Click the link:

https://funwhileitlasted.net/2015/01/12/...-invaders/

I believe that these guys, who originally replaced the Raiders in Oakland when the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, never really got a fair chance to really be Oakland's new team. I would like to see Oakland call its new team this if they get an NFL expansion team.

The football team would not have a stadium.

The new Oakland ballpark plan includes tearing down the Coliseum after the waterfront ballpark opens. Housing and other development would be built on the Coliseum site.

(02-16-2022 01:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The football team would not have a stadium.

The new Oakland ballpark plan includes tearing down the Coliseum after the waterfront ballpark opens. Housing and other development would be built on the Coliseum site.

I don't care for the A's new plan. And it is precisely for those reasons that you state about the Coliseum. If the city of Oakland doesn't care for the A's ballpark idea, they can easily veto it, and not have to worry about losing the A's. Despite Las Vegas being used as a threat by the A's, it's an empty threat. They would be opposed by both the Raiders and the Knights. Mark Davis has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't care for the A's ownership. San Jose, as we all know, isn't an option either, thanks to the Giants. Portland is really the only credible threat that the A's have, and yet they are still recovering from the George Floyd riots, IMO.

(02-16-2022 08:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 01:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The football team would not have a stadium.

The new Oakland ballpark plan includes tearing down the Coliseum after the waterfront ballpark opens. Housing and other development would be built on the Coliseum site.

I don't care for the A's new plan. And it is precisely for those reasons that you state about the Coliseum. If the city of Oakland doesn't care for the A's ballpark idea, they can easily veto it, and not have to worry about losing the A's. Despite Las Vegas being used as a threat by the A's, it's an empty threat. They would be opposed by both the Raiders and the Knights. Mark Davis has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't care for the A's ownership. San Jose, as we all know, isn't an option either, thanks to the Giants. Portland is really the only credible threat that the A's have, and yet they are still recovering from the George Floyd riots, IMO.

It looks like a great deal for both the A's and City of Oakland. It appears that the City of Oakland has already endorsed the idea. The mayor is supportive. I cannot imagine why Mark Davis would be against the A's moving to Las Vegas. They would not be playing baseball at Allegiant Stadium. The City of Oakland has already lost the Warriors and the Raiders. They cannot afford to lose the A's as well. This is a deal that should get done.

If it were up to me, they would build a brand new A's ballpark on the Coliseum site.

But the A's owner wants to make money by developing real estate at the Howard Terminal site that is near downtown Oakland. The city wants the ballpark there as well, but it is going to cost them quite a bit.

(02-16-2022 11:26 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 08:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 01:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The football team would not have a stadium.

The new Oakland ballpark plan includes tearing down the Coliseum after the waterfront ballpark opens. Housing and other development would be built on the Coliseum site.

I don't care for the A's new plan. And it is precisely for those reasons that you state about the Coliseum. If the city of Oakland doesn't care for the A's ballpark idea, they can easily veto it, and not have to worry about losing the A's. Despite Las Vegas being used as a threat by the A's, it's an empty threat. They would be opposed by both the Raiders and the Knights. Mark Davis has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't care for the A's ownership. San Jose, as we all know, isn't an option either, thanks to the Giants. Portland is really the only credible threat that the A's have, and yet they are still recovering from the George Floyd riots, IMO.

It looks like a great deal for both the A's and City of Oakland. It appears that the City of Oakland has already endorsed the idea. The mayor is supportive. I cannot imagine why Mark Davis would be against the A's moving to Las Vegas. They would not be playing baseball at Allegiant Stadium. The City of Oakland has already lost the Warriors and the Raiders. They cannot afford to lose the A's as well. This is a deal that should get done.

Mark Davis opposes the A's for two reasons:

1. the city of Oakland was never really willing to deal with the Raiders. Oakland rolled out the red carpet for the A's.

2. Mark Davis likes only having to share Las Vegas corporate $$'s with the Las Vegas Knights and the UNLV Rebels.

(02-17-2022 12:59 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 11:26 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 08:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 01:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The football team would not have a stadium.

