War of Words in Oakland
- 01.20.10, 13:17
- 134 Comments
I wouldn’t have seen Guy Saperstein’s recent, brief letter to the Trib from over a week ago had BaseballOakland’s Garth Kimball not responded to it. In fairness, I’ll put both here in their entirety. First, Saperstein’s letter:
Need business plan
The City of Oakland, after many years of doing nothing to keep the A’s in town, have come up with three potential parcels of land, none very attractive for a baseball stadium site. But what the city’s proposal lacks is any business plan, let alone a viable business plan.
The A’s have been losing $30-plus million a year in Oakland for some time — an amount subsidized by Major League Baseball. No team owner wants to lose $30 million a year, nor can MLB be expected to continue subsidizing the A’s.
Unless Oakland produces a viable business plan for building a new stadium as well as successfully operating the team in Oakland without losing tens of millions of dollars every year — a plan that works not only for the team but also the city and its taxpayers — those who think finding a few parcels of land is enough to keep the A’s in Oakland are simply misleading the public.
Guy T. Saperstein
And now Kimball’s response:
My Word: Oakland A’s fans deserve better ownership
Guy Saperstein and the A’s ownership continue to distort the truth in an attempt to destroy the A’s fan base and to get Major League Baseball approval to move out of Oakland.
Saperstein’s Jan. 8 letter to the editor, “Need business plan,” about A’s ballpark sites failed to disclose that he is an A’s co-owner. He also wrote that Oakland does not have a ballpark business plan. Yet, Oakland officials recently announced that the city and MLB officials together have fully analyzed three waterfront sites and provided detailed ballpark and economic redevelopment plans to MLB’s Blue Ribbon Committee.
Saperstein mentioned the Jack London Square sites are just a few parcels of land and not very attractive for a stadium. Those three proposed sites total more than 90 acres and are ideal MLB stadium sites. Also, since when is a waterfront ballpark with wonderful transit options and beautiful views not attractive?
Saperstein also claims the A’s are losing $30 million per year. According to Forbes magazine, the A’s are one of MLB’s few teams that regularly turn a profit, due to their low payroll and their sweetheart Coliseum lease from the city of Oakland and Alameda County.
Meanwhile, A’s co-owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher have done nothing but depress attendance and hurt their own bottom line by providing poor customer service, trading away fan-favorite players, threatening to move every year and excluding many fans by tarping off the third deck.
Wolff has repeatedly stated he exhausted all efforts in Oakland. Yet, city officials last year quickly found two new excellent waterfront ballpark sites. All it took was effort and working with, not against, city leaders.
A new ballpark in Oakland certainly would be successful. However, what we need even more is ownership like the Haas family provided; an A’s ownership that will reach out to the entire East Bay and an ownership that will be committed to staying in Oakland and winning.
Oakland is a wonderfully diverse city with great transportation options. We deserve better than Wolff, Fisher and Saperstein, who whine instead of trying to win. The team should be put up for sale and a new ballpark should be built in Oakland.
As the 31,000 people (and growing) who have joined the “Let’s Go Oakland” Facebook page illustrate, A’s fans are yearning for MLB to grant the city of Oakland its first real chance since the Haas years to retain its team and return it to glory.
Saperstein warns about misleading the public. Unfortunately, if A’s fans and the public have been misled by anyone, it’s Wolff, Fisher, Saperstein and their fellow A’s co-owners. We deserve better.
I’ve mostly refrained from commenting on the Oakland plan simply because I don’t know much about all of the details. However, I wasn’t impressed with what I saw coming out of the press conference and I’m not sure the panel will be either. In light of the large amount of information that Fremont has released, Oakland has to come up with something approaching that level of detail to give an impression that they are really trying, not just posturing. And that’s why the one criticism I made at the time was that Oakland should be focusing on one site, not three. Now I suppose I can let loose:
- Instead of buying web ads all over the place for Let’s Go Oakland, supporters could have used the money to get a feasibility study completed. A study for three sites might be prohibitively expensive, one site would be more cost-effective. The 2002 HOK study is incredibly outdated, another one is needed for any Oakland site.
