Debacle in the desert: Will the Athetics' $1.75bn stadium on the Vegas Strip ever be built?
On the surface, it was your run-of-the-mill pomp and circumstance: a series of uneven speeches mixed in with a few kids gushing over how much they can't wait to have the former Oakland and current A's in Las Vegas. But if you had been following the long-running A's stadium saga, one which led them to a temporary minor-league residency in Sacramento this season, you didn't have to look far beyond the rented heavy-duty construction props to see the farce, and you didn't have to dig much deeper than the dignitaries shoveling into the makeshift baseball diamond to understand what this ceremony really was: the latest stop on Fisher's neverending, would-be stadium tour.
'This could be an entire 10-part Netflix docuseries,' Neil DeMause, editor of Field of Schemes, a site that follows the trials and travails of stadium construction and renovation in North America, told The Guardian. 'All the twists and turns in all the different places in the Bay Area they looked, and John Fisher throwing a hissy fit and going off to Las Vegas. And now them being in Sacramento but saying they're going to move to Las Vegas, but still not actually seemingly making any progress. I mean, it's a lot.'
Advertisement
'It's unclear what the endgame of John Fisher is,' JC Bradbury, an economist who studies the financing of sports venues, said. 'Whether he miscalculated, doesn't understand, doesn't care about money, or there's something I'm just totally missing in all of this'
It's not the first time the A's have faced questions about their ability to build their new stadium. As far back as 2001, the A's tried to construct a successor to the aging, dilapidated Oakland Coliseum in at least nine sites across the Bay Area, including their final bid, a waterfront shipping port known as Howard Terminal. The city had agreed to hand Mr Fisher, a part-owner and heir to The Gap clothing empire, some $750m in infrastructure and grants before he controversially pulled out of the deal and fled for the desert.
Why would Fisher leave nearly a billion dollars for a park on a 55-acre plot, in a top-10 television market in love with its ballclub, for nine acres and a minuscule market with fans who don't know their A's from their elbow? We still don't know, but there are plenty of new questions to try and answer about a process that doesn't add up to anyone despite Fisher, Manfred, and the Vegas officials who insist that everything is on time and on schedule.
What we do know is that Fisher has not surpassed the $100m he must spend on the park to unlock the $380m in public dollars; he's reportedly spent half that on planning and development. We also know that costs of construction are rising on a daily basis. One of the reasons that Stuart Sternberg, owner of the Tampa Bay Rays, says he pulled out of a $600m public subsidy deal is that Hurricane Milton caused a delay to construction of his new stadium, and so he wanted even more public capital to make him whole on potential overruns. Perhaps seeing a future of cash calls, Sternberg is now selling the Rays, another team with long-term stadium issues currently playing home games in a minor league park.
Advertisement
Fisher, who on the surface has far less business acumen than Sternberg, has seen construction prices rise for the original 33,000-capacity stadium, which would be the smallest in baseball, from $1.5bn to the $1.75bn figure announced six months ago. With an unstable inflationary environment, potential tariff costs and heavy debate on interest rates, Alexander Marks, who heads up Schools over Stadiums, a protest group that has tried to block massive public subsidies that were provided for a billionaires ballpark despite Nevada's abysmal education rankings, is among critics who believe the price doesn't add up.
'Schools in Clark County aren't being built because of construction costs,' Marks told the Guardian. 'The Wynn Resorts just announced that they would be putting their renovations on hold because construction costs are up. So it's kind of odd that this is the one guy in Vegas that has figured out how to keep costs the exact same, which leads me to believe that's not the case.'
Turns out Marks was onto something. On Saturday, just days after the 'groundbreaking', Fisher finally admitted that the cost could rise yet again to $2bn. It takes time to get the raw materials and labor in place for a project of this scale, and time is quickly translating into money, all while the A's owner is on the hook for all overruns.
