Wall Street Journal piece explains everything you already know
- 05.18.11, 19:14
- 122 Comments
Tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal more-or-less has an article by the paper’s Silicon Valley reporter, John Letzing, that resets all of the current, relevant information about the San Jose’s ballpark pursuit.
The takeaways are these:
- Lew Wolff declined to comment, deferring instead to A’s broadcasting veep Ken Pries.
- Giants spokesperson Staci Slaughter likewise refrained from comment on territorial rights.
- Oakland’s Dan Lindheim gave his brief statement in support of keeping the A’s, then declined further comment.
- Pries, for his part, said Wolff may not be willing to fund construction of a ballpark in Oakland.
- Longtime ballpark opponent Marc Morris thinks there are better uses for ballpark project money.
Then there’s this, which was sourced from San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s letter from Monday:
Last week, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed wrote to Mr. Selig, noting that seven years had passed since the A’s first considered moving to San Jose and added: “Despite your lengthy deliberative process, success is still achievable,” according to a copy of the letter Mr. Reed released.
Remember that Wolff joined the A’s in the venue development capacity in 2003, then exercised an option to buy the team in 2005. Also remember that then-Mayor Ron Gonzales made his ill-fated pitch at spring training in front of Phoenix Muni in March 2005. I even started this blog in March 2005. Obviously, something’s up with that, right?
Well, no.
Wolff’s job from 2003 until 2009 was to search all over the East Bay, including Oakland and Fremont. That he did, though the veracity with which he did his search will always be up for debate. If Gonzales came calling in 2004 or 2005, Wolff could take the call but he couldn’t work out any details, just as Wolff and Reed can’t do now. Back in 2004, Diridon was not the preferred site. In fact, it was considered one of the most difficult sites to make work simply because it had multiple owners, so it required multiple negotiations to acquire the entire site. The possibility or relocating the PG&E substation was also considered problematic. Territorial rights perhaps moreso. If someone’s looking for some great pipedream involving Wolff and Diridon – it wasn’t there.
However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping San Jose a fallback option. Any businessman worth his salt would. As 2005 became 2006 and so on, Wolff focused on Fremont instead of Oakland because of the difficulty doing the land deal at Coliseum North – again, related to potentially complex negotiations with multiple landowners instead of one. When the economic collapse killed the major tenets of the Pacific Commons deal, Wolff went to Warm Springs and met a ton of hostility there. Knowing that he’d have to figure out a more “sure thing” in terms of financing a ballpark, he went to San Jose.
The thing I continually puzzle over is this obsession with Wolff’s intent, whether it was in 2003, 2005, 2009, or now. All I know is that Wolff’s intent is to build a ballpark. He was willing to forego San Jose if he could get cheap land and a financing mechanism in place in Fremont or Oakland. That blew up and he had to adapt. If he’s wrong in his assessment that it can’t be done in Oakland, Selig and his committee should able to prove Oakland’s economic fitness. If not, San Jose should not be dismissed. It’s much, much too late in this saga to worry which city’s first, and whose citizens are being offended. It’s time to lay cards on the table. If Wolff’s bluffing, we’ll know. If either Oakland’s or San Jose’s hand is a loser, we’ll know. Like Wolff, I’d rather get a decision than hang in the ether for years. Because when that decision comes we can focus on whatever gets built, whenever that is. And we can start healing the rift that has created by this whole mess.
Added 8:42 PM – At San Jose Inside, Josh Koehn considers the impact of San Jose putting Mayor Reed’s pension reform measure and a ballpark measure on the same ballot.
Added 5/19 10:30 AM – Dave Newhouse wrote about what happened after Andy Dolich’s email was hacked. (Interestingly, I got one of those emails too but recognized it as a Nigerian prince-type scam immediately so I deleted it.) Dolich maintains that the solution for the A’s (and Raiders/49ers) is at the Coliseum, whereas San Jose would be too costly due to T-rights and Victory Court doesn’t have the funding to get it done.
