The Trib's Paul T. Rosynsky gets the scoop on a new Coliseum lease extension, but in addition he sheds light on the weirdly complicated political machine that exists within and around the Coliseum Authority.
Consider the fact that the guy getting the deal done, Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, isn't even on the current Coliseum Authority board. He was kicked out as part of a power play when, several years ago, Haggerty pushed for Fremont as an option in the HOK study. According to the article, Haggerty is scheduled to rejoin the board soon. As a supe, he'll also have the chance to rubber stamp the very deal he put together as part of its final approval process. Who asked him to make the deal? Authority President Gail Steele, who is also a supe - and just as important, in whose district the Pacific Commons land lies. Why? Probably because Haggerty has a good working relationship with Wolff - as far as we know.
With Nate Miley soon leaving the Authority board, the only real holdout left is IDLF. If IDLF is really committed to keeping the team in Oakland, it will soon become his time to show his hand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What are the current odds that the new stadium is announced on its current extended deadline? (January 1st, 2007)
sounds like there are some shady dealings going on that might interest the DA...
Amazing what happens when Wolff breaks off negotiations, isn't it? I generally give Wolff the benefit of the doubt, but one thing he DID say early on is that he'd never "negotiate through the media"
So who called the press confrerence, then?
Of course, with the playoffs and possible World Series coming, I'm sure Oakland saw the negative publicity coming.
I guess I missed the big news here save one tidbit I'll mention in a minute. Correct me if I am wrong but this deal makes the A's bound to the Coliseum till 2010 then gives them options till 2013. The old deal was the A's had options on the Coliseum till 2010. Wasn't it just about a sure thing they were going to exercise the option for the next three years? So this deal in effect gives the A's the same amount of time as before just with an added A's option after 2010, year to year, till 2013. Sounds like a great deal for the A's. If the Stadium isn't finished they still have the Coliseum till 2013. To me this only puts the A's in a more relaxed position to do the deal they want. Where am I wrong on this? The one tidbit of big news I saw in this story was the "helps to keep the A's here for decades to come" (not sure if that is verbatim). To me that is big news with one follow up question, why does it make it likely for them to be here for decades? This deal gives the A's a guaranteed home until the new place is done. How in the world does that make Oakland more likely? He isn't getting stadium subsidies from Oakland today, tomorrow, next year or next decade. The Fremont idea is, in theory, supposed to pay for itself with the whole "village" rant. Why is that idea less ideal to Wolff now then before this deal? I just don't get it. I suspect this 'announcement' is being puffed up more than its true value.
You have the right idea, anon. All this is a way to maintain leverage and a bit of a cushion.
Haggerty's quote was along the lines of "keeping the A's in Alameda County for the next two or three decades." That's different from "keeping the A's in Oakland." He has been a key architect for the Pacific Commons deal, so that can't be ignored.
Post a Comment