Even more poll dancing
- 03.30.10, 18:26
- 145 Comments
The Merc’s Tracy Seipel just got wind of a new poll conducted by SJSU’s Survey and Policy Research Institute. This time, the poll doesn’t ask a fuzzy “Do you favor the A’s moving to San Jose?” question, it asks if voters would approve giving city-owned land (Diridon South) to the A’s for their privately financed and operated ballpark.
The stadium poll question — posed by San Jose State University’s Survey and Policy Research Institute on behalf of the Mercury News — found that 62 percent of those surveyed favored the idea while 23.5 opposed it; 13 percent didn’t know and 1.5 percent refused to answer.
Cheered by the A’s and city leaders, the result is one of the first indications of how San Jose voters are leaning on the ballpark question, which the city hopes to put on the ballot in November — if Major League Baseball graces the move by overriding the San Francisco Giants’ claims to Santa Clara County. The A’s are anxious to move from the aging Oakland Coliseum and have said they cannot find a suitable home elsewhere in the East Bay.
In all of the recent run-up to the report that still hasn’t appeared, local and national writers have been speculating what exactly the MLB panel, Bud Selig, and his constituents, the owners, have been thinking. The near consensus has been that prior to any decision being made, MLB needs to square away the T-rights issue and compensation.
I don’t think that’s really the case. Instead, I think MLB is more afraid of using political capital for a T-rights negotiation without knowing where San Jose stands regarding the A’s. Now that two polls have shown the proponents of a move with a clear advantage, MLB may finally have traction to move ahead. It could easily present the recommendation, have Selig present the case to the owners, vote on the move, then negotiate the finer details over the next 2 years, until the next CBA is in place. Of course, Selig would have to make the case that this move doesn’t create a precedent that potentially harms the big market teams, which is no small feat. To that end, there would have to be language that indicates that the Bay Area situation is not analogous to any other move, which is at least true based on the history of T-rights here. It is that language that I believe is the biggest difficulty. Chances are that there would be a sunset clause in case of a failed vote or the A’s failure to get a ballpark built, which would be a correction of the last T-rights change for Santa Clara County.
If you’re all about free markets or unshackling Santa Clara County or Alameda County from T-rights, I doubt you’ll be happy. Chances are that this won’t go nuclear, it won’t even reach a public debate in the media. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I’m and A’s fan. Yes I’d go to more A’s games in San Jose. No I wouldn’t cross the bridge to go to more Giants games. I don’t follow the Giants in any form of media because I hate the Giants, their owners, and their insistence on being a roadblock to the A’s move to San Jose.
FremontA’s – Fremont is nowhereville, it just a boring stinky city near the bay run by an old fart mayor with a major underbite-
SAN JOSE IS THE WAY FOR THE A’S
BUILD IT NOW!
You’re dead wrong on Detroit. The rest of the city is falling apart, but downtown Detroit rocks. (I was just there for a guys weekend last year). It has three major sports teams, several entertainment zones (including Greektown and Foxtown), the Fox Theatre, Second City, movie theatres, hotels and 3 or 4 casinos. They’ve done a great job filling in where the dark scary empty places used to be, and it’s very lively (at least on the weekend).
Your point about CC County is exactly why I want Fremont, its accessible to everybody.with a bart station and two major freeways.
Getting to downtown SJ is painful coming from the East Bay, we all know that. And some people dont like pub transit.
I guess Gammons also thinks AT&T Park has been a bad deal for San Francisco as well. He should also do his research next time before looking like an idiot on newsprint (or on the web); Redevelopment funds used for land-banking and infrastructure improvements ARE EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR!
I would love to the same poll in Oakland. Garnering the support of the residents of Oakland for a new ballpark scares the hell out of me.
The only definitive opinion I have of SJ is this — it wouldn’t seem so out of place if it was three hundred miles to the South.
As Jeffrey and I started talking about on AN, the stadium proposal is itself going to be interesting. If the magic number is 3-million in attendance, the suggested capacity of 32-36,000 isn’t going to reach it. On the off chance, a 36,000 seat stadium sells out every single game (highly doubtful), it’ll get close; but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Average MLB stadium capacity is 44,234. I don’t see MLB allowing a stadium to go forward that’s between 8,000-12,000 seats below average. Wolff is going to have to come more in line with the average — 39,000 to 41,000 is my guess. Adding 6 to 8,000 extra seats at some later date is dubious; construction costs alone would make it prohibitively expensive. Which is part of the reason why I find Wolff getting readily impatient — he’s recognizing the opening to cut down on construction costs. If the market changes substantially, stadium costs are likely to become prohibitively expensive.
