Actually, there are worse...The raiders and mark davis need to put there hands in there pockets because that's the only way there getting a new stadium.
The Coliseum is the worst most biggest dump stadium in the U.S
:wallbash::wallbash: Everybody likes to talk about the sewage overflow, but if the sewer backed up in your house, would you tear down your house or would you fix the plumbing. The Coliseum has definitely not kept up with the times, but the sewage thing is overrated.Actually, there are worse...
But yes, they seriously need to do something with it. Earlier this year, there was a sewage overflow in the facility.
Sewage issue or not, it's still universally considered to be one of, if not, THE worst professional sporting facility in the country.:wallbash::wallbash: Everybody likes to talk about the sewage overflow, but if the sewer backed up in your house, would you tear down your house or would you fix the plumbing. The Coliseum has definitely not kept up with the times, but the sewage thing is overrated.
That's horsepucky. It has comfortable seating, adequate legroom (even for me, and I'm 6-3), no obstructed seats, good sightlines, and reasonable access to both rail and freeway. I have no doubt that I would find someplace like Lambeau lacking in some of those categories.Sewage issue or not, it's still universally considered to be one of, if not, THE worst professional sporting facility in the country.
So you're going to tell me that you'll take an outdated, crumbling, basefootball like the O. over Seattle and San Fran's facilities?That's horsepucky. It has comfortable seating, adequate legroom (even for me, and I'm 6-3), no obstructed seats, good sightlines, and reasonable access to both rail and freeway. I have no doubt that I would find someplace like Lambeau lacking in some of those categories.
No, but that wasn't what was stated. You said that this is the worst professional venue in the US by far, and I disagreed with that. Aside from the sewage issues and narrow concourses, the Coliseum has aged rather well. The fact that the average spectator is fairly comfortable here has probably hurt efforts by the Raiders and A's to get new homes. Which I agree are needed.So you're going to tell me that you'll take an outdated, crumbling, basefootball like the O. over Seattle and San Fran's facilities?
Regardless of how we see this stadium, it doesn't matter because it wont be around forever.No, but that wasn't what was stated. You said that this is the worst professional venue in the US by far, and I disagreed with that. Aside from the sewage issues and narrow concourses, the Coliseum has aged rather well. The fact that the average spectator is fairly comfortable here has probably hurt efforts by the Raiders and A's to get new homes. Which I agree are needed.
Oakland officials abruptly dropped their opposition, if only temporarily, Thursday to help approve a 10-year stadium lease for the Athletics, hours after the A's owner informed city and county leaders that Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig gave the team permission to immediately seek a new home outside Oakland.
The stunning revelation was made by A's co-owner Lew Wolff in a 10 p.m. e-mail to officials Wednesday, in which he wrote that Selig authorized an immediate move for the team because of Oakland officials' "political maneuvering" that blindsided the A's and jeopardized a lease deal the team had agreed to with the board that manages the O.co Coliseum.
Interesting post and it makes perfect sense. Oakland knows MLB has no leverage here since there is really no place to move the A's. The only viable option might be Montreal if they ever decided to build a new stadium. Although, it seems like they are keeping that threat for the Rays in order to come up with a new stadium in Tampa/St. Petersburg.Leverage is probably the wrong word, but cities like Oakland do have it, particularly when a team wants to remain in a market.
San Francisco gave itself leverage by repeatedly saying no to the Giants, and got a much better deal as a result.
Oakland is in a huge TV market which is one of the few in the US to be adding significant wealth (both individual and corporate). Oakland also provides access to extremely lucrative TV cable deals (which act like a TV tax in support of organized professional baseball). Moving to Sacramento (or even Portland) gives none of those benefits, since this is where the real money is.
Strange as it may seem, other than San Jose, there is probably no city in the US that would provide a better deal than what they are getting now, no matter what the condition of the stadium.
I don't know if you are off base, but there are a lot of misconceptions floating around here. For example:Am I totally off based thinking this deal signals at least a little hope the Coliseum City plan may have some legs? I read Davis has been talking to Oakland and the development firm recently. 10 years in the league's crappiest park seems a tad odd unless there is a plan in the horizon for a major overhaul. Especially when Wolff was seemingly desperate to relocate as soon as he possibly could.