@gj10 – Sarcasm so thick you can cut it with a knife. Ouch!
@Columbo – gojohn10′s not being sarcastic. I have his spreadsheet and it’s impressive data. I haven’t had enough time to pore over the methodology, but it looks solid at first glance.
@gojohn10 – Speaking of which, would you like to post the data and provide a backgrounder? It’d have to be prettied up a bit.
@gojohn–yes, Haas faired much better overall than Finley, Schottman and LW/JF, but still decent compared to the AL clubs. I know ML hates when I do this, but since everyone’s talking attendance from the past I’ll do it too!! I’ve poured over the figs, and came up with this:
Under Haas, the A’s averaged 23,850 per game from 1981-1995. The AL average was around 24,600 in that same period. Those oh so popular Giant’s packed them in from 1981-1995 with 19,940 per game, and the NL averaged 24,840 per.
Okay, to satisfy Jeffrey, who hates actual attendance numbers and only likes the median, the A’s finished, starting with 1981 out of the 14 AL teams: 4th, 6th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 7th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, 13, and 12th for an average of 7.8 out of 14 teams. Not great, but just a hair below average.
FWIW, those amazing Giant’s averaged 9th out of 12 NL teams from 1981-92, and 9.7 out of 14 teams from 93-95.
You guys can rip Haas all you want fo those last couple years taking a big slide, and the losing didn’t help, but it was still a huge turn around from those depressing Finley years. Haas’ worst year was better than Finley’s best year. Haas’ best year was almost 3 times better than Finley’s. Haas worst year was almost 4 times better than Finley’s worst.
Jk- average attendance numbers aren’t “actual” attendance numbers. Median is the correct measurement because it removes outposts and gives a tire picture of actual performance. Therefore, taking actual attendance numbers and measuring them against the MLB median is the right way to measure performance over time.
iPhone fail- outpost should be outliers and tire should be true.
Also, why would you measure the A’s only against the AL? That removes half the league…
@ML Sure, but I want to go over the data again to check I haven’t made any mistakes. Should have some time this weekend.
@Columbo
It is actually the Oakland-only’ers who consistently refuse to take all factors into consideration when making these “Giants attendance as bad as the A’s”-type arguments. Namely, during most or all of the period in question (pre-2000):
-the A’s played in what was then considered a beautiful, state of the art stadium, while the Giants played in an awkward, ugly, red-headed stepchild of a stadium.
- the A’s were centrally located and had great freeway and transit access. The Giant’s were inconveniently located, had hideous traffic access and no transit access.
- the A’s had decent weather; the Giants played in freezing winds (arguably the worst weather in MLB).
- the Giants had a much larger following in the area, as indicated by TV ratings.
- the A’s won multiple championships, the Giants none
- when the Giants built AT&T Park, they did not have a strong competitor playing in a comparable facility right next door.
Thus, there are many good reasons to believe the “new ballpark solved Giants’ attendance problems, therefore new new ballpark in Oakland will solve A’s attendance problems” argument is not true. Please make sure to account for each of these in your future analysis before accusing others of “not taking all factors into consideration.”
Further, the whole attendance debate is largely beside the point, because MLB economics are no longer driven by getting regular fans through the turnstiles. They are driven by premium seat sales, for which the target market is mostly large corporations, law firms and the like which are plentiful in the South Bay but very limited in the East Bay. This is the reason Wolff has ruled out Victory Court without needing to see the site.
Let’s put it this way: The Great Mall in Milpitas does raging good business. That doesn’t mean it’s a good location for a Cartier store: The target market isn’t there.
