3 Reasons Why A's Relocation to Las Vegas Still Has Hurdles to Clear

MLB owner's voting to approve the A's relocation to Las Vegas was a procedural move

Thursday's vote to approve the Oakland A's relocation to Las Vegas was meant to make it seem like the A's are officially moving to Sin City. While that may end up being the case, Thursday's vote was more procedural than binding. The reason the vote happened when it did was because GLPI, which owns the site in Las Vegas where the team plans to build their new ballpark, had a deadline in their agreement with the A's that MLB's owners needed to approve relocation by December 1st. 

So they did. 

There are still questions about financing, the design team, what the ballpark will look like and where the A's will be playing baseball games for three full years, but if the team failed to meet the December 1st deadline, they would lose the Tropicana site. If they lost the Tropicana site, they would also lose the $380 million handout from the state of Nevada, which is tied to that site. 

Instead of standing in John Fisher's way, the owners gave him a green light in the hopes that he doesn't mess it up. Even if John Fisher plays this perfectly, there are still three things that could derail the A's relocation to Las Vegas the way the plan is currently put together. 

How Soon is Soon?

After the vote on Thursday, Bob Nightengale mentioned in his piece that there is a clause that the owners threw into the relocation in order to vote yes. From USA Today: "MLB owners inserted a binding protection provision in the contract before approving the deal. If Fisher decides to sell the franchise soon after moving to Las Vegas to make an immediate profit, he will be heavily taxed on the sale, which will be split among his fellow MLB owners, according to another owner who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity."

The other owners don't even think this is anything more than a money grab on Fisher's part. Here is where that provision could change the current course of action. If Fisher's plan was indeed to "pump and dump" as has been rumored since the Vegas announcement in April, then he would have to pay a tax on the sale price of the franchise. 

Now, he would have to hold onto the franchise for some amount of time. Are we talking months? Years? A Decade? How soon is soon? And how much is that tax he'd have to pay? Enough to make him hold onto the team?

If Fisher is looking to inflate the value of the franchise by getting a ballpark built and it comes down to a simple spreadsheet valuation of where he could get more money--Vegas or Oakland--this could end up actually swinging the pendulum back towards Oakland. Think about it: He wouldn't have to pay for a retractable roof in Oakland, which knocks down the construction cost. He could scale back the project to be just a ballpark, so he doesn't need to finance a $12 billion project. He also wouldn't have to wait to sell the team for any amount of time once it's completed. Heck, he wouldn't even need to wait for the project to be finished. He could get a binding deal done and hand the reigns to Joe Lacob the next day and make out pretty well. 

While that scenario is pure speculation, the entire move to Las Vegas was based off finances. Perhaps that one provision tips that scale the other way just enough. The real question with the timeline would have to be is "soon" longer than it would take for the expansion fees to roll in? MLB has long said that expansion is coming once the A's and Tampa Bay Rays got their ballparks, despite Rob Manfred claiming to have no clue if they'd ever expand on Thursday.

Finally, by including that provision and approving relocation, the owners keep their relocation boogeyman intact so that they can continue to extort their own communities for new ballparks and facility upgrades. If Fisher decides not to move, they'll say he had a change of heart, but their city may not be so lucky. 

Schools Over Stadiums

While rooting for the Grinch's heart to not only grow, but to appear in the first place may be on the longer shot options here, the teacher-led Schools Over Stadiums PAC is likely the best shot at stopping the funding from Nevada from making its way to the A's. That would effectively nix the ballpark plans as they're currently put together. MLB or the casinos could swoop in and cover that money, but that would be a bad look and have too many people asking why they needed money in the first place.

Schools Over Stadiums has two plans of action. The first is to appeal the ruling against them earlier this month, which will either clear the way for them to continue, or have the judge point to exactly what needs to be fixed in the language of their referendum in order to refile. From there, they have until July to collect roughly 102,000 signatures, evenly split between the four districts in Nevada. They believe they'll need three to four months to collect those signatures. 

This plan will take time and resources, but they are confident that if they can get the referendum on the ballot that the money to the ballpark project would be stopped. What would happen with the A's relocation from there is a big unknown, but it's hard to see the other 29 owners having infinite patience with Fisher after waiving a relocation fee and approving this slapdash plan of his. They want those expansion fees too. 

The third and final way this house of cards could come crashing down in Las Vegas is also through Schools Over Stadiums, who plan to file a suit in the coming weeks, claiming that SB1 violates the Nevada Constitution in five ways. They hope to overturn SB1, which is the bill that gave the A's their funding from the state. 

Here is where they think the violations occur: 

Article IV, § 18(2) …an affirmative vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected to each House is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form, including but not limited to taxes, fees, assessments and rates, or changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and rates.

Article IV, § 19 No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Article IV, § 21: …in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the state.

Article IX, § 3 The State may contract public debts; but such debts shall never, in the aggregate, exclusive of interest, exceed the sum of two per cent of the assessed valuation of the State… Every such debt shall be authorized by law for some purpose or purposes, to be distinctly specified therein; and every such law shall provide for levying an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest semiannually, and the principal within twenty years from the passage of such law, and shall specially appropriate the proceeds of said taxes to the payment of said principal and interest; and such appropriation shall not be repealed nor the taxes postponed or diminished until the principal and interest of said debts shall have been wholly paid.

This pathway has the potential to stall the project for awhile in Las Vegas, and if the A's are unable to get to the funds because they're being challenged in court, then they can't start building the ballpark. They also would likely miss the opening date of 2028, meaning they'd need a fourth year of being a nomad team.

Things are not going to be easy for John Fisher, regardless of how the vote went on Thursday. On Tuesday he said to A's fans at the owner's meetings, "It's been harder for me than for you." The A's may not be long for Oakland, but the fans are going to make him a man of his word and ensure this entire process extremely difficult for him.