Thanks for the insight.I don't know if you are off base, but there are a lot of misconceptions floating around here. For example: * The ten year lease is not a done deal. Many are critical of the deal, and the board was unable to approve it, due to four of the eight voting members not showing up last week. * Coliseum City has a lot of problems right now. Only 200 of the 800 acres involved are actually controlled by either the City of Oakland or Alameda County. Plus, there is a big question about the unpaid bonds issued to build Mt. Davis. * Wolff is going forward with the 10 year deal simply because his team needs a place to play while things are getting worked out. There are several out clauses, some of which do not involved the A's paying a dime. * San Jose is still Wolff's preferred choice to build. They have the land, they have the design, they have the money and they still have the naming rights deal with Cisco Systems, but since the City of San Jose is still involved in the big lawsuit against MLB, there is nothing that Wolff or the A's can say or do right now about SJ. There are still billions of dollars at stake here, and nothing has been settled yet.
I hope they don't screw up the new Quakes stadium for a temporary A's home.Wolff said the only step the A's have taken to look for a new home is investigating whether they could play temporarily at an under-construction soccer stadium in San Jose. The 18,000-seat stadium is being built for the San Jose Earthquakes, which Wolff co-owns.
The Montreal Expos played in 66,000-seat Olympic Stadium before leaving for Washington, D.C., following the 2004 season. Without elaborating, Wolff said he didn't think it would meet the team's needs.
San Antonio is home to the Alamodome, a 65,000-seat domed stadium used mainly for football. It has hosted exhibition baseball games, but with a right-field fence that is a mere 280 feet from home plate - closer than any outfield fence in the major leagues.
Wolff also expressed doubt that the NFL's Oakland Raiders would be ready to tear down the Coliseum next year and build a new, football-only stadium by 2018. A memo sent to Quan by planners for a city-backed sports-retail complex called Coliseum City said they hope to have a stadium deal by the end of the summer that would require demolishing the Coliseum next year.
It all makes sense now...Because outdoor sports stadiums are often money losers and Oakland can’t afford to help pay for them, any new stadium development in the city is expected to include shops, a hotel and offices to subsidize the project. Sports economists have questioned whether the A’s and Raiders would want to work together because a second stadium would remove land that could be used for more profitable development.
“The probability of Coliseum City working financially and some team committing to it would be greater if there was only one team involved,” Stanford University Economics Professor Emeritus Roger Noll said when asked about the development in April.
In other words, it’s clearer than ever now that both owners’ business plans involve extracting as much as possible in negotiations over the Coliseum site, not just in public money, but in development rights to land, which in the suddenly hot Oakland real estate market could be more valuable than any old sports stadium. Which explains both why Davis is insisting on the A’s eviction at the earlier possible time, and why Wolff is eager to get a lease extension signed that would force the Raiders to wait (two years, anyway) on their stadium plans: The owners aren’t just negotiating with Oakland for the best possible deal, they’re competing with each other not just for sports market share, but for dibs on a mammoth piece of prime real estate.
Infrastructure costs, plain and simple.
Ever since people have talked about building another venue on the Coliseum site, that talk has gotten shut down by the costs associated with relocating utilities, most famously the power lines that run through the complex. While such costs are a low percentage of the overall project cost, the fact is that they would have to be dealt with upfront. And since upfront costs often have to be borne by the team while the public financing piece gets squared away, it’s a budget item that no team owner wants to deal with if he can avoid it.
I'm pretty sure that's not it. Davis could handle $15-20 million. The problem is for the rest of the construction. No matter what they build, it will require at least $200 million from the Raiders, and they simply don't have the cash for that. They make more money on road games than home games. If not for the TV money, the Raiders would have folded by now. A classic case of how not to run a franchise.Why would Mark Davis want to build at the current Coliseum site?
http://newballpark.org/2014/07/07/why-would-mark-davis-want-to-build-at-the-current-coliseum-site/