@bartelby – I’m not going to get into a big debate on why’s because I am out-gunned on this site and it would be a futile effort on my part. Let me clarify the intent of my attendance posts. Too often I hear many (not all) SJ supporters make blanket statements about attendance. Example – “Geez, only 15k last night. Oakland cannot support this team.” Or my favorite, “Oakland has always had terrible attendance.” I simply wanted to address this and provide some information, such as the market size of the bay area for the first 12-14 years of the A’s and how that may have played a role, i.e. too small of a market for 2 teams at that time. Also, I find many contradictory statements, such as yours above. You say MLB economics has changed such that it is now corporate-driven yet the past attendance keeps being brought up as justification for a move. Why even bring up past attendance if that is no longer the key driver? If it’s going to play little role in current revenue streams what relevance is it to the argument? Also, why do many (not all) SJ supporters bring up the term “Oakland” when mentioning spendable income yet somehow SJ includes all of the outlying cities stretching into both SM and Alameda counties? What happened to the richer suburbs of the east bay in that calculation? Case in point. Not long ago I heard a laughable comment by a clearly SJ supporter. He went on and on about how Fremont corporations are part of “Silicon Valley” even though it’s located in Alameda County. Fine, I have little problem with that. However, when the subject of Chevron came into play, this poster’s reply was dismissive due to it not being near the fanbase. I grew up in the east bay and San Ramon is just a 10 minute drive through Crow Canyon Road from Castro Valley. I find these attempts to dismiss “Oakland” a joke because THAT is an example of not taking things into consideration, i.e. blanket statements with a clear agenda. Lastly, I find your first statement to be absolutely false. I have clearly stated that the A’s had the more accessible facility. I cannot speak for other pro-Oak folks but I politely disagree in that I have taken many of these factors into consideration and still firmly believe that a similar park in downtown Oakland would thrive.
Awesome… so now that we got all that out of the way again… Go A’s!
.
For the first time I am going to miss watching the A’s in San Francisco…. It is something I look forward to all year, representing at the Phone Booth. Stupid work trip.
@Coloumbo- You do realize that those rich people who live in Contra Costa County are only 10-15 minutes further away from ATT Park than your “fantasy” Oakland ballpark?
The Giants beat the A’s to market years ago for those fans. It is sad but the truth is the Giants own most of the East Bay because those people think “Why should I go to Oakland when I can drive 10 more minutes and see the Giants in their shiny park?”
That stats show the Giants get a big chunk of season ticket holders from the area you spoke about. They get more in fact from Contra Costa County than Santa Clara County by far. Why is that?
It is because those people you speak about have a choice since both teams are located so close to them. In the South Bay there are so many fans who just cannot make the 1 hour trip each way either to Oakland or SF for that matter.
That is why the A’s need to move to San Jose where its infact a different metro area seperate from the San Francisco-Oakland Area. There are 2M plus people who are being underserved plus the corporations and their support would be ridiculous.
This is why I do not understand Pro-Oakland supporters……Why build 10 miles from the #1 ballpark in MLB (Forbes.com) when you can build 50 miles away in a place where a site, funding, and corporate support are ready to go??
That is bad business and not smart for the A’s to be so close to the Giants…It is killing them right now because those fans you talk about have a choice….
@sid – Look, I don’t want to squabble. The A’s are playing the Vagiants this weekend. We’re all A’s fans and I hate bickering over things like this. However, I will say that many things (as you know) contributed to where we are today. Oakland Gov’t, Mt. Davis, Raiders, Ownership, AT&T Park, Barry Bonds hysteria, Bandwagon fans, Combination thereof, etc. that caused an avalanche of people to prefer G’s over A’s. We could go on and on. All I am saying is that a shiny new park in a beautiful setting in JLS would thrive….. in my opinion. If I’m a rich guy in Orinda (or just a middle-class guy anywhere in the east bay) and have the chance to see a game at a beautiful new park in downtown Oak, I personally would not choose to “drive 10 minutes further” to AT&T. I’m not claiming everyone thinks the way I do. You do not have to agree and that is fine. Let’s leave it at that and let’s hope for a sweep by the A’s this weekend.
Ok, Ok, we get it: a “shiny new park in a beautiful setting in JLS would thrive…” And you know what Columbo, I don’t disagree with you. But now we’re right back to square one with the same basic question that has yet to be answered: WHO’S GONNA PAY FOR IT!? (silence)…that was easy.
