This plan involves playing it smart, but playing it tough. Playing hardball. The city’s politicians and leaders have, for the most part, been polite and obliging in dealing with the A’s, sometimes to the point of obsequiousness. For the most part, Kaval and Manfred have been condescending and dismissive of Oakland’s efforts.

Manfred, for example, placed all of the responsibility for the A’s potential departure and failure to get a deal done on newly elected Oakland mayor Sheng Thao.

Step One, then, would be no more groveling.

“Often these negotiations (between a city and a team) turn into a gun-to-the-head situation,” said a prominent Bay Area sports person who wished to remain anonymous. “The city and municipality is always on its heels. It doesn’t have to be that way.”

There are negotiations ahead, whether it be for a new ballpark in Oakland if the Las Vegas deal falls through, or over the Coliseum land. Such negotiations are what USC sports/business professor David Carter calls “a sports mating dance.” If so, it’s time for Oakland to start leading. Being super-duper nice has proved to be a waste of smiles.

Mayor Thao’s feisty responses to slights from the A’s/MLB have at least given Oakland a measure of dignity in the dance.

Step Two. No late checkout for the A’s.

The A’s lease at the Coliseum runs through next season. If they strike a deal in Las Vegas, the A’s will need a place to play for at least three more seasons. The most likely spot would be the minor-league ballpark in Vegas. But it’s a small park (10,000 seats), and it often grills under 100-degree heat.

If the A’s want to extend their Coliseum lease, the city and county could refuse, or they could demand a steep rent increase. The latter would be more pragmatic than vindictive. The city and county need the money, and John Fisher has money.

Refusing to extend the lease would be what one expert calls “the nuclear option.”

“It ultimately never seems to be in anybody’s best interests to go with the nuclear option when it comes to these kinds of deals,” Carter said. “At some point down the road, you’re going to see the same people. … So it’s not so much that you need to take the high road, I really think you need to avoid taking the low road.”

But Oakland could at least take the tough road, upon which hard bargains are driven.

Step Three. Get Fisher/Kaval out of the Coliseum site.

This is crucial. It’s also complicated.

Back in 2018, when the A’s identified Howard Terminal as their target, they sought to buy the Coliseum land. Why? In a letter to then-mayor Libby Schaaf and the Oakland city council, Kaval said the Coliseum would be insurance, a back-up site if the HT project failed.

“(It) has become clear that the A’s need to solidify control of the one site in Oakland that offers an assured path for the development of a new privately financed baseball venue — the existing Coliseum complex,” Kaval wrote.

The city didn’t bite, but Alameda County did. The city and county each own a 50% stake in the site. The county apparently believed that selling its half to the A’s would, as Kaval said, ensure the A’s stay in Oakland. A deal was struck to sell the county’s 50% for a seemingly bargain price of $85 million over six years.

Since the sale, Kaval and Manfred have worked hard to disparage the Coliseum as a ballpark site. So not only did the A’s abandon the Coliseum site as a potential home, they lowered the property value by doing so in a disparaging manner.

Did the A’s buy that half share under false pretenses, or did they have a change of heart? I asked Kaval, via email, but he has not responded to that, nor to a number of other questions and interview requests in recent months. Does that sound like a guy “rooted in Oakland” to you?

The A’s half-ownership of the site could potentially gum up its subsequent development. The city is negotiating to sell its 50% to the African American Sports and Entertainment Group, which has plans to develop the Coliseum into a sports/entertainment center, with residential and commercial components.

AASEG is seeking to land a WNBA expansion team for the Oakland Arena, and as part of their bid AASEG hoped to present a cooperation agreement with the A’s, co-owners of the property. But Oakland city councilperson Noel Gallo said that for a long time, the A’s were non-responsive to AASEG.
What are the A’s plans for their half-share? Nobody knows.

“Just to be clear,” said Oakland Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan, “the A’s made an agreement with Alameda County to buy their share, and they have paid certain deposits, but that purchase has not happened, the title owner of that 50% is still Alameda County. … The A’s have done none of the steps, there’s no development proposal from them, they haven’t been seeking to utilize it or advance a project there. So it seems plausible that they actually are not interested in acquiring it anymore.”

It’s also plausible that Fisher’s plan is to sit on his half-share until the real estate market rebounds, then can sell for a profit. If he’s playing that waiting game, it would complicate any development plans. The sale contains a clause that if the A’s leave Oakland before 2026, the team must immediately pay the remainder of the $85 million sale price, but paying that might not be a deal-breaker for Fisher.

One option for Oakland, to rid itself of delay and dithering? Invoke eminent domain and force the A’s to sell their half to the city for a fair market value. Fine idea or terrible idea? Depends on which experts you ask.

“That would be great,” said Mike Jacob, VP and general council of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Jacob is also a member of the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, which actively opposes the A’s Howard Terminal project. “Let’s say that they’re planning to sit on (their half of the Coliseum site) until the market turns around, then sell it at a more attractive rate. Why would you essentially give this team that ability to profit and put that money in their pocket at the expense of the city and county? If you’re the public and that’s your property, you just gave away tens of millions of dollars. … If nothing else, (the threat of eminent domain) could spur some new negotiations with the A’s over the disposal of that property.”

Kaplan, who has led the charge for years to develop the Coliseum site, recently announced the city’s agreement with men’s and women’s pro soccer teams — the Oakland Roots and Soul — to build a soccer stadium at the Coliseum. It hasn’t been decided whether the stadium will be temporary or permanent, but it’s a start in proving anew the viability of the Coliseum as a sports and cultural hub.

The Coliseum Arena is about to launch an aggressive campaign to lure events. Between the arena and soccer, Kaplan claims she and the city can more than replace the A’s as a source of sports entertainment, community pride and positive economic impact. Any interference by the half-owner A’s, active or passive, could slow any positive development.

“I would not take anything off the table,” Kaplan said, in reference to potential eminent domain proceedings. She added, “We can’t let this huge property become an abandoned eyesore; rather, we have to turn it into something that serves the community. … We have to take the appropriate action to provide this opportunity and this revenue. We can’t have the taxpayers on the hook.”