Las Vegas Stadium Negotiations

A Nevada judge has dismissed a legal challenge that was attempting to overturn a law that approved $380MM in public funding, per reporting from Tabitha Mueller and Howard Stutz of The Nevada Independent.

Back in February, it was reported that a political action committee backed by the Nevada State Education Association’s Strong Public Schools had filed suit against the state of Nevada and governor Joe Lombardo.

The suit was attempting to stop the stadium funding on the grounds that the law didn’t comply with the state constitution. One of their claims was that the proposal needed to be voted on by a two-thirds majority as opposed to a simple majority, as is the state’s constitutional requirement for bills creating or increasing public revenue.

Carson City District Court Judge Kristin Luis didn’t weigh in on those accusations. Rather, she dismissed the suit today on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing and didn’t meet the standard of a “public importance exemption,” meaning that she therefore couldn’t make a “determination on the merit of the claims.”

The A’s are planning to build a new stadium on the Las Vegas strip, a project which has a price tag of roughly $1.5 billion, with the $380MM government funding being a notable chunk of that. Reporting from Mick Akers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal in July indicating that the club is planning to make up the difference through various means. That includes $300MM in debt refinancing and $850MM in equity from the family of team owner John Fisher. Fisher’s parents Doris and Don Fisher founded The Gap, the clothing chain. In December of 2020, Forbes estimated the family’s net worth at $8.9 billion. Per today’s report from the Independent, the public funding won’t be released until the private financing conditions are met, among other requirements.

The Las Vegas stadium isn’t expected to be ready until the 2028 season but the club’s lease at the Coliseum in Oakland runs out after 2024. The A’s are planning to play in Sacramento’s Sutter Health Park for the next three years, sharing it with the Sacramento River Cats, the Triple-A affiliate of the Giants. Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle published a story today wherein multiple people expressed their concerns about the Sacramento plan. The various fears include the artificial turf, the hitter-friendly nature of the park and the general logistics.

The A’s relocation plan took a couple steps forward this week. On Monday, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a November 2023 lower court ruling that stopped a petition to put public funding for the stadium up for a vote this year (link via Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times).

A Nevada teachers union had sought a referendum during this November’s elections on the $380MM earmarked by the county and state for construction of the Vegas stadium. (Voters in Kansas City rejected a public funding measure for the Royals and Chiefs in a referendum process in April.) The court agreed with arguments by a coalition which included the A’s that the language of the proposed petition was misleading and did not abide by state law. That takes the possibility of a 2024 referendum off the table.

A political action committee backed by the union filed a separate lawsuit in an attempt to challenge the funding in February, arguing that the law didn’t meet the procedural requirements of the state constitution. The A’s were not named as a defendant — the suit was against the state and its governor, Joe Lombardo — but the team filed a motion last month attempting to intervene in the proceedings. There’s no current indication that suit poses a serious threat to the relocation plan.

On the heels of their legal victory, the A’s presented their non-relocation agreement to the Las Vegas Stadium Authority on Thursday afternoon (link via Mick Akers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal). That’s one of a handful of documents which the Stadium Authority needs to approve before construction on the facility will officially begin. The Authority has already signed off on a community benefits agreement. They’re now evaluating the lease and non-relocation agreements.

The final, most important, of the group is the development agreement detailing how the A’s plan to meet their commitments (projected north of $1.1 billion) for construction costs. Shaikin reported last month the A’s are seeking $500MM in private funding, potentially offering minority ownership shares of the franchise to incentivize investment. Akers writes that the team plans to submit the development agreement for review at some point this summer.

The A’s have retained an investment banking firm in an effort to procure $500MM in private funding towards the construction of their Las Vegas ballpark, reports Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times. The A’s are prepared to offer minority ownership shares in the franchise to potential investors as they put together financing for their estimated $1.5 billion stadium.

Last summer, Nevada lawmakers approved $380MM in public funding — taking the form of state tax credits, county-issued bonds and a county credit — to offset a chunk of the cost. Shortly thereafter, MLB approved the A’s relocation efforts. A political action committee has sued the state in an effort to overturn the public funding law, but there’s no indication that’s currently a serious threat to the relocation.

Even with the public money in hand, the A’s are set to pay upwards of $1.1 billion in estimated construction costs. Shaikin notes the public funding law requires the A’s to present a specific financing plan for their balance. The organization is evidently looking for half a billion dollars in outside investment to meet those obligations.