- Saperstein refers to a lack of a business plan. Kimball’s retort is that Oakland supplied redevelopment and ballpark plans. That’s not what Saperstein, the rest of A’s ownership, and MLB are looking for. We know why JLS is the preferred area in Oakland for several reasons, not the least of which is that there are plenty of business interests at JLS that would love to have an anchor like a ballpark where none exists currently. But it’s not about them. It’s about the A’s and MLB – how can you make it work for them? Simply claiming that it would be successful, and then citing figures from 20 years ago when a massive sea change has taken place since then, isn’t going to cut it. On the public side, Mayor Dellums has alluded to funding sources outside the city to help pay for land and infrastructure costs. Okay, since that’s a wildcard among wildcards, what is that funding? Will any of the Oakland options be dependent on this funding? How much of a risk does that entail?
- Saperstein claims that the A’s lose $30 million a year – not for them, for MLB – and the annual revenue sharing check is proof of that. Kimball then cites the Forbes income numbers, which are bolstered by revenue sharing in the A’s case. In other words, the A’s are a long time money-losing franchise for MLB. If you’re focusing on just the A’s or Oakland, you’re missing the big picture.
- While certain details of Oakland’s plans have been available to the panel and some of the media, they’re not available to the public. There’s a press release. There is no dedicated website, no pictures or downloadable documents, not even a FAQ. In fact, if you click on the “New Ballpark” link at BaseballOakland, you get a “Page not found” error. Let’s Go Oakland’s page hasn’t evolved past the petition drive stage. It’s great to rally the troops through a Facebook page, how about giving them something to chew on as well?
What I will agree with Kimball on is that Oakland deserves a fair chance to keep the A’s in town. I hope that through the process put forth by the panel, they’ll have that chance. What I’m afraid of is that Oakland is focusing its resources too much on P.R. and not on the meat of a deal, which if true doesn’t do anyone any good. That said, Kimball’s closing plea is for the A’s to be sold to someone more Oakland-friendly. Thanks for the oh-so-predictable cop-out. Let’s try proposing something a little more practical, shall we?
Are you saying that moving the A’s into a new park, where they will quickly stop receiving a revenue sharing check is not in the interest of the league as a whole? Because when you or Nav or anyone else say that Bud is conspiring with Lew to move the A’s, that’s basically what you are implying. Bud is doing this for the good of the league over any other reason.
Also…
Me being a true baseball fan has nothing to do with Bud Selig. Stop attacking A’s fans and claiming they are not true fans just because they desire to see the A’s in a new ballpark, even if it is in Fremont or San Jose. I’d rather they stay on the Bay Area rather than move to Portland or Las Vegas or Tijuana.
This comments on this site are getting harder and harder to read due to trolls that refuse to understand the facts and instead look at everything as if it were a personal attack on the city of Oakland.
ML and Jeff and others have mentioned it many times: Oakland is behind the game here, and they don’t really seem to be showing signs that they are doing anything other than going through the motions so they can claim they tried. They may be trying, but they aren’t trying their best.
Your defense of the Coliseum is laughable. But, what else is new?
Uhhh… what sticks out about those numbers? Maybe there is one team that led the pack? Hmmm.
A’s attendance has ALWAYS been a problem in Oakland. Out of 42 seasons, they have been below league median attendance 35 times.
So macro trends are good and all, but you can’t dismiss the fact that the A’s have hardly ever even been above the mdipoint in elague attendance.
Also… want to guess if they ahd more seasons above or below median during th Haas years? That’s right, more below.
The better argument for Oakland Only types is that attendance is not as big of a deal as it once was because of media revenue, internet revenue, revenue sharing and so on and so forth.
People need to really stop with the “I’d rather they stay on the Bay Area rather than move to Portland or Las Vegas or Tijuana.” It’s getting really old and tiresome when there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that the A’s would be moving out of the Bay Area!!! Only rumors and speculations…just like this ballpark issue and which city everyone knows “for sure” the A’s will end up. No one knows a damn thing so quit talking out your ass too…please! Where will the A’s go? Even sorry Lew Wolff is obviously clueless on how to get this ballpark built regardless of which city he’s trying to get it done in. You think he’s going to have the will to try and negotiate a deal in another city to build a ballpark outside of California? Highly doubtful and I’m sure most of you can agree with me on that. Also I’ve heard from sources that for sure there will be far more local buyers interested in purchasing and keeping the A’s in Oakland (if MLB and the commissioner will allow that to ever happen!) if it were to come down to the sale of the franchise. Either way Lew Wolff will not be losing any money and probably won’t give a shit who it ends up being sold to…especially if MLB decides not to do anything with this whole t-rights issue and just move on.
Now lets take a look at Rankopedia and see where Commissioner Selig was sitting pretty at regarding the greatest Commissioners in US professional sports history as of this past November 2009….
