At the end of the 2012 regular season, the Chronicle’s Matier and Ross wrote that the Coliseum Authority sent A’s owner Lew Wolff terms of a five year lease extension at the Coliseum. The purported catch was a $50 million exit fee should the A’s leave early for San Jose. Now the LA Times’ Bill Shaikin reports that Wolff has sent a letter to the Coliseum Authority (JPA) asking for – that’s right – a five year extension.

In a letter to the body that governs the Coliseum, A’s owner Lew Wolff agreed to keep the team in Oakland for at least five years “regardless of the outcome of our efforts to obtain a new facility in the City of San Jose.”

In the world of stadium negotiations, these are chess moves. It’s important to try to look multiple steps ahead. There are a lot of ways this could play out, though there is a complicating factor which I’ll get to in a bit.

asch1 wrote:

Where the hell would they go if they don't work out the Coli?

asch1 wrote: I don't think the A's have that much leverage here at all. As much as Oakland wants to keep the jobs that Wolff promotes, *IF* the A's to SJ is a done deal at some point,  Oakland will be losing a lot more than just the jobs and money they receive for the lease.

The letter is coming from an owner that:

1. In the past and in that actual letter, says that they plan to move to SJ.
2. Said he will not look into Oakland anymore at all.

I think the JPA has the right to get the deal that they want out of this. The A's are refusing to discuss Oakland as an option, and have refused to discuss options with anyone in Oakland, FOR YEARS. If he's hellbent on moving, they must get what they feel is fair, especially if the A's are moving. While the A's have had to deal with the renovated Mt. Davis version stadium, they have had sweetheart deals since. They pay VERY VERY little to play there and they get money from the Raiders concessions as well. Again, as bad as they think that stadium is, they are making money hand over fist with this operation.

Where the hell would they go if they don't work out the Coli?

joshbalt wrote: The lease offer was idiotic, nobody would ever sign such a deal and it unnecessarily increases the level of animosity. Oakland can't force the A's to stay and the lease offer isn't based on any opportunity cost Oakland incurs it is just a middle finger. In fact it provides additional evidence for the A's that dealing with Oakland is impossible and they should be allowed to move. In that sense the A's should be thanking Oakland for the offer.

2018 would have made it 10 years since Fremont collapsed and 14 years since Wolff joined the A's and still no stadium.

What will we expect in the next 5? More profitable mediocrity until something magical happens?  For those of us who just want a new stadium regardless of location when do we start to accept that after 14 years of nothing Wolff could be part of the problem and not the solution.  Do we continue to accept "wait and whine" as a solid strategy  Do we require more transparency from A's ownership that yes they have something put together.  So far all Wolff has told us publicly is "trust me"  After 14 years that looses much of its original weight. 

After 14 years of of stadium promises but no delivery its quite obvious that Wolff hasn't produced a solid enough plan that could either settle with the giants or even convince the rest of MLB to let this happen.

joshbalt wrote: The JPA has some leverage in that the A's don't want to locate elsewhere before their presumed move to San Jose but there are still many leverage points held by the A's, that the JPA really has no alternative tenant for 90%+ of the dates the A's use the facility (so they would be forgoing whatever revenue stream they would receive), that the A's use of the facility does generate jobs the area can't afford to lose, and that if the A's do leave for whatever temporary location they find its completely over for Oakland as a location. One could argue that forcing this situation might actually be the best way to force MLB to act on San Jose as if the A's were located in a place such as Las Vegas (the last temporary home of the A's) MLB would incur large costs for additional revenue sharing to the A's given the local revenue stream of the franchise would shrink further, and I don't think the politics would sustain having an MLB franchise in such a location on an extended basis.