I also asked the rhetorical question: What will season tickets cost the fan in a stadium with this small of a capacity? Yes, all new stadiums come with a bump in ticket prices, but the fan who doesn’t want to spend all their discretionary income on tickets seems to be at a distinct disadvantage.
For comparison: Los Gigantes start at $672, $840, then $1,260. Fairly reasonable? Sure. With $500-million plus in debt service, ticket prices aren’t going to be that enticing without a bump in seating capacity.
re: the barbecue rooftop. There will have to be significant rooftop space to even begin considering this as a viable alternative/option. If I remember correctly, there are only about 4,000 seats spread across 17-buildings. That doesn’t seem like an option when glancing at the Didiron site.
That should be 14 buildings, not 17. A few do not allow rooftop seating for anybody other than tenants.n
Trolling for San Jose like this does not help San Jose, neither does degrading Fremont.
A few things though, what is the point of building all that extra capacity if hey couldn’t fill it? Making the stadium smaller also makes the light/noise/height impact smaller, making it much more likely that the neighborhood would approve of it.
Like Tonaras above, I took an automated poll this evening. Questions included whether I was a Giants or A’s fan, how many games have I attended (for both teams) in the last 5 years. Did I own any Giants apparel, do I watch any Giants highlights, read Giants recaps in the paper. No questions relating to the A’s moving to SJ though.
I live in San Mateo County. Wonder why all the recent polling? Will the results have much of an affect on MLB’s decision?
You’re really not getting it. Who ever said 3 million was some kind of magic number? Attendance is a means to an end, not an end itself. The goal isn’t attendance, it’s REVENUE. Look at Boston’s ranking for gate revenue.
Capacity 32-36,000 = almost certain, constant, 81 game sellouts. That’s far better than a 41,000 seat ballpark which draws 15,000 for weeknight games (which is the situation in most markets which have them).
The constant sense of scarcity sells tickets. You forego the extra 8000 tickets for the 6 or 8 games the Yankees or Red Sox are in town. Instead, you sell an extra 10-15,000 tickets for each of the 20 – 30 weeknight games some hapless opponent like the Royals, Indians, Mariners, Pirates, Padres, etc. are in town.
Plus, you save big bucks on the cost of building an extra deck (which has the highest cost of construction of any section of the ballpark and the lowest average ticket price). And if demand outstrips capacity, you simply raise prices. This is part of the reason Wolff wants to be in the South Bay: Relative price insensitivity (at least compared to the East Bay).
From a business perspective, it’s a no-brainer.
It’s slightly disingenuous and unrealistic to propose a smaller stadium just to have the “neighborhood approve it” when business realities seem to dictate otherwise. Imagine the uproar if Wolff suddenly wants/needs to slap a second or third deck on Cisco Field a few years into the deal.
Will a 36,000 seat stadium ever host an All Star Game? Maybe. Trends seem to indicate that MLB favours stadiums with higher capacities, though. Especially in the past decade — average seating capacity is 43898.8. Glancing at stated capacity, PNC Park is the smallest at 38, 496. Even Kaufmann Stadium (a possible future site) is gradually increasing seats. (39,000 for 2010 up from 38,177 in ’09.)
Part of the idea appears to be that Oakland is tapped out. The immediate market is saturated; you can’t squeeze any more people out of the city because the population base isn’t there. SJ is roughly double the population, and if you can’t average, say, 34,000 the move is… meh. Increased seating capacity and slightly more reasonable ticket rates will go a long way towards keeping that average attendance up.
Across the Bay Los Gigantes have averaged 39, 092.6 over the past decade. Attendance has been in steady decline, but if they get a couple more sticks in the line up, I expect it to jump up again.
I forget where ML posted it, but I believe the Athletics are hoping to average 25,000 in a normative year. You’re going to spend $500-million to get a jump of less than a thousand people (over the average attendance in the past decade)? Good thing it’s not my money.
A smaller stadium benefits exactly one person — the owner.
