Maybe this would make sense for O.com stadium? A lot cheaper than building from the ground up.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/dodgers-busy-improving-aging-stadium-234207393--mlb.html

Beane: Think an upgrade has been discussed on here multiple times.... All that is needed is for the Raiders to depart.... Then get the San Jose A's to commit long term... Bingo!!! Done deal..... \

The stadium could be deeded to the A's - with a comfortable revenue sharing deal to the current owners and of course, a sell on comfortable clause/s in place for the current owners.. No pain... No body getting hurt...

But, Lew is a San Jose puke... He's a yuppie... Oakland ain't his style... Not enough wine wine there in his mnd...

Wouldn't they have researched that option by this time? And why don't we know more about what went on with Wolff and the O.com? Did the city of Oakland flinch?

Dodger Stadium and the land is 100% privately owned, opened 1962, interestingly the last privately financed stadium until the Giants AT&T Park 2000. The only tenant (owner), the Dodgers, have no NFL team or municipality to deal with, no concern over financing, a very different situation from Oakland.

"But, Lew is a San Jose puke... He's a yuppie... Oakland ain't his style..."

LOL! I think you just managed to insult every resident of San Jose and also miscast Lew Wolff as a Yuppie. He may be urban and professional, but young he ain't (Yuppie= young urban professional or young upwardly-mobile professional).

"Dodger Stadium and the land is 100% privately owned, opened 1962, interestingly the last privately financed stadium until the Giants AT&T Park 2000. The only tenant (owner), the Dodgers, have no NFL team or municipality to deal with, no concern over financing, a very different situation from Oakland."

That's certainly true, but doesn't preclude the possibility of renovating the Coliseum. There probably is a good chance the Raiders will once again leave town. If this happens, renovating the Coliseum is a viable option. Anaheim converted Angel Stadium back to a "baseball only" venue and did a nice job.

Even if the Raiders remain, renovating is much cheaper than a new ballyard built from the ground up.

What makes the most economic sense is for the Raiders to share the new Niner's facility in Santa Clara and the A's to share AT&T. But, that wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime so it probably won't happen <sarcasm>

Yes, makes sense but I guess it all depends on the owner, Oakland-Alameda County, if they want to spend the money to renovate, and if they have the necessary funding. The NFL wants a football only stadium, and I guess the A's want a baseball only stadium. What a mess.

Yeah, it's a mess, alright. As far as I'm concerned, they can both have what they want if they're willing to pay for it themselves. I'm not to thrilled about paying for the Mt. Davis renovations.

It is one of the few staduims which the team owns outright. Problem now for the Dodgers was Frank McCourt was able to keep a certain percentage of the parking lots which he has planned to built condos on. The city of LA nor the county will give him the permits unless he pays to have the metro rail come up a few miles from the Gold Line Chinatown exit.

You really can't blame them...the O.com looks like he-l-l after football season starts even though the field crew has worked miracles for the A's games that over lapped the football season.

The NFL is willing to help the Raiders build, where that would be ???

McCourt was bad news for the Dodgers, Selig was right in wanting him out.

Has there been any news in the Southland about the Dodgers upcoming new cable contract? Should be absolutely huge.

Agree, the field looks really bad, a dual purpose stadium is part of the past, personally I have never liked Mt. Davis.

Beane: Yuppies have aged and now run our country to the detriment of the masses of America... The Yuppie movement is passe... Lew is a poster child for them....

Yeah, the San Jose A's will never find a soft spot in my heart...

The bottom line is with the Raider history, the OA Coliseum could be made great for BB again with not much as much as the Dodgers have spent on the Ravine - if the A's want it....

It is certainly a cheaper option than that unmentionable burg to the south

There just needs to be the will to make it happen..

I don't think that will is there with the A's....

Last I heard FOX offered the Dodgers a 6 billion dollar deal for 20 years.

Time Warner is still in the mix to add the Dodgers to their new cable sports channel

Whoever it is it should be around 300 million a year.

Yes, that deal collapsed, freeing the Dodgers to negotiate with Time-Warner, or launch a team-owned cable channel. Fox is in a bad position, if Time-Warner wins the Dodger Cable contract then Fox will be shut out of the L.A. MLB cable market, the bidding could get really crazy. Here's an interesting comment affecting MLB's share of the Dodgers cable revenue."In addition, because of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court settlement between McCourt and Major League Baseball, the portion of the Dodgers’ television revenues contributed to MLB revenue sharing would be about $1 billion rather than about $2 billion. (MLB disputes that interpretation of the settlement, but the court rather than the league has the final say.)" Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/25/sports/la-sp-dn-dodgers-fox-sports-6-billion-tv-deal-20121125

So MLB has a lot at stake. Big big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I just thought you may have heard something new since you are L.A. local.

Dodgers want to stay with FOX because the Time Warner Channel is a paid channel on most cable networks unlike FOX West.

If they leave FOX they are allowing the Angels to be the only team on a basic cable channel.

"Dodgers want to stay with FOX because the Time Warner Channel is a paid channel on most cable networks unlike FOX West."

"If they leave FOX they are allowing the Angels to be the only team on a basic cable channel"

But the Angels have signed with Time-Warner, a paid channel system, incidentally, so have the Lakers,
if Time-Warner is a paid channel then the Angels are not on a basic cable channel.

Angels are on FOX still. They signed a 20 year deal with FOX.

You are correct, my error, didn't even have a Glenlivet for an excuse. It's the Lakers who signed with Time-Warner, Fox didn't close the deal during their exclusive bargaining period with the Dodgers who most certainly will seek a bid from Time-Warner. No wonder the Dodger ownership is spending $$$$$$$.