So where is all this capital coming from? And does Fisher have, or wish to spend, his family fortune on the ballpark? The back-of-the-napkin math says the 64-year-old currently has a $300m loan from Goldman Sachs, $380m in public dollars and roughly $175m from Aramark, the stadium vending group that purchased an equity stake in the A's in May. That's around $855m, leaving a sizable gap left to get this project over the line. On 18 June, Fisher, who Forbes says is worth $3bn, announced he's selling Major League Soccer's San Jose Earthquakes, who were valued in January by Sportico at $600m. It's a move that will both take time to complete and seems hasty considering the money pit this project is becoming.
Advertisement
Fisher is short – way short – and that will mean digging deep into his own pockets and risking his family wealth for a project that makes little fiscal sense to anyone analyzing in good faith. The team is valued at roughly $1.7bn, close to the recent Baltimore Orioles sale, a team that actually has a major-league park to play in. The stadium could cost over a billion of his own money, and so there are some serious doubts as to whether this venue will actually happen. Are there contractor deals done? Has a memorandum of understanding, outlining financial obligations, outlining the intentions and expectations of the parties involved, actually been written?
'Fisher has to realize he's a dead man walking,' Bradbury said. 'And he is sort of trying to play out the string to save as much face as he can. And what's eventually going to happen is someone will come in and be the savior. And that may involve not being in Las Vegas.'
Even if the stadium is actually built, and the low-budget A's do land in Vegas, there are even more issues waiting. Despite the 40m visitors that Las Vegas counts annually, the A's will have to fight to fill seats while competing with live entertainment and nightlife, gambling and the NFL's Raiders and the NHL's Golden Knights, at least for at least a few months a season, all inside their tiny market. So with all that said, why didn't the A's fight to play at least some games at the local minor-league park and try to get some grassroots support going? It's just another confounding move by Fisher, who made the shortsighted move to play in Sacramento in order to keep revenue from his local television deal.
Meanwhile, over in Sactown, not only are the A's not selling out their small minor league park, but their failure to take the capital's name and embrace the city in any tangible way has alienated fans in what's meant to be their home for three years. Not to mention that players are already fed up with their substandard MLB ballpark. Bradbury speculates that with all the bad will surrounding the club, they could wind up in Salt Lake City or elsewhere next season. So now Fisher is, and let's say it politely, disliked, in multiple cities. And should the stadium deal in Las Vegas unravel, it would make for a unique trifecta.
Advertisement
That all leads to the final question. Why? Why would a billionaire go through all these trials and travails for a move that seemingly doesn't add up in any way shape or form, practically or fiscally? We know the then-Oakland A's needed some sort of stadium deal in place by 2024 in order to keep their slice of MLB's revenue sharing stream, but that doesn't begin to explain it.
'This is the dog catching the car,' DeMause said. 'And now that he has caught the car, I don't think he had any idea what to do with it. He switched up on stadium sites [in Las Vegas] in a matter of 24 hours. He did not have a plan for where to play once Oakland kicked him out, even though he didn't have a lease. It either didn't occur to him or he figured he would figure it out later.'
The case against Fisher is damning, yet instead of selling and walking away with a tidy profit now, he soldiers on. Is it a case of a wealthy team owner thoroughly enjoying the attention of desert-based suitors after years of combat with Oakland's leaders? Is it a case of an heir on a quest to prove to someone, maybe himself, that he has the chops to pull something like this off? DeMause believes it's all possible, but offers up a simpler explanation.
'It's very, very clear: he's really bad at this.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Listen up WNBA fans, players are fed up with sex toy bit, so can you please keep it in your pants?