@tony d. – Ok, Ok, we get it: “WHO’S GONNA PAY FOR IT!?” blah, blah, blah. Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of having the entire A’s organization on my side who have been vocal about their plans. Ergo, SJ fans know how the park will be financed there. Since I don’t work for the Oakland city gov’t I don’t have a clue what is going on because nothing has been said. You could interpret the silence from them as a “sure sign” that there is nothing forthcoming and that is perfectly fine. I, however, prefer to wait until I am told something concrete. Why continue to ask these financing questionsof pro-Oakland fans. We don’t know! Or at least I don’t. If someone does please speak up. While we’re on the subject, LW says he will “privately” finance the SJ ballpark and this has been treated as gospel. I’ve even heard people spouting that “Lew will pay for it with his own money.” Really? I didn’t realize the guy was loaded like that. I’ve read many a blog/article that has said that there is a big smokescreen here and SJ will end up paying way more for the park than what they’re being told. Without telling me the usual thing that those writers are being paid by the Giants, has anyone ever actually seen the financing plan in detail? Or has it just been LW’s word that it will be privately financed? Maybe it’s out there and I haven’t seen it. If he has displayed the details of it I sincerely apologize. I know the CSCO naming rights were set up awhile back for the Fremont park but I don’t anything more than that. I do know that I have read some pretty good articles showing the potential cost to the city, including lost prop tax revenues. BTW, I have NEVER even asked about the SJ financing plans once….ever. Why? Because I’m assuming all of you must be up to speed on the details due to the overwhelming arguments against the supposedly non-existent Oakland financing plan. Reading those questions over and over I’m thinking to myself…..”gee, they must know a concrete plan is in place for SJ that is 100% privately financed. Otherwise they wouldn’t be harping on the plan for Oakland, right?” So I guess I’ll ask the question. What are the exact details of the SJ financing plan to construct the nearly $500 million stadium and who knows how much for infrastructure? Again, I sincerely apologize if this has been posted already and I didn’t see it. I do not read every article on this site nor the AN site so I could have easily missed it.
Columbo,
Cisco Field will be privately financed pretty much the same way AT&T Park was privately financed: private loan (ala the Giants $170 million loan through Chase), sale of charter seats (psl’s), naming rights through Cisco, other Silicon Valley corporate sponsorships, private equity (Wolff’s words, not mine), TV/Radio revenue, etc. Did I miss anything? Probably. By the way, welcome to the blog.
@Columbo – Here’s what we know about the financing plans for the sites and the ballpark.
Look, there are some rather vociferous pro-SJ commenters here. There are many more here who really don’t care where it’s built as long as it’s in the Bay Area, we’ll always be fans regardless. There are some who are pro-Oakland and others who are Oakland-only. That kind of diverse opinion is always welcome here, even though it seems like the pro-SJ crowd drowns out the others.
@ML – Thanks for the reply. Is there a link to Boxer’s comments that you could provide? I have heard nothing of this and this would be quite a disappointment if true. Would this not suggest little to no sponsorships, naming rights, etc., i.e. there is nothing in the pipeline ready to go? BTW for what it’s worth, I’m not opposed to an SJ site at all. I like SJ quite a bit actually. A couple of my buddies played ball for SJSU back in the early 90′s. One even got to A-ball for the Lake Elsinore Padres back in the day as a pitcher but eventually fizzled out at the tender age of 25. I used to go down there and watch them when they’d play the SJ Giants. We’d party in downtown afterward and it was a lot of fun. I don’t think I ever paid for a beer during these times!!!! I have nothing against SJ at all so let me make that clear. I even tried to convince the wife to move down there a few years ago but she didn’t want to. I’m from the east bay and she’s a peninsula girl forever. I don’t want to start a whole new issue here but, I am not opposed to a move IF it’s the only real solution, I just don’t like the way things have developed over the past decade. I’m not going to make accusations but I will quote something from a movie and you can take from it what you will. In the movie All The President’s Men, Robert Redford says to Dustin Hoffman, “I don’t mind WHAT you did. I mind HOW you did it.”
