wednesday’s meeting had been called so the city could give a progress report on its efforts to help the Raiders build a new stadium at the Coliseum site, a plan that many fear is floundering.

San Diego developer

The city has hooked its hopes to San Diego businessman Floyd Kephart and his partners from New City Development, who want to build a $900 million football-only stadium on the Coliseum site. What Kephart and friends don’t have is a financing plan, and their feelers for public money to pay for infrastructure improvements have gone nowhere.

On Monday, Miley told a Los Angeles radio station that it was a mistake for the county to have gone along with the city’s negotiating agreement with Kephart. The supervisor doesn’t think Kephart can deliver on a deal.

The county first signaled its interest in selling several months ago, soon after Schaaf was elected mayor in November. And apparently the reaction was positive.

Since then, the county has done an appraisal on the Coliseum complex. While no figure has been disclosed, it’s believed to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

“This is in everyone’s best interest,” Miley said of a county sale. “The teams have been frustrated by the current structure, so it benefits everyone to have a single public entity that they can deal with.”

Schaaf issued a statement saying the city looked forward to exploring with the county how to “responsibly move toward sole ownership of both the land and the existing sports venues. Such a move would ultimately help simplify current discussions with our sports teams and streamline negotiations for any future development.”

Saving franchises

City Councilman Larry Reid, who serves on the Coliseum Authority, said the city has long known of the county’s desire to sell its stake, adding, “I think it makes sense.

“It makes it easier to save one if not both franchises in question,” Reid said, referring to the Raiders and A’s.

“The question is, what kind of deal can be structured, and where can we find the money to buy the county out?”

One major issue that would have to be worked out is the debt the city and county have carried since the Coliseum overhaul of the mid-1990s, which lured the Raiders back from Los Angeles. The city and county each pay $11 million a year to service the debt, which isn’t scheduled to be paid off until 2026.

According to Miley, the county loses money on the Coliseum every year. That’s not the case for Oakland, he said, because the city gets money from parking taxes and various other sources.

That has led to friction between the city and county, which has made unsuccessful overtures to Oakland officials to share more of their revenue from the complex.

The Raiders aren’t the only team whose future is complicated by the Coliseum’s multiheaded management arrangement. The A’s say they can’t make any moves to build a new ballpark at the Coliseum site until the Raiders figure out their future. If the Raiders get their way and build a new football-only stadium on the site, the A’s will have to leave.

History of tension

There’s already a history of tension between Oakland and the county over the A’s. Last year, after the Coliseum Authority negotiated a lease extension with the team, the City Council balked — infuriating the team and prompting then-baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to give the A’s the green light to leave town.

Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and the A’s got their extension.

As for the Warriors, they’re already making plans to leave Oakland for a new arena in San Francisco’s Mission Bay. That may be something no combination of East Bay governments can head off.

 

[fearsomefour]

Since then, the county has done an appraisal on the Coliseum complex. While no figure has been disclosed, it’s believed to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Or tens of thousands.
I hear they are of thinking of opening a new Dennys near by....dare to dream.
(light blue font)

 

[Rmfnlt]

Where was I combative? I just said that I would need to see the permits, which are public record, to believe Roggin.

Nah... Freddie said it, so it must be true... gate swings both ways!