The WNBA has been busy making headlines for rising in popularity, having rookie players that are breaking records, and being extremely queer. But lately, the league has been in the news because colorful dildos have been flying onto the court during games. At first, it seemed comical, playful even, and maybe a good luck charm for the Golden State Valkyries, who won both games where a dildo ended up on the court. But now, women's sports fans, it's time to talk because you've taken it too far. It's not funny anymore. The first lime green dildo was thrown onto the court of a contentious game between the Valkyries and the Atlanta Dream on July 29 in Georgia. Almost the entirety of the internet thought the incident was hilarious and quickly got busy making memes. But then it just kept happening. The bizarre trend continued a few days later at an August 1 game between the Valkyries and the Chicago Sky. The third time this happened, Indian Fever star Sophie Cunningham ended up getting hit in the head with the sex toy after telling people on X (formerly Twitter) to 'stop throwing dildos on the court… you're going to hurt one of us.' Then, someone tried to throw another green dildo at a New York Liberty game, but instead of it landing on the court, it nearly hit a child, according to a video posted on social media. Once a sex toy almost nails a kid in the head, it's time to look at what we're doing. At first, we wondered if this wasn't a funny, tongue-in-cheek way to call out just how sapphic the game has gotten, but now that a man has been arrested and said that it was 'supposed to be a joke' and 'go viral,' the intentions seem more problematic. Being taken seriously as a female athlete is already a tough assignment, and having sex toys flying left and right during games isn't helping, especially at a time when WNBA players are fighting for better compensation and revenue sharing. Bottom line: women's sports are not a joke. And while we'd like to think this started as a harmless prank that gave us all a chuckle, it's starting to smack of sexism. In the beginning even some of the players seemed to laugh along. Fever guard Sydney Colson even went on her podcast dressed a green dildo, but then things kept escalating and other players started pointing out how 'disrespectful' and 'dangerous' it is. 'It's super disrespectful,' Sky center Elizabeth Williams said after he game against the Valkyries, per Front Office Sports. 'I don't really get the point of it. It's really immature. Whoever's doing it just needs to grow up.' Sparks coach Lynne Roberts also said, 'It's ridiculous, it's dumb, it's stupid. It's also dangerous. Player safety is number one, respecting the game, all those things. I think it's really stupid.' And GOAT Diana Taurasi had the perfect response for the jokesters, 'I would have picked that thing up and thrown it right back at them.' Maybe we should all just listen to the players themselves. So whoever is keeping this 'joke' going, whether they are straight or gay, it's time to call it quits. The bit is getting tired anyway, right? This article originally appeared on Pride: Listen up WNBA fans, players are fed up with sex toy bit, so can you please keep it in your pants? RELATED Marina Mabrey's manicure is missing *those* nails and lesbians are spiraling WNBA rookie Maddy Westbeld hard launches relationship with college baller Olivia Miles Flying sex toys keep interrupting WNBA games and players are calling foul
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CSAC's Andy Foster explains shake-up to MMA scoring criteria, potential for future rule changes
Andy Foster, the California State Athletic Commission executive director and one of MMA's most influential regulators, is pushing this week for a major scoring shake-up. If successful, it'll prioritize damage over all else, offering a clearer pathway for judges to identify 10-8 and even 10-7 rounds. In boxing, a knockdown often triggers a 10-8. In MMA, that's not always the case. A proposed update to the Unified Rules of MMA could change that — pending a vote that's expected to pass this week at the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports' (ABC) annual conference in New Orleans. Once official, it will formalize what Foster says many judges already practice — that is, scoring based on the visible effect of strikes and grappling, with damage at the top of the criteria list. 'To get a 10-8 in mixed martial arts is now going to require significant damage,' Foster told Uncrowned's "The Ariel Helwani Show." That's "as close as we can get" to boxing's clearer 10-8 system, per the commissioner. Foster said the new language — if approved by ABC — solidifies how judges interpret dominant rounds. While 10-8s already account for 'damage, domination and duration,' damage takes precedence, always. 'Damage is the No. 1 scoring criteria through effective striking and effective grappling," he said. 'You've heard these other terms — effective aggressiveness, effective cage control — [but] the only thing that matters is how the techniques, through striking or grappling, impacted the opponent.' The change is also meant to bring consistency to judges, commentators and fans. The recent featherweight bout between Mohammad Yahya and Steven Nguyen at UFC Abu Dhabi sparked widespread debate, for example. There were six knockdowns in the opening round, and all three judges awarded Nguyen a 10-8. For Foster, "It should have been a 10-7 [even] under the current criteria." 'I would have hoped that fight would have been stopped after the fifth knockdown,' said Foster. 