Here’s the transcription from Boxer’s interview on Townsend’s show:
“Vertical” in Boxer’s quote means ballpark construction.
@ML – Thank you.
So there you have it: A’s ownership is expected to shell out $500 mill for a ballpark in a place where attendance has historically been bad and corporate support is lacking. What if the owners lose piles and piles of money on such a venture? Not Oakland’s problem.
Columbo,
You’re alright Brah! So I guess it was true all along: MLB gave San Jose, Oakland (and perhaps Fremont) marching orders two years ago to get land acquisitions and infrastructure improvements in place for the A’s to build a privately financed ballpark (under the veil of “MLB Blue Ribbon Committee study”). Whoever got there/crossed the finished line first would be the “winner” in the A’s ballpark sweepstake. The “results of the study” haven’t been announced yet (going on 800 days by ML’s counter) because said cities haven’t completed anything…yet. I’ll just leave it at that.
@Columbo
“Also, I find many contradictory statements, such as yours above. You say MLB economics has changed such that it is now corporate-driven yet the past attendance keeps being brought up as justification for a move. Why even bring up past attendance if that is no longer the key driver?”
The statements are not contradictory. Decent attendance is obviously desirable. However, it is not, by itself, in 2011, sufficient to fund a privately-financed ballpark. Corporate-driven premium seat money is the difference between breaking even or not in this scenario. This is what paid for the construction of AT&T Park.
Take a look at the AT&T Park seating map and the prices the Giants charge for premium-seating. I would make a rough guesstimate it’s about 50% of their entire gate revenue. One suite at $5K per game sold on a seven year commitment makes up for an awful lot of unsold upper deck seats. It’s not hard to see why, if you build in a location where the target market for those suites does not exist, you’re at significant risk of losing money.
I’ve always thought the attendance argument is kind of a sideshow argument. The historically poor attendance in Oakland is cause for concern, sure. But it’s the lack of corporate base which is why Mr. Wolff doesn’t want to build there, that’s the deal-breaker.
“Also, why do many (not all) SJ supporters bring up the term “Oakland” when mentioning spendable income yet somehow SJ includes all of the outlying cities stretching into both SM and Alameda counties? What happened to the richer suburbs of the east bay in that calculation?”
Actually, if you were a long time reader of this blog, you’d see plenty of that kind of sophistry going the other way. There is a certain Oakland-only poster who is constantly making ridiculous San Francisco/Napa/Sonoma/Alameda/Contra Costa vs. Santa-Clara-County-all-by-itself comparisons, ignoring issues like bridges, travel times etc.
As far as “richer suburbs” go, every area has its “richer suburbs,” including maligned cities like Cleveland or Detroit. But rich guys really aren’t the biggest part of the market for suites, etc. Big corporations are.
“Case in point. Not long ago I heard a laughable comment by a clearly SJ supporter. He went on and on about how Fremont corporations are part of “Silicon Valley” even though it’s located in Alameda County. Fine, I have little problem with that. However, when the subject of Chevron came into play, this poster’s reply was dismissive due to it not being near the fanbase. I grew up in the east bay and San Ramon is just a 10 minute drive through Crow Canyon Road from Castro Valley.”
Here’s the thing: The overwhelming majority of target premium seat customers (big corporations, law firms, accounting firms, VCs) are located in SF or the Peninsula/South Ba. A large portion of the East Bay corporate base is located in the Tri-Valley Area – which, considering traffic patterns, is about equally convenient to San Jose and Oakland. (I ought to know, as I am currently commuting to Pleasanton every day on a work project in the heart of rush hour). By building in Oakland, you would be making yourself inconvenient to the vast majority of the group of customers who are going to make or break your financing plan. And for most of the corporate base for which Oakland is convenient, San Jose is about equally convenient. It’s just not a logical thing to do.