You’re assigning arbitrary standards to properties like the All Star Game, which unlike the Super Bowl, doesn’t have a minimum size standard. The only published standard for a MLB stadium is that a city holds at least 30,000, and that dates back to the 50′s.
I’ve written about debt service and revenue projections in a 2007 post. While it’s nearly three years old, the fundamentals are still there. Debate that if you want. When I spoke to Wolff, he talked about how many teams would prefer to “right-size” their ballparks. Coors Field (50,000) is a perfect example. If the Giants have to go into a protracted rebuilding phase, they have over 2,000 temporary seats they can easily pull out to reclaim the original 40,000 capacity. The A’s will probably have the same flexibility. Does this benefit the owner? Of course! But when the difference between a small and medium-sized stadium is $100 million (third deck), it’s enough to give any owner pause.
I haven’t found concrete numbers yet, but you’ll also note that Boston has increased its seating capacity over the years. More than likely to keep ticket prices from being completely ridiculous.
I am aware of the goal of increased revenues. I don’t see that much more being made than is currently available.
Based on the Fremont plans, the outfield looks like it could be easily reconfigured; it doesn’t look like they have any seats in center field. Is that supposed to be a giant restaurant?
“Right sizing” stadiums is an interesting topic — Coors Field and Turner Field both over estimated demand. It also goes back towards the downward trend in attendance, and what’s going to happen when all those television contracts need to be renewed. Is there going to be another billion dollars to be had? Probably not. Revenues are going to have to come from somewhere, and if that’s on the back of an already shaky fanbase what then?
Somehow I think A’s to San Jose and FremontA’s are the same person. Obviously someone is in a trolling mood and is using sockpuppets to do so.
I think the A’s should pay back the Giants exactly what the Giants paid them to get the T-rights in the first place, and in exchange the A’s should agree to build their new stadium no closer than 47 miles from AT&T Park. This seems fair to me.
Since the Giants maintain T-rights over San Jose, THEY should built a new ballpark down there and lease it to the A’s. It can be “The San Francisco Giants Ballpark of the Oakland Athletics at San Jose.” See? Everybody wins!
Joking,
You tout Fremont for having a BART station yet go on to say “some people don’t like pub transit”? Huhh? East Bay A’s fans who don’t want to drive to SJ (like we’ve been doing for decades), just take Capitol Corridor/Amtrak to Diridon.
After multiple expansions and tweaking, Fenway holds 37,402 for night games this season (slightly less for day games, when some CF bleachers in the batters’ eye are unsold.) There are seats on rooftops, catwalks–if someone could dream it, they built it.
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/ballpark/facts.jsp
Wrigley’s recent expansions have pushed capacity to 41,160, plus standing room.
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/history.jsp
I gotta say, 32,000 is really low capacity for a ballpark. I would go for at least 38,000 which is similar to PNC in Pittsburgh!
The key point is perpetual sellouts. It’s the perpetual sellouts that generate season ticket sales, advance ticket sales, and people buying tickets for weeknight Royals game because they couldn’t get tickets for the Saturday night game against the Yankeees. So, the right number of seats is going to depend on the team and the situation, but you’re better off having less seats than you can sell than more. (This is basically the NFL model, but applied to baseball).
The Red Sox did increase seating, but only by a few thousand, and only after they were already in “perpetual sellout” territory. But they did not build an upper deck, and their current total of 37,402 is only slightly higher than the projected tally for Cisco Field. If 37K is the right number for a passionate, single team baseball town like Boston, 32-36K is probably the right number for a casual fan, sports saturated, two MLB-team market like the Bay Area.
The A’s are better off building 32K and finding they need more than building 42K and finding they need less.
Last year PNC averaged 19,479 fans a game.
I doubt Boston built more seats to prevent ticket prices from being “completely ridiculous.” Ridiculous prices are only a problem for the team if they can’t sell them, which is not the case in Boston. In any event, prices have only gone up since they expanded.
More likely, they just realized they were in a position to modestly increase capacity and still maintain their perpetual sellouts and pricing power.