.
It looks like good old Alan is ranked number 22 out of 25 on the all time list. Who would’ve guessed, right?? What a sorry ass! I’m so glad he’ll be stepping down as the commissioner soon enough.
.
Now I know some of you are hating on these so called rankings by ESPN etc. but if you any of you can come up with something else for us to look at that shows Lew Wolf and his fraternity “lover” Selig are actually doing a pretty decent job as far as the consensus goes…then I would love to take a look.
.
http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/26649/Greatest_Commissioner_in_US_Professional_Sports_History/Step1/8549.htm
Just to clarify, I do know that this Rankopedia doesn’t prove anything (I just randomly came across this site) since the obvious low number of votes…but from what I’ve read in the past and sports fanatics that I’ve talked to over the years, all couldn’t agree more regarding how terrible a commissioner Selig has been.
The Sky Dome in Toronto is a disgrace with multi colored patched looking artificial turf and an overall horrible sterile feel. Also, all climate in the Bay Area is not created equal. We have micro climates here in the Bay Area. Honestly, I like the Coliseum. The Coliseum has green plastic seats with backs just like AT&T Park. The Coliseum has a more beautiful field, in my opinion, than AT&T Park and the grass is just as green. The sky in Oakland is just as blue as the sky in San Francisco, with perhaps a little more sunshine. Bart stops at the Coliseum and not at AT&T. As Willie Mays once said about AT&T Park when someone asked him about the view “we’re not talking about a condo here.” Just give the fans a winning team with a committed owner who respects them and the community, and they’ll show up just like they did for Walter Haas. I want a ballpark in Jack London Square because it would be great for the city, it would be great for the fanbase, and the owners are using the ballpark issue as an excuse for a long desired relocation.
How many times were the Giants below league average before Bud Selig came in and put a stop to the relocation to Florida?
OA–your buddy Nav is all over the conspiracy theory that the gints want the A’s out of the Bay Area—you seem content with the A’s playing in the worst ballpark in MLB and being on welfare every year…..affords you the opportunity to pay for a cheap seat and move down to the field level…but its only a matter of time before they either move to SJ or move out of the area—at some point enough is enough.
That right there is why it’s hard to take you seriously Nav. Your defense is all over the place, cherry picking which criteria matter, then dismissing the whole thing entirely by going back to the same old tired anti-ownership argument. You claim things would be good for Oakland, for the fanbase (such as it is), but don’t mention anything about the club. Why would you? Your actual sense of A’s fandom is remote and detached at best, archaic at worst.
Seriously, do you bother reading what you write before you post it?
Not sure what you’re arguing here, Oa.
The only thing approaching a defense of Selig anyone’s ever made is that he runs MLB like a corporation, which is a double-edged sword. Do you honestly think Selig’s successor will be any less business-minded. If anything he’ll be moreso and he’ll be a much smoother public face on baseball. He’ll be as much a tool of the owners as Selig, and he’ll probably be a lawyer, which means he’ll do everything in his power to unite them against the union. If you’re looking for a more “Oakland-friendly” commissioner, it’s not happening.
Even Sandy Alderson, who was being groomed as Selig’s successor, ended up going to the Padres because he wasn’t considered a proper fit as commish. When asked about Santa Clara County’s T-rights recently, he felt he and Wally Haas made a mistake in not including a sunset clause for the Giants. That’s not exactly a pro-Oakland stance.
True, but it’s been “Athletics” for almost a century.
Dude, this is exactly the sort of blind zealotry that irritates A’s fans on this site. Selig is far from the worst commissioner to have ever held the office. Just the opposite from any impartial observation of the games history. When it’s all said and done, Selig may well be remembered as the greatest, or second greatest commissioner behind only Landis.
“Why did Piccini’s application sail through with the DBacks and Padres?”
Answer: Piccini’s application sailed through with the Padres because MLB isn’t biased against having a team in San Diego. Bud Selig has already made statements stating that having the team come to Oakland was a “horrible mistake” which “hurt the Giants.” Selig also admitted that the reason that the Blue Ribbon Commission purposely delayed and tabled the vote on the Piccinini offer of 122 million thereby ensuring that the terms of the contract with the City of Oakland would expire, was because “Schott didn’t want to sell” per the legal contract which he had with the City of Oakland, to sell the team to local buyers. The pressure from the SF Giants was also a factor. If Oakland winds up losing the Oakland Athlethics, we can directly point to the collusion and fraud in 1999 as the reason. Selig’s comments admitting this fraud, are all a matter of public record. Piccinini has now been brought in with a small interest in the Padres. Just because Piccinini can’t , or wont, prove collusion , doesn’t mean that The City of Oakland can’t prove fraud and collusion as a reason for possibility losing an economic asset. The evidence is quite clear. What happened was wrong and MLB will be held accountable.
