39 months and counting
.
MLB Commissioner Bud Selig just had his midseason “state of baseball” presser prior to tonight’s All Star Game. He fielded numerous questions about expanded instant replay (not yet), the Mitchell Report (feel good about it), and TV blackouts (working on it). As for the A’s:
Selig says A’s/Giants situation is in his hands. “Both clubs need to answer a lot of questions for us.”
— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) July 10, 2012
39 mos in on #As stadium study. But again, nothing new from Selig on this — Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) July 10, 2012
Wolff and Baer have said it’s in commissioner’s hands, and Selig just agreed. — John Shea (@JohnSheaHey) July 10, 2012
I asked Selig what the main hangup is with A’s stadium issue and he said “The main hangup is we don’t have the answers yet.”
— John Shea (@JohnSheaHey) July 10, 2012
There’s a bottle of Balvenie DoubleWood sitting across from me as I write this, and even though it’s early it’s looking really good right about now.
@Chi
… and hence you’ve proven my point. Need I say more? I’ll just leave it to ML to deal with you as he sees fit…
pjk, I am a Giants fan who definitely wants them to keep payroll up which means the revenue stream has to remain high and I am a San Jose resident.
I do care about other subsidies. I loathe the idea of PF Chang’s getting huge subsidies to bring their chain restaurant downtown, I hated to see small business owners struggle as San Jose poured money into lame projects like the Pavilion shops and I think San Jose is being screwed by San Jose Sports and Entertainment Enterprises when it comes to the split for non Sharks events at HP Pavilion. Wolff and Co can afford to pay full price for the land and they should.
I am not sure what that $500 million investment really means for San Jose either.
PJK, I understand the value of good full time permanent jobs and affordable housing.
@Ted – Did you support the Giants’ AT&T Park deal? If you did, you have no argument for being against the Cisco Field deal.
ML, the Giants lease the land that Pac Bell was built on but I do understand that the lease will end up being under market value at some point if it isn’t already and that they received about $10 million in tax breaks and that the city picked up the tab on area and infrastructure improvements.
The bottom line is that it really wasn’t any of my business anyway because I didn’t live in San Francisco.
If the A’s end up with TR to San Jose I will hope that Wolff pays close to market value for the land (or leases it) and doesn’t end up getting land around it for development and that the tax and other incentives aren’t too steep. The mayor is crying about how the city is broke and he is cutting services while the A’s ownership is quite wealthy and has little or no leverage. If things look OK for San Jose I would likely vote yes on a stadium proposal.
It is really easy for fans who live outside of San Jose city limits to support a deal that will not adversely affect them.
Sorry for rambling there, ML. I am doing several things at once.
Chi, the only “opinion” I’ve expressed so far is calling you out for being inconsistent (and at times, incomprehensible) with your opinions and broadcasting them in a way that seems to be more intended to provoke an emotional response rather than fruitful debate. If that comes off as a joke to you, well then, I don’t know what else to tell you.
Getting back on topic, my ACTUAL opinion on the matter is one of continued frustration and increasing despair. If anyone deserves to have all this ballpark vitriol directed at them, its Selig. He alone could have already brought some measure of clarity and direction to this saga, but instead he’s been content to let it fester for way too long. The fanbase continues to whither away, and what’s left of it is left bickering with each other over Oakland v. SJ v. Sacto v. Timbuktu. Seriously, its gotten to the level of ridiculous.
@Chi – What are you talking about? Coliseum City doesn’t offer anything yet, because the project hasn’t yet been approved, funded, or even planned. It may be nothing but asphalt and concrete if all three teams leave. It could be nothing more than a stadium for the Raiders and a glorified strip mall in the future. The least likely thing it could be at this point is a bunch of office towers, hotels, and three new venues.
@Anon/JL – Stop asking me to moderate the discussion a particular way. I’ll stick to my judgement on specific discussions, thank you very much.
Fair enough ML, my apologies. Its just that it gets frustrating when the comments start fishtailing off-topic sometimes and people resort to tired arguments and cheap shots. Happens a bit too often here, and hence why I refrain from putting my two cents in most of the time hehe. No hard feelings to all of you fellow readers out there though!
I give props to you Ted. You’re honest enough to say ‘I’m a Giants fan