As far as there being “not much more [revenue] being made than is currently available,” the math does not bear this out. The Red Sox currently average over $50 per ticket (and I don’t think this even counts suite revenue). I haven’t seen this year’s figure for the A’s, but I believe it’s in the $25-30 range. So if the A’s successfully implement the Red Sox model and get perpetual sellouts at 32K in San Jose with an average ticket price of over $50, plus suite revenue they would not get in Oakland, they will more than double their gate revenue. I believe a big part of the reason they want to be in San Jose is because they believe Silicon Valley will support $50 average tickets while the East Bay will not.
Nearly all of the new seats built at Fenway were premium seats, whether you’re talking about the Monster seats, the redo of the .406 Club (now EMC Club), or the rooftop club areas down the right field line. The only favor done for the proletariat was that the grandstand seats were refinished and slightly widened. The Sox didn’t spend $100 million to help out the guy paying $12 a pop.
Why not drop the capacity to 16K and have tickets that average $100?
1) Because more people means more money made on concessions, etc.
2) Because a bigger crowd raises the excitement level of the game, which makes the game more enjoyable, which makes fans want to come back for more.
3) Because at some point even the most loyal fans will get turned off and will find an alternative form of entertainment (i.e. stop following the team, even on TV). Even potential new SJ fans might disparage the park as being too exclusive.
Based on ballpark capacity numbers from Wikipedia (which still lists Boston as 37.4K), a new A’s ballpark with a capacity of 32K would be 2.5 standard deviations from the mean and a full standard deviation below the next lowest capacity ballpark (a tarped-over Tropicana field). That’s an outlier, and I have a major problem with that.
“Why not drop the capacity to 16K and have tickets that average $100?”
I assume your question was rhetorical, but I’ll answer it anyway.
Obviously, there are limits to what the market will bear. If you were to draw a graph of price versus attendance it would presumably be a bell curve. My guess is at $100 per ticket you would no longer get consistent sellouts even of a 16K ballpark. At 41K you probably wouldn’t get consistent sellouts, either. The sweet spot is probably somewhere in between – you want to hit the top of the curve.
You’re right that concession revenue should be factored into the calculation. However, two things to consider: (1) If you’re looking at going into 40K territory, you’re talking about adding cheap upper deck seats. These seats bring less concession revenue than the premium seats, so that will factor into the curve; and (2) at some point adding more seats has the perverse effect of DECREASING overall attendance. The goal is to sell lots of season ticket packages – so you’re selling tickets to lower demand games which would otherwise go unsold.
“a bigger crowd raises the excitement level of the game, which makes the game more enjoyable, which makes fans want to come back for more.”
I really doubt there’d be a noticable enough difference between a 36K ballpark and a 40K ballpark to influence how often fans attend games. If anything, I think a 36K ballpark which was constantly sold out would have a higher excitement factor than a 40K ballpark with only 36K people sitting in it.
36K is pretty close to Fenway. 32K may be an outlier. So what? Why does the size of other ballparks make a difference? If anything, the evidence suggests most of them are oversized, since there are relatively few teams that consistently average over 40K. Most of them could probably reduce capacity a few thousand without hurting overall attendance (and possibly increasing it).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m enjoying the discussion here, but frankly I wouldn’t get too caught up in the capacity right now. The only important thing about a stated figure right now is the environmental impact. Now that we have a frequently quoted estimated of 36,000, it’s more likely that we’ll use wiggle room from that (+/- 2,000). The big factor is the height of the stadium, as the FAA rules make it so that a large three-deck model is not really feasible. It’s also much more expensive.
What I expect is that the “upper deck” will be built primarily out of steel and aluminum as opposed to concrete. A similar technique was used at Stanford Stadium and Red Bull Arena in NJ. That should allow for cheaper, quicker expansion or reduction should it get to that point.
BTW, SF’s 1996 Prop B, which paved the way for the ballpark in China Basin, had a 45,000-seat stadium in its ballot language. The A’s have years to tweak and eventually lock in the final capacity.
I got a chance to tour Fenway prior to the 2006 season. It’s a fascinating place, not just for its age but also the Red Sox’ ingenuity in cramming new amenities into the building. The upper level was completely stripped during that retrofit. Incidently, I think the Fenway may be replaced before the A’s play their last game at the Coliseum.
Looking at last year’s attendance data, only 11 teams averaged over 32K (and the Rockies were just barely over). Most of these were in larger markets than the Bay Area, single team markets, or both.
By contrast, half of MLB teams averaged 60.5% capacity or below.