What happened was wrong? I don’t get your rationale. It sounds to me that the terms of the contract were met. So what if MLB held out for a better deal after fulfilling their contractual obligations? No court is going to entertain the notion that a municipality has an inherent right to a sporting franchise or any other local business for that matter. By the way, it’s not illegal to “collude” with your business partners to form a mutually beneficial arrangement. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s illegal.
Wolff is absolutely one of the BEST owners in all professional sports. How many other professional sports owners are building venues mostly or entirely with their own money? A handful. How many do so without first trying to squeeze the public for funds? I can’t think of any (including the Giants).
Jeff,
It was also “wrong” for MLB to not allow the sale of the Giants to Florida businessman Vincent Piazza in the early 90′s. Despite Mr. Piazza offering Lurie/The Giants more cash than Magowan’s group, MLB “forced” Lurie to accept Magowan’s offer because they didn’t want to see Piazza take the G’s to Tampa/St. Pete. In actuality, it wasn’t “wrong,” it was simply the ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION at work. That’s baseball’s biz baby!
“What happened was wrong? I don’t get your rationale. It sounds to me that the terms of the contract were met.”
The terms of the contract were more than met. Everyone involved on the Oakland side understood MLB had veto power over the whole thing. Further, if I remember correctly, the promise was only to try to find someone who would have kept the team in Oakland through 2004. Here it is 2010, the team is still in Oakland, and will be for a number of years regardless of what happened.
Bottom line: Oakland more than received the benefit of its bargain. Even if there was a claim here (which there isn’t), even if the statute of limitations had not run (which it has), Oakland suffered no legally recoverable damages. Legally speaking, there’s nothing here.
Where’s the piece from Dave Newhouse re: the A’s? How about putting that up in the ‘interest of fairness’?
http://www.insidebayarea.com/athletics/ci_14243564
have you guys seen this yet?
ML – u gonna be there tonight?
It’s getting plenty of play here in this thread. Besides, if you’re going to talk fairness, it’s not like Newhouse got any perspective other than Piccinini’s.
I’m not going. Long, fun weekend, just flew up from SoCal this morning and went straight to work, need the rest tonight.
He’s already admitted that he doesn’t go to games out of protest of the “carpetbagger ownership.”
But ML you actually put up Kimball’s piece and Saperstein’s piece.
In the interest of journalistic fairness, I would think Newhouse’s piece should be posted rather than just some of the issues Newhouse raises vaguely referred to.
I understood that this website’s purpose was to chronicle all the articles that are written about the A’s and the stadium issues.
I’m not saying I agree with anything any reporter writes but I’m asking for fairness; put it up and then let your readers decide.
Isn’t that fair?
With all due respect, should I put up yet another article that will turn into yet another comment pissing match? Or should I just allow it to be confined to this thread? I’m trying to exercise editorial control here.
One other thing – I don’t post entire articles unless they are letters to the editor because of copyright concerns.
First of all, Navigator already posted the link to the Newhouse column.
Secondly, Newhouse isn’t a reporter, he’s a columnist. His piece isn’t a news article, it’s an opinion column. Not surprisingly, it is short on facts and long on speculation and Newhouse’s own personal biases.
Thirdly, ML by posting both Kimball’s and Saperstein’s letters, ML has already presented alternate viewpoints.
There is little reason to believe Piccinini would have built a privately-financed ballpark in Oakland. I’ve scoured the internet for articles from the relevant time period, and haven’t found anything where he even promised anything of the sort. What I find instead are articles where Dolich says he thinks he can make the existing venue work. Most objective observers would conclude that, had Dolich and Piccinini bought the team, reality would have hit them in the face by now and they’d either be (a) seeking public funds for a ballpark in Oakland; (b) looking at Fremont or San Jose; or (c) looking to sell the team (if they had not already sold it).
nice of you to drop by my neck of the woods, it’s nice to get some sun down here in socal, but it was still way too cold. supposed to rain again the middle of this week and I think to myself, one reason why i left the bay area was because I hated the rain.
anyways i have some friends in fremont who are going to tonight’s meeting – not sure how it will turn out, i think there will be some NIMBYs across the st.