While the financial specifics were previously unclear, dangling ownership shares to investors has long been the organization’s plan. Owner John Fisher told Howard Stutz of the Nevada Independent in January that he was considering selling minority stakes to Vegas-area investors. Fisher made clear in that interview that he and his family “would retain majority ownership and (continue to) oversee operations” of the franchise.

The A’s plan to complete construction on their 33,000-seat facility on the Vegas strip in time for the 2028 season. They’re playing their final year in Oakland before a three-year move to Sacramento’s Sutter Health Park between 2025-27.

9:44pm: By contrast, Mick Akers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal writes that the A’s remain focused on Oakland for the 2025-27 campaigns. However, Akers echoes Drellich’s report that the three remaining possibilities are Oakland, Sacramento and Salt Lake City.

8:07pm: The A’s are running low on time to figure out where they’ll play home games between 2025-27. That has been a priority for team officials over the past few weeks. In addition to touring a handful of stadium sites, the A’s met with Oakland officials yesterday about a potential three-year lease extension at the Coliseum.

While that is still on the table, Evan Drellich of the Athletic reports that Sacramento has emerged as the front-runner for temporary hosting duty. According to Drellich, the two additional possibilities still under consideration are a lease extension at the Coliseum and playing in Salt Lake City. Previously, the A’s had considered a few other options: Reno; Summerlin, Nevada; and sharing Oracle Park with the Giants.

A’s and Oakland officials were fairly quiet coming out of their meeting on Thursday. The organization released a brief statement yesterday, calling it “a constructive and positive meeting with the City of Oakland and Alameda County” and noting they were “focused on continuing conversations around a lease extension at the Coliseum.” However, Drellich writes that the fraught relationship between the city and the A’s remains a significant obstacle.

The A’s lease at the Coliseum expires at the end of the upcoming season. The team’s new park on the Vegas Strip isn’t expected to be ready until 2028. If the A’s leave the Bay Area, that jeopardizes their local broadcasting contract with NBC Sports California. The network can drop their TV deal — which will reportedly pay the organization around $70MM in 2024 — once the team leaves Oakland or San Francisco. Sacramento is not included in the Bay Area under the terms of that contract. A short-term lease extension with Oakland would allow the A’s to collect those revenues for another three seasons.

That’s not of concern to Oakland and Alameda County, of course. Oakland mayor Sheng Thao has suggested the city could have significant demands to approve a lease extension. She has floated requiring that the franchise leave the A’s moniker behind — a non-starter for the organization — or that MLB guarantee the city a future expansion team.

To that end, Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Thao’s office has had “preliminary talks” with MLB about conditioning an A’s lease extension on the guarantee of a future expansion franchise. Thao’s chief of staff, Leigh Hanson, implied that’s a necessary trade-off from the city’s perspective.

“If a three-year extension was to be offered, and granted, then our expectation is that the city of Oakland would retain an MLB team,” Hanson told Ostler. “I recognize that (team president) Dave Kaval and (owner) John Fisher are not in a position to negotiate that point, so I think our further conversation will have to include the commissioner.”

Whether that’ll ever be a legitimate consideration for MLB remains to be seen. For now, it seems the league’s hope is that the A’s can make something work in Sacramento. Drellich suggests they could try to renegotiate the TV deal with NBC Sports California if they head to the California capital. That’d very likely come with reduced rights fees but could allow the organization to maintain some portion of the money that they’d otherwise lose if they left Oakland next season.

Sacramento’s Sutter Health Park is the home stadium of the River Cats, the Triple-A affiliate of the Giants. Its fan capacity is a little above 14,000.

In the wake of renewed criticism of the A’s plans to construct their new ballpark on the Vegas strip, Rob Manfred restated his hope the team will stay on schedule. The franchise has indicated they expect to begin construction on the park next year and will have the field ready for the start of the 2028 season.

“I would be disappointed if we didn’t open that stadium, Opening Day, 2028,” the commissioner told reporters from this week’s owners’ meetings in Orlando (relayed by Jesse Rogers of ESPN). “In terms of an interim home, I’m comfortable with where they are in the process.”

