Great America to be bought by group containing 49ers, will end lawsuit
- 09.19.11, 10:38
- 65 Comments
If the 49ers couldn’t celebrate at the ‘Stick yesterday, at least they made a huge step towards celebrating every week in Santa Clara. According to the Merc’s Lisa Fernandez, a real estate firm partnering with a 49ers-controlled entity will buy Great America (the theme park assets not including the land) for $70 million. JMA Ventures, the lead in this purchase, is a 25-year old company backed by major private equity firms (Carlyle Group, Lehman, Morgan Stanley). They also own several properties throughout Northern California, from Tahoe ski resorts to SF restaurants. As for Cedar Fair, the squeaky wheel throughout all of this? They get cash to pay down debt.
This is a much better move than the 49ers buying the theme park outright, since they don’t have the expertise to do anything like operating a theme park. JMA Ventures would seem a more ideal partner, and at least at the outset they don’t appear to be interested in changing anything. Great America is on a weekends-only operating schedule until the end of October, when it closes to the public for the season. That should give JMA and the 49ers plenty of opportunity to take a look around and see what improvements could be made.
Could Great America close in the long run? I doubt it, since JMA is sinking $70 million into what is essentially a bunch of rides and games. Hopefully, they and the Niners can start working the channels with the NFL to integrate some sort of football theme into the park. That could go a long way towards making the Santa Clara stadium a much more cohesive experience for future Super Bowls, even if the stadium won’t have the retractable roof the league covets so much. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room to expand there as previous owners added water park features to Great America – features that won’t be useful in January/February.
Initially, I have a good feeling that JMA, a company geared around entertainment, will keep a local institution going while making it play nice with the 49ers. There’s that chance of integration with the stadium. If the two can enhance job opportunities in the area (even if they are low paying jobs, many of my immigrant relatives work there) it’s a win-win.
…and the Oakland folks feel entitled to have the team, despite a history of poor support, voting in politicians flat-out disdainful of the franchise and having no $$ to pay for a new ballpark… The Mercury News editorial yesterday has it right – if the A’s can’t go to San Jose, they will probably be sold to someone who moves the team out of the Bay Area. Maybe Oakland should go to the bank and tell them the several hundred million dollars worth of bonds can be repaid with “colorful history.”
O.k., pjk, I have to respond. It’s the same old “free ballpark,” “history,”, etc. Let’s just be honest for one second, o.k.? The area where AT&T Park is now was a shithole. Would you agree? Nobody in their right mind would even think of building a stadium there. I worked in San Francisco since 1995 and I know that area. It was a shithole. And that’s being generous. All of a sudden it’s the place to be. No corporations would touch it with a 50 foot stick until the area was revamped with condos, restaurants, bars, etc. It’s a great setting. I think you would at least admit to that. Teens born at the right time would never even know that this place was a drug-infested, homeless hangout, place to avoide. If you don’t know that I would urge you to research it. Now, let’s get to Oakland. Oakland has been long considered a “crime-infested” city thanks to the media. I went to Catholic School in Oakland from 1984-1988 with zero episodes of violence and mayhem that is often reported by the media. Sure, Oakland has its gangs and turf wars but it is largely isolated in specific areas. The SJ crowd likes to utilize the Oakland name to discount a proper place for a ballpark but let me give you a little information. My best friends from high school lived in Montclair and Piedmont, which are considered pretty nice places to live. My father lived in Piedmont for 10 years after he got remarried and the area was close to perfect if I’ve have ever seen it. I take that back. I went to the Raiders Super Bowl in San Diego and I stopped in La Jolla and I would say that is perfect. Anyway, I’m not trying to be pro-Oakland here but the truth is that Oakland would be a prime spot for a ballpark. Let’s put aside the “largest city in the bay” stuff for a moment. I have two sons. Would I rather be watching an A’s game looking at the bay bridge, the downtown skyline, the Oakland hills, the SF skyline, and the beautiful bay or would I rather be sipping beers watching the A’s play in a suburb with concrete views of buildings? You may disagree and that’s fine. I have no problem with that. Aside from LW and JF, the reality is that a setting like that would be more atttractive, at least to me. I may be wrong and I could very well be. Taking the corporate sponsorship aside just for a moment, what would be the better setting? If I’m a regional manager for a high-tech firm in San Jose and I want to woo prospective clients I would have to decide the setting for this. Again, I love SJ. But it’s a suburb. There’s nothing wrong with that. I would send my kids to SJ public schools all day long but we’re talking about long-term attraction here. Again, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on where you stand, Oakland is situated in a prime location. If MLB doesn’t see that then, well, it is what it is. To me it’s not about city recognition it’s about location.
