Will new stadium be a fresh start for floundering Athletics franchise?
All signs are pointing towards the Athletics moving out of Oakland and bringing the team to Las Vegas, but will it help save this franchise?
SportsPulse, USA TODAY
The Oakland Athletics’ Las Vegas relocation effort was dealt a significant setback Tuesday when lawmakers in Nevada failed to take action on a bill that would have provided $380 million in public funding for a $1.5 billion stadium on the Strip.
State Bill 509, which faced significant opposition in a very limited period for public input, did not advance out of committee before the state’s legislative session expired at midnight. That scuttles whatever hopes the club had of Major League Baseball voting to approve the A’s relocation at this month’s owners meetings – and calls into question how much appetite the state has to accommodate the team.
The franchise’s hopes of catching Las Vegas’ eye in the near term are still alive. Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, who is in favor of accommodating the A’s, said in a statement Tuesday he will call a special legislative session, during which the bill could be revived. But Monday’s marathon final day of legislation was consumed by battles over the state budget and adjourned without passing one of the five implementation bills.
That obviously will be the focus of any special session.
OPINION: Why A’s Las Vegas stadium gambit may be a losing bet: ‘It’s just nonsense’
Are the A’s stuck in Oakland?
Not necessarily. The state could revisit the bill in special session, or an alternative means for public funding could emerge. But Nevada house speaker Steve Yeager told a Las Vegas news station that Lombardo will not include the A’s stadium plan or a similarly controversial bill to award tax credits to Hollywood studios in the session.
And the non-action on the bill jeopardizes what was already an ambitious and probably unrealistic relocation timeline the club developed.
Even if SB 509 was taken up and approved, there remained significant political hurdles at the state and county levels. The club had already pushed back its target opening date by a year, to 2028, because their projected stadium site is currently occupied by Tropicana Las Vegas, which would need to be demolished.
The A’s deployed a significant lobbying team in Nevada and owner John Fisher made a rare public appearance, with president Dave Kaval, toward the end of the legislative session. Though those efforts have failed, the A’s still retain key allies in the resort and tourism industries, who remain thirsty to continue Las Vegas’ rebranding as a sports mecca.
This time, six years after approving $750 million for the Raiders’ relocation from Oakland, state lawmakers said to cool it.
Why the big hurry?
MLB commissioner Rob Manfred gave the club a January 2024 deadline to strike a stadium deal – Oakland, Vegas, wherever – or be cut out of the league’s revenue-sharing plan. While the city of Oakland and team made significant inroads to approve a complicated deal at Howard Terminal, the looming deadline likely spurred Fisher to pivot – panic, some might say – harder toward Las Vegas, where abundant sites and friendlier politicians awaited.
Even under those favorable conditions, Fisher failed. The ad hoc nature of the A’s planning – they first reached a “binding agreement” to build an entertainment district on another site before switching to the Tropicana project, hastily churning out drawings and plans – probably didn’t engender trust among state and county lawmakers.
What will MLB think now?
Commissioner Rob Manfred has certainly stuck his neck out for Fisher; after all, it’s his job to answer to 30 owners. From poor-mouthing the Coliseum site to waiving a relocation fee and a willingness to vote quickly on relocation, Manfred has pursed his lips and done Fisher’s dirty work.
But all that was in service of a deal getting done and resolution for the A’s stadium issue – a saga that’s dragged on for two decades. That would pave the way for the league to move on expansion. After Fisher fumbled this opportunity, that patience may be running thin.
On a more global level, the league also can’t be thrilled that the franchise failed to procure public funds for a new stadium, a backbone for almost every new facility in the league. It’s not the precedent Manfred and other owners want to see when teams in Kansas City, Milwaukee, Arizona, Baltimore and Anaheim seek new or heavily renovated stadiums.
Is a return to Oakland possible?
Always. The club’s lease extends through 2024, anyway and Fisher’s veracity – on Oakland, on Vegas – has been challenging to determine. Until the A’s announced their first “binding agreement” in Las Vegas, relocation always felt like a leverage play.
Yet with that leverage now significantly compromised, it’s similarly hard to imagine Fisher returning, hat in hand, to the negotiating table in Oakland. At the same time, the Las Vegas situation remains fluid.
With powerful interests still in their favor, the Las Vegas A’s remain very much a possibility. But hopes of a quick cash grab and a Vegas-style shotgun wedding are gone.