The new Oakland ballpark plan includes tearing down the Coliseum after the waterfront ballpark opens. Housing and other development would be built on the Coliseum site.

I don't care for the A's new plan. And it is precisely for those reasons that you state about the Coliseum. If the city of Oakland doesn't care for the A's ballpark idea, they can easily veto it, and not have to worry about losing the A's. Despite Las Vegas being used as a threat by the A's, it's an empty threat. They would be opposed by both the Raiders and the Knights. Mark Davis has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't care for the A's ownership. San Jose, as we all know, isn't an option either, thanks to the Giants. Portland is really the only credible threat that the A's have, and yet they are still recovering from the George Floyd riots, IMO.

It looks like a great deal for both the A's and City of Oakland. It appears that the City of Oakland has already endorsed the idea. The mayor is supportive. I cannot imagine why Mark Davis would be against the A's moving to Las Vegas. They would not be playing baseball at Allegiant Stadium. The City of Oakland has already lost the Warriors and the Raiders. They cannot afford to lose the A's as well. This is a deal that should get done.

Mark Davis opposes the A's for two reasons:

1. the city of Oakland was never really willing to deal with the Raiders. Oakland rolled out the red carpet for the A's.

2. Mark Davis likes only having to share Las Vegas corporate $$'s with the Las Vegas Knights and the UNLV Rebels.

The City of Oakland gave Al Davis a sweetheart deal to return to Oakland in 1995. They left Oakland after they were able to finagle their way out of $190 million owed to the City of Oakland. The Raiders are not the good guys in this story, and neither are the A's. But at least the A's are still in Oakland.

Mark Davis has been supportive of the A's in their negotiations with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland is not flush with cash. It was always going to be difficult to keep the Raiders in Oakland. The Raiders got a terrific deal in Las Vegas, $750 million in public money, the corporate money, PSL sales got them another $549 million, and they have a beautiful, new state-of-the-art sports venue to play football in. According to Forbes, their franchise values has increased 117% in the past five years. If the A's had anything to do with them leaving, they should be thanking them.

The corporate money the Raiders get will not be affected by an MLB team in Las Vegas. The A's current lease runs through 2024 at the Coliseum. I expect the A's to stay in Oakland in a new stadium, but I also expect that major league baseball could eventually expand to Las Vegas and that is not something Mark Davis can control or should fear.

I lived in the Bay Area as a kid from 1966 through 1968. I have been a Raider fan since 1967 and I went to a couple of A's ball games in 1968 at the Coliseum after they arrived from Kansas City. I had season tickets to the Raiders in LA, and I have seen about 30 games up in Oakland after they moved back in 1995. I feel bad for my friends and the fans up there about losing the Raiders, but the stadium was a dump. It was time for a change.

What about San Antonio for the A’s? The NBA would Be their only major league competition and there’s very little overlap between the two seasons.

It puts the A’s closer to division opponents Houston and Texas (Arlington).

I’ve seen pictures of the Alamo Dome in a baseball configuration so it’s possible they could be a temporary home until a new facility could be built.

A’s can be short for Athletics or Alamos and there’s nothing more iconic about SA than the Alamo.

LV also has a nice little plot of land just waiting for the A's close to all the action!

(02-16-2022 08:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 01:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The football team would not have a stadium.

The new Oakland ballpark plan includes tearing down the Coliseum after the waterfront ballpark opens. Housing and other development would be built on the Coliseum site.

I don't care for the A's new plan. And it is precisely for those reasons that you state about the Coliseum. If the city of Oakland doesn't care for the A's ballpark idea, they can easily veto it, and not have to worry about losing the A's. Despite Las Vegas being used as a threat by the A's, it's an empty threat. They would be opposed by both the Raiders and the Knights. Mark Davis has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't care for the A's ownership. San Jose, as we all know, isn't an option either, thanks to the Giants. Portland is really the only credible threat that the A's have, and yet they are still recovering from the George Floyd riots, IMO.

LOL - that is the biggest load of bullpuckey around.