Oakland is done guys no matter how you slice and dice it up.
It is not Lew Wolff who has shut the door it is MLB themselves. They see clearly a public ballpark is never going to happen in Oakland and privately financing it would be financial suicide for the team and the league putting it 12 miles away from ATT Park.
@Columbo- What you say is “nice” and “thoughtful” but money “walks and talks” and Oakland has zero of it. The Giants have cannibalized the corporate sponsors already in the metro area (SF-Oak-Fremont) while there is a population base in a nearby metro area (SJ-SC-Sunnyvale) that has the demographics to support the team.
The problem really is…..THE GIANTS. People in the East Bay have a choice between SF and Oak while people in SJ do not have a choice. Driving to SF or Oak consistently is not practical.
If were too look at a map from outer space of the Bay Area and place 2 MLB teams where would you place them?
San Jose and San Francisco, the two largest cities in the area and the centers of two different metro areas. Not Oakland, in fact Oakland would be a distant 3rd because of its lack of size as a city and proximity to San Francisco.
Only 19% of A’s fans come from Oakland because of its lack of size. San Jose is 1M people and you would see 75% of all fans coming from the city itself.
Oakland is not the original home of the A’s so no one can claim they own the team. They screwed the the team years ago with Mt Davis when they had a signed contract to renovate the Coliseum for baseball only…..That was the end plain and simple.
MLB knows the history all too well and the Giants holding San Jose hostage is wrong and their reasons are incorrect as well.
To Colombo:
I would urge you to take your comments – minus any say colorful language – and email Bud Selig and copy Lew Wolff and John Fisher. Please put what you said in writing. I think it is a very important point..
You make great points including the one that most people would prefer looking at the scene you described in Oakland rather than the one in San Jose (wonderful tech companies but not the best location for a new A’s ballpark).
I have made that point directly to Mike Crowley, A’s President.
I get all the stuff about corporations but there are tons of corporations in the East Bay that will support a team that’s committed to the East Bay.
Thanks.
A’s observer.
@Columbo Some quick fact checking:
- The fact that greater San Jose is suburban (in the same way LA is) is irrelevant. The ballpark is slated for downtown. The Diridon site is every bit as urban as the Victory Court site. There is and will be just as much to do within walking distance. Fact is, downtown SJ is quite a bit livelier than downtown Oakland, and has been for a long time.
- San Jose actually sits right on the Bay. Look at the map. I know you can’t see the Bay from Diridon. You can’t really see it from Victory Court, either.
- All that stuff you wrote about the Bay Bridge, San Francisco skyline, etc. sounds great. Problem is, you wouldn’t be able to see it from Victory Court. If we were talking about a Lake Merritt or Alameda ballpark, your argument might have some merit. But in fact, the Diridon and VC sites are quite comparable in terms of “setting.” Both offer the potential for downtown skyline and hillside views. Neither offers the AT&T Park experience.
- If “setting” were all that mattered, they could build the park on Treasure Island. Marin Headlands sounds nice. Or the site of the Mormon Church has terrific views. Obviously, practical considerations come into play. One of these is financing. Financing trumps setting.
- Oakland is an inferior site due to its location. Too close to the competition. Too far from the revenue generators that drive the modern game. These are fatal flaws.
@jk The hypocrisy of ranting about cities stealing other cities’ teams – while glossing over, in the very same post, the theft from KC/Philly – simply breathtaking. The world truly is not made for those who are cursed with self-awareness.
@Columbo “If I’m a regional manager for a high-tech firm in San Jose and I want to woo prospective clients I would have to decide the setting for this.”
.
Again, the flaw in your reasoning is that no matter WHAT they theoretically built in Oakland, even if they could bulldoze any existing property to come up with the optimal “setting,” it would not be better than AT&T Park. And AT&T Park – quite literally – takes half as much time to get to from the South Bay/Peninsula during weekday rush hour. So in your fantasy scenario, no matter how good a job they did on an Oakland ballpark, that regional manager is taking his client to San Francisco. And that in a nutshell is why a privately-financed ballpark in Oakland is not economically viable.