In all of MLB, only four teams achieved over 90% capacity.
Conclusion: The vast majority ot MLB parks are too big.
Seating capacity has never been the name of the game. Otherwise the Dodgers would’ve remained in LA Memorial Coliseum; the Rockies at Mile High and the Yankees at Yankee Stadium I. I can only speculate as to why 32k is the target capacity. In any case, seating expansion is likely an option at a future point.
Bringing the A’s to San Jose will bring more crime and chaos with 36,000 regular event-goers, extra 32,000+ cars will bring worse traffic congestion, the stadium will take money away from our city services, and upfront $$$ million in public money for land and infrastructure.
The City of San Jose is spending taxpayers money on a ridiculous A’s Stadium when Giants owns the territory rights. Instead, the City of San Jose should spend money keeping the city staff and service. How can we trust San Jose Leadership when they are spending money on a stadium when they are laying off staff. I feel very sorry for the staff.
San Jose faces big cuts in staff, services
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14779270
NO STADIUM IN SAN JOSE!!!!!
Let the A’s stay in Oakland or move to Fremont where they belong. A’s belong in the East Bay not San Jose.
NO A’S STADIUM IN SAN JOSE!!!!!
The majority of ballpark are too big, but 32K is too small. Let’s compromise and say 36K is just right. I’d prefer 38K, but 36K is fair.
How much crime and chaos do the Sharks bring to San Jose? How about none? Why would the A’s be any different?
I know, why don’t we run Adobe, the City Hall, the downtown residents, the Sharks, etc out of downtown San Jose because after all, they cause traffic congestion and require city services. Let’s turn the downtown into a desert.
And staff layoffs are happening because San Jose unionized employees refuse the modest pay cuts that the rest of us in the private sector have had to endure.
A’S ALL THE WAY in SAN JOSE!!
Ha Ha, I get it. April Fools.
re: Bringing the A’s to San Jose will bring more crime and chaos
…Reminds me of a story I once heard about a major, major foods company trying to move to a small town in New Jersey. They were told to come on in, as long as they: generated no garbage for the city landfill; put no cars on the roads, put no kids in the schools. So the company instead located to another nearby city, which has reaped the benfits of jobs and tax revenues ever since.
By Fizlur Lawn:
The City Council of San Jose and the San Jose Chamber of Commerce were planning and conspiring for the last 12 years to get the rid of the San Francisco Giants to give the excellent Real Estate to A’s owners to be multi millionaires with high paying jobs and lucrative contract for loyalty. They stabbed into the stomach of hundred of thousand of the city Employees. blades. They turned the fools day into the biggest tragedy Fremont and Oakland has ever experienced. Let us all pray for them to get jobs, earning capacity and welfare of their families.
The land may be utilized for smart economic development to create at least 12,000 jobs by developing a Smart Green futuristic City for excellent schools top research university, play grounds, parks, community health center, swimming pool and community garden and mixed used development by calling an international plan for the site that attract high speed ridership.
http://www.YouAmericanVoice.com
Excuse me No Stadium in Fremont!!!!!
I see that “Fazlur Khan” and “NoSanJoseA’s” are originating from the same IP address in Brisbane. Please stop the sockpuppetry, or you will be banned. Diverse opinions are welcome. Misrepresentation is not.
If the A’s do get San Jose, what is the best way for a Contra Costa County fan to get to a game down in the South Bay? I really don’t enjoy traffic. I would rather take BART, but there’s no option to San Jose for that. And in Walnut Creek, there’s no Caltrain to go on. Any suggestions? Do the A’s care about the Contra Costa fans? I do want the team to get a new ballpark.
Please find another forum, Mr Neukom.
I would think 680 to 101 or 87, but I don’t know how traffic is. 60-90 minute drive maybe?
ML,
side note here, tried to email you, bug ml@newballpark.org bounces back.
Any way you can fix the order in which these comments are posted? I don’t know if I’m the only one, but I find that it’s really hard to find the new posts.
Thanks. I’ll check out the e-mail server.
I’ll also put up a poll regarding the comments threading later.
Well, if I had to choose, Oakland is a lot easier from Contra Costa County. I think my counterparts in the North Bay would have a hard time getting to a game on a weekday from say Vallejo or even Sacramento!