The A’s lease at the Oakland Coliseum expires at the end of this year. They’ve recently been exploring possibilities for the 2025-27 seasons, something Manfred said needs to be finalized in the relatively near future. “We need to, in the next few months, know,” the commissioner said of the team’s plans for the intervening three years (via Evan Drellich of the Athletic). “It’s hard, even scheduling — although it’s clearly going to be someplace in the West — you know, there’s a difference between some places in the West and other places in the West.”

Among the interim hosting options: Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Reno, sharing San Francisco’s Oracle Park with the Giants, and playing at the organization’s Triple-A field in Las Vegas. A’s officials have publicly floated the possibility of a short-term lease extension at the Coliseum, but that has never seemed likely given the acrimony between the franchise and Oakland.

Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t seem there’s any momentum behind the scenes for the A’s to stay in Oakland through 2027. Henry Gardner, executive director of the agency in charge of the Coliseum, tells John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle he hasn’t heard from team personnel about the possibility of a three-year lease extension. “We are proceeding like they’re gone at the end of the year,” Gardner tells Shea.

Complicating the search is the A’s local broadcasting contract with NBC Sports California. That deal lapses once the A’s leave the Bay Area, putting one of the franchise’s major revenue streams in jeopardy. ESPN’s Jeff Passan reported last month that the A’s will receive around $70MM under the terms of that deal in 2024.

Sacramento does not fall within the contracted limits of the Bay Area. Departing Oakland or San Francisco could scuttle the deal entirely. At the very least, it’d likely force the A’s back to the negotiating table to accept a lower rights fee if they want to keep their in-market broadcasting on NBC Sports. The organization is comfortable abandoning that contract entirely in 2028, but they’d preserve that revenue in the shorter term if they reached an agreement to stay in the Bay Area until the Vegas stadium is ready.

The stadium plan has come under fire in recent days. On Monday, a political action committee filed a suit against Nevada and its governor to try to overturn the law that approved $380MM in public funding for construction. (The plaintiffs claim the voting process didn’t meet the procedural requirements of the state’s constitution.)

Las Vegas mayor Carolyn Goodman made more headlines on Tuesday when she cast doubt on the stadium arrangement in a conversation with Front Office Sports. Goodman subsequently walked those comments back somewhat (on X), although she reiterated in her clarifying statement that “it is (her) belief that in their perfect world the ownership of the A’s would like to have a new ballpark on the water in Oakland and that the ownership and government there should listen to their great fans and try to make that dream come true.”

Neither of those developments are necessarily anything more than public relations quibbles for team officials. The lawsuit’s chances of succeeding are uncertain at most. Goodman’s office, meanwhile, doesn’t have jurisdiction over the proposed construction site on the Vegas strip. That falls under the purview of Clark County, which has been generally supportive of the stadium plan.

Oakland mayor Sheng Thao nevertheless reiterated that the A’s longtime home city is willing to reopen discussions in a chat with Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic this evening. There’s little chance of that happening. Thao indicated she hasn’t spoken with owner John Fisher since the team announced it was turning its attention to Las Vegas last April. Thao nevertheless took the opportunity to throw a swipe at team leadership, particularly Fisher.

“There was a thought that this plan he had in the beginning was viable,” Thao told Rosenthal. “And now we’re seeing that actually, maybe the plan isn’t viable. The question becomes, are the plans not viable or is it that the ownership’s not viable?” Fisher has made clear he has no designs on selling the franchise, so the mayor’s comments are likely to amount to little more than rhetoric.

A political action committee backed by the Nevada State Education Association’s Strong Public Schools has filed a lawsuit against the state and its governor, Joe Lombardo. The teachers union is seeking to overturn last summer’s law approving $380MM in public funding for the construction of a new park on the Vegas Strip.

Evan Drellich of the Athletic and Tabitha Mueller of the Nevada Independent were among those to cover the development. Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times reported in the middle of January that the union was planning to file a suit. The Nevada Independent provides a full copy of the complaint.

The A’s are not named as a defendant. The suit alleges that the stadium funding law does not comply with the state constitution. Among the plaintiffs’ claims is that the proposal needed to be voted on by a two-thirds supermajority as opposed to a simple majority, which is the state’s constitutional requirement for bills creating or increasing public revenue.