'I'd have had no issues [if it were stopped] after the fourth. For goodness' sakes, he had to have had some assistance back to the corner. There were a lot of places it could have been stopped. I would not have felt comfortable sending him out, [if it were] in California, for the second round.' Despite the criticism, Foster backed referee Jason Herzog — one of MMA's most respected referees, who oversaw the match. He said the two spoke shortly after the event. 'He's one of the best referees in the world," Foster said. "It's a difficult conversation. The hope is that he learns from this. Hopefully, every referee does. Six knockdowns is a bit much.' The exchange triggered a wider discussion about whether a set knockdown limit — like boxing's 'three-knockdown rule' — could apply to MMA. But Foster is unconvinced. "I'm definitely in disagreement with that," he said. 'The first three knockdowns were not what I'd call significant. Jon Anik mentioned a five-knockdown rule, I think. And I'm not in favor of that, either. 'Really, in practicality, [five is] a pretty good number, a gauge. But you have to look at factors going into it. If they're concussive knockdowns, [and if the] brain rattled.' Foster also pointed to the different cultures of cornering MMA and boxing bouts. Coaches in the latter sport withdraw their beaten fighters far more frequently than those in MMA. 'MMA is younger and boxing is older,' Foster said. 'You have older guys who have more information and have seen more. They are more wise and savvy — they'll save their fighter for another day. In MMA these guys … 'You're tough, can probably make it out.' It's just a different kind of thing.' Foster also emphasized his desire to minimize 10-10 rounds entirely. 'If you're watching a fight for five minutes, and you can't tell me who won that fight, I'll find another judge,' Foster warned. 'It messes up the scoring. You need to pick a winner, and if people are putting 10-10s, there's a lack of consistency in the scoring.' While the idea of adding a fourth or fifth judge has been floated, Foster noted logistical challenges. 'That real estate where judges sit is pretty crowded if it's a TV fight,' he said. He also warned against too many rule tweaks too quickly. "I do not want any further changes for a while," he said, adding that ones implemented last year — from clarifying the ruling on grounded fighters, to legalizing 12-6 elbows, should have gone through a long time ago. "I think [those ruling changes] worked out more than fine." Foster also commented on the fate the now-defunct Global Fight League (GFL). The organization created promotional material, said it had signed fighters to teams, and even put together a draft. However, it fell apart financially and ultimately failed before it could even hold its first event, which was expected to take place in Foster's jurisdiction of California. Foster wanted "to see certain financial things" before GFL made it to a fight night. "I'm not going to go into a fight and not be sure the fighters can be paid," he said. "I'm not going to have a brand new promotion come into California, talking major money, more than what I'd consider market rate, and not put some checks and balances in." He's also working to boost California's unique fighter retirement fund through that state's DMV. Should the CSAC secure 7,500 license plates on pre-order, then the DMV will escalate their production. The proceeds would go toward fighter pensions. Though a promising initiative, it may be a long while before other major athletic commissions in the U.S., like Nevada and New York, follow suit. "I've not seen interest from other commissions," to replicate the fund in their regions, said Foster. Foster's rule changes — and the conversations they've sparked — speak to an evolving sport still working to strike the right balance between entertainment, safety and competitive clarity. 'When we talk about what we want for MMA, I'd like to see more high-level people doing the teaching — whether that's judges, refs, or corners," he said. "Everyone has a part to play."
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Aaron Rodgers says Steelers' offense is starting to click
The Pittsburgh Steelers are working on finishing touches at training camp as they prepare for their first preseason game, with the offense beginning to show signs of cohesion. During training camp on Wednesday, the Steelers' offense looked like it was closing the gap with the defense, which traditionally starts off stronger. Before practice, quarterback Aaron Rodgers expressed optimism about the progress his unit has made, noting significant improvement over the last few practices. 'I mean, there's conversation, I think, is the most important thing. So talking through every issue. Art's done a nice job of allowing me to take some time in some of the meetings to kind of go through the film with the guys,' Rodgers said. 'So it's good for me to speak up from time to time. And also you pull them aside in the locker room, pull them aside on the field, and then I've got an open forum in my room or one of their rooms after practice.' Rodgers said the offense has really been clicking the last three of four practices, building chemistry on and off the field. He says players have really been taking advantage of the open forum, where they can suggest ideas or get on the same page. Ben Skwronek, Rodgers says, doesn't even really knock anymore before coming in to talk. Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