Bartleby,
You seem to be doing a whole lot of speculating on what a Piccinini ownership would have done in Oakland. Piccinini is a very wealthy individual at this point, what makes you think that he would be asking for a bigger public subsidy in Oakland than what Wolff will ask for in San Jose? Come on, you know there won’t be any free ride in San Jose. One thing is certain, with a Piccinini/Dolich ownership, the negativity and the denigrating of the Coliseum as a venue, and Oakland as a city, would not be happening. Piccinini understands that the Oakland A’s need to survive in their present form. In the Newhouse article, Piccinini says even if the team were to move to Fremont they should still be called the “Oakland”Athlethics. Obviously he has a soft spot for the legacy and history in Oakland. Wolff on the other hand, doesn’t have a clue. Unfortunately, 1999 is a year which will go down in infamy in Oakland Athletics history.
“You seem to be doing a whole lot of speculating on what a Piccinini ownership would have done in Oakland.”
I’m not doing any more speculating than Dave Newhouse or anyone else on the “Oakland-only” side is doing. The idea that if Dolich/Piccinini bought the team it would have forever stayed in Oakland and everything would have been wonderful is a speculative fantasy.
I haven’t seen any published comments from Dolich or Piccinini which suggest that they were contemplating a privately-financed ballpark in Oakland. Given that MLB had concerns whether they even had sufficient capital to OPERATE the team in Oakland; it seems highly unlikely they had the extra hundreds of millions to build a new venue.
From what I have read, their plan was simply to try to increase attendance in the current venue. Well, this is exactly what Steve Schott succeeded in doing. This works as long as MLB is willing to continue massive subsidies to the team. However, in the long run Dolich/Piccinini would have had to face the same economic realities as Wolff.
“Piccinini is a very wealthy individual at this point, what makes you think that he would be asking for a bigger public subsidy in Oakland than what Wolff will ask for in San Jose?”
First of all, there’s wealthy and then there’s wealthy. You can be pretty wealthy and still not have enough scratch to drop hundreds of millions of dollars in a losing business venture.
Second of all, Wolff has already stated he will not be asking for a public subsidy in San Jose. He may get a break on the land, similar to what was done in San Francisco.
But to answer your question, very simply, a ballpark in Oakland does not have the same economic potential as one in San Jose. Santa Clara County is more affluent, less sports-saturated, would compete less directly with the Giants, and most importantly, has the corporate base necessary to sell the premium seating required to make the whole thing pencil out. I know you loathe these inconvenient facts, but everyone with a financial stake in this has drawn this conclusion.
“One thing is certain, with a Piccinini/Dolich ownership, the negativity and the denigrating of the Coliseum as a venue, and Oakland as a city, would not be happening.”
Possibly Piccinini/Dolich would have complained less about the venue for a period of time (though we’ll never really know for sure). However, sooner or later economic reality would have hit them in the face and they would have had to do something.
I haven’t seen anything from current ownership denigrating the City of Oakland. Noting that the East Bay has little corporate base and attendance in Oakland has historically been poor are obvious factual observations, not denigration of the city.
“Piccinini understands that the Oakland A’s need to survive in their present form.”
Now you’re just doing what you always seem to do here, project your own views on others. While Piccinini may have a soft spot for Oakland, I haven’t seen any published comments from him that go this far. In fact, his published comments seem to contemplate the possibility of a move to Fremont.
Wasn’t Reggie Jackson part of the proposed Piccinini ownership group? I read an ESPN The Magazine article about 4 years back that stated Jackson, as prospective owner of the A’s, had plans to move them to Las Vegas. I’ll try to dig up the edition out of my archives (ie boxes in the garage). Anyhow, fun to speculate with not much going on right now.
Here is an interesting 2005 Murray Chass article I found about Selig, Wolff, Jackson, and Vegas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/sports/baseball/08chass.html
Actually, I think I remember hearing that same thing several years back about Reggie Jackson wanting to move the team to Vegas. I personally have never been much of a fan of Reggie when he chose to be inducted into the HOF wearing a Yankee cap when we all know he accomplished more as an Athletic.
Nav, people have been denigrating the Coliseum ever since Al Davis had that horrible pile of concrete put in the outfield.
“Nav, people have been denigrating the Coliseum ever since Al Davis had that horrible pile of concrete put in the outfield.”
Heck I remember the brouhaha over Sparky Anderson calling the Coliseum “an ugly place” before game 3 of the ’72 World Series.