The teachers union has voiced strong opposition to the stadium funding law, arguing that public money would be better served on education. That, of course, is a matter of political opinion. Their legal efforts to block the deal have not succeeded thus far. The union previously sought a referendum to allow voters to directly weigh in on the stadium deal. A judge rejected that proposal in November (link via The Associated Press), which the union has appealed.

There’s nothing to suggest the legal challenge represents a serious threat to the A’s relocation efforts at this point. The organization continues to evaluate options for a temporary home city covering the 2025-27 seasons with their lease at the Oakland Coliseum expiring at the end of this year. The A’s are hopeful of having a home facility constructed in Vegas in time for the ’28 campaign.

A’s officials will visit Smith’s Ballpark in Salt Lake City this week, reports Mick Akers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. That’s another stadium under consideration as the organization tries to identify a temporary home park for the 2025-27 campaigns.

John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday that the A’s were also looking at Sacramento’s Sutter Health Park. Akers reports that A’s owner John Fisher and president Dave Kaval were among a team contingent to tour the Sacramento facility today.

The A’s have yet to begin construction on their 33,000-seat stadium in Vegas. That project isn’t expected to be ready until the 2028 season. The franchise’s lease at Oakland’s Coliseum expires at the end of next year. That leaves them considering a number of options for the intervening trio of seasons.

Others known to be under consideration are a short-term lease extension in Oakland, sharing San Francisco’s Oracle Park with the Giants, and playing at the Summerlin, Nevada facility of their Triple-A affiliate. Akers adds one other possible venue: Greater Nevada Field in Reno.

None of those are perfect options. Splitting Oracle Park could leave logistical issues for MLB as it schedules A’s and Giants games. An extension at the Coliseum would require approval from Oakland officials. That’s hard to envision given the fractured relationship between the outgoing team and its longtime home. The other facilities are minor league stadiums.

Smith’s Ballpark is the home of the Angels’ top farm team, the Bees. Opened in 1994, it has a capacity of roughly 14,500. Greater Nevada Field is home of the Diamondbacks’ Triple-A club, the Aces. It holds a little more than 9,500 people. It’s a fairly new facility, having opened in 2009.

A group in Salt Lake City has angled to add an expansion franchise to Utah’s capital in the future. If they get the opportunity to host the A’s for a few seasons, that could aid in their efforts to land a permanent team down the line.

In mid-November, the A’s were officially granted approval from MLB to relocate to Las Vegas. Their planned 33,000-seat stadium on the Vegas strip won’t be ready until 2028. With the team’s lease at the Coliseum in Oakland expiring at the end of next season, they’re still sorting through possibilities for the intervening three years.

A handful of options are on the table. Team president Dave Kaval has floated the possibility of a short-term lease extension at the Coliseum, but that’d require approval from Oakland officials. Given the broken relationship between the organization and city, that seems unlikely. Reports have suggested city officials could condition a lease extension on the franchise leaving the A’s moniker behind, which would be a non-starter for the organization. Other options include sharing Oracle Park with the Giants or playing at their Triple-A affiliate’s field in Summerlin, Nevada.

John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle added a fourth possibility this morning, reporting that the A’s are considering Sacramento’s Sutter Health Park. That’s also a Triple-A venue — in this case, the home of the Giants affiliate, the River Cats.

One of the factors for the A’s is their local broadcasting contract. Their TV rights deal with NBC Sports California runs through 2033. The A’s lose those broadcasting revenues once they depart the Bay Area. If they’re hoping to retain the revenues between 2025-27, they’d need to find a park in the area.

A lease extension at the Coliseum or an agreement to share Oracle Park would meet that criterion. Shea notes that Sacramento, on the other hand, is outside the bounds of their contract. However, he reports the sides could renegotiate the deal at a lesser value if the A’s were to land in Sacramento. A new agreement could allow the A’s to continue receiving some portion of the revenue while getting the network off the hook for a chunk of the money which they wouldn’t be able to shed if the A’s stayed in Oakland or San Francisco until 2028.

While the broadcasting situation remains uncertain, the organization has ensured another key revenue source. The collective bargaining agreement provided that the A’s would lose their status as a revenue sharing recipient if they didn’t reach a binding stadium agreement by today. Mick Akers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal confirmed earlier this month the stadium deal is sufficient to maintain revenue sharing. That’s despite the fact that community benefits and lease agreements technically still need to be finalized for the A’s to receive their $380MM in agreed-upon public funding for the park’s construction.