Could the "Flip Tax" Keep the A's in Oakland?
When all 30 MLB owners voted to approve the Oakland A's relocation to Las Vegas, they also included one small caveat: a flip tax. Basically the way that it boils down is that if A's owner John Fisher attempts to use the team's relocation to increase the value of the franchise and then sell the team, then he would be taxed varying amounts over the next ten years. The tax if he sells this year would be 20%, and would go down each year until 2034.
Yesterday we published an article that went through various scenarios that seem plausible (being forced to sell the team, Vegas doesn't materialize, etc.), trying to find a way for the A's to remain in Oakland given the current circumstances. It was difficult to find one. On social media there was some pushback that the flip tax wasn't mentioned, and that's fair. So let's talk about the flip tax.
While it's true that the tax would be in effect if the club was sold this season, the belief is that it would not apply if Fisher decided to sell the team to local (Oakland) investors since the value of the franchise wouldn't be buoyed by a new locale. This is also supported by the wording that Bob Nightengale used in his USA TODAY piece, which says, "to prevent Fisher from using the relocation simply to increase the value of his team and immediately sell."
Selling to every A's fan's favorite billionaire Joe Lacob to keep the team in Oakland would not be using the relocation to increase the value of the team, therefore the belief is that the flip tax doesn't apply in Oakland.
That said, it may not provide the safety blanket that fans are hoping for. Yes, there is a flip tax provision, but at what point in this entire process has MLB followed the rules? This relocation has been shrouded in secrecy. So much so that the A's were allowed to remain on revenue sharing last month without a plan to finance the new ballpark, renderings, or much excitement about the move. MLB and the Player's Association still rubber stamped the project.
They made the rule and they can break it, or come up with a nifty solution if it gets them what they're after. One instance would be for Fisher to sell a large stake in the team that would make it so he just barely has a controlling interest in the club, with the provision that he's just a figurehead and that he would sell the rest of the team in 2034. He wouldn't have technically sold the team, so the tax may not apply in that scenario. It's just hard to have faith in the process when what we've witnessed so far has been utter incompetence getting rewarded at every turn.
You can make the argument that if he's being forced to sell the team, then MLB may not be so willing to cater to Fisher, but they've taken care of him every step of the way so far. This would also save face for the league and the other owners for allowing this relocation to continue this long since Fisher would technically still own the team.
With how the city of Oakland has been talked about by both MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred and Fisher, why would they all of a sudden have a change of heart? These guys do not care about the fans at all.
Could I be wrong? Of course. Should A's fans continue to keep fighting to keep the team? Absolutely. My opinion piece yesterday was meant to provide a snapshot of where things stood on February 1, 2024. As we've seen over the past few weeks, things can change quickly. Utah went from a place that has a bid for an expansion franchise to potentially the front-runner to land a team, be it the A's or an expansion franchise. Things move quickly.
But right now, keeping the A's in Oakland feels like a long shot without the dynamics of this saga changing in some way, with or without the flip tax.