Ah, the know it all is back. How ya doing Bartleby? The pro-SJ guys were lost without you on here.
IMO, the views from VC trump SJ’s in all directions. You have DTO, the hills, the estuary and SF/the bay. In SJ, you have some hills and an uninspiring downtown skyline that resembles Fresno, not the 10th largest city in the US. SJ sits on the bay? Uh, kind of, sort of, but that’s the ugly side of the bay, and Diridon is far removed from even that.
As for cities stealing others cities teams, it was a shame when all that was going on in the 50′s/60′s. Outside of Montreal, it hasn’t happened in years and that’s a good thing. BS knows what it felt like when his beloved Braves went to Atlanta, but he in turn lured the bankrupt Pilots team to Milwaukee, and Seattle got the Mariners a little later. Philly fortunately still has the Phillies and KC got a new team in the Royals shortly after the A’s left.
…so maybe the ballpark can be paid for with “views” and “colorful history,” then? By the reasoning that it’s wrong for cities to “steal” teams, the Braves would be in Boston and never have played in Milwaukee in the first place. The A’s? They had a colorful history in Philadelphia….
@jk Your thesis that the Oakland skyline is superior to SJ’s is subjective and debatable. In any event, any difference is incremental. Few outside objective observers would claim either city’s skyline are among the world’s greats.
.
As for hills, San Jose wins hands down. The East Bay hills have been ruined by unrestrained development; the South Bay hills are protected by greenbelt and relatively unspoiled.
.
As for supposed views of SF, the Bay or the bridge – you wouldn’t be able to see more than fragmented glimpses of any of these from VC – if that. For one thing, they’re not particularly close. For another, the angle is wrong and there’s lots of obstruction. For another, the ballpark would necessarily face in the other direction. As I recall, ML did an entire post some time ago debunking this myth.
.
San Jose’s bayfront consists of wetlands and salt ponds which have lovely trails and are quite beautiful. Your thesis that a view of giant cranes and containers is superior is also questionable. It’s true that it’s a distance away from Diridon, but given that VC will not have Bay views, either, the distance seems pretty moot.
.
Your bias is showing.
@bartleby–and your bias isn’t showing?..lmao. You’ve had very few if any positive things to say about Oakland here on this blog, and your previous post is more proof of that. Your pro-SJ stance gets TonyD all giddy like a 12 year old girl at a Justin Bieber concert. I just viewed dozens of skyline pics of Oakland and San Jose from many vantage points and Oakland wins hands down with some pretty cool views. On the plus side for SJ, you do have a nice view of fairly unspoiled hills, but other than that there’s not much to look at. A few plain modern buildings, not enough cool old ones, and much suburban sprawl beyond.. Go to Google images, compare the two and report back to me.
BTW, some San Jose, Costa Rica pics got mixed in with your SJ, and I found that city rather colorful and more interesting, even though it’s smaller at 365k.
re: I have two sons.
…Yes, i have kids too. So do lots of people. Not seeing the relevance.
jk, you continually come in here and talk about the A’s “crazy history” – which is what other teams had that had to move – and saying you don’t think it’s right to steal teams from cities – while ignoring the fact that the A’s played in two other cities before winding up in Oakland (a move Charlie Finley regretted within 5 to 6 years after getting here). What is your plan to pay for a $500 mill ballpark plus infrastructure improvements, business relocations and property acquisitions given the lack of public and corporate dollars available to do this in Oakland? What’s your plan? Some magic billionaire looking to drop $1 billion on the project? Nobody can find such a guy.
Can we quit talking about opinions of what ‘looks better.’ Both views would be neat, in their own way, as is pretty much every city skyline or view of mountains.
.
Can we start talking about how in the hell Oakland is going to pay for any of this? I want facts, not what gives you a warm feeling in your chest.
@pjk – Yeah, I read my post after the fact and determined there were some irrelevant things like the two sons comment, not to mention typos. I suppose I was attempting to say something like “when I take my two sons to the game…”
“Can we start talking about how in the hell Oakland is going to pay for any of this? I want facts, not what gives you a warm feeling in your chest.” …../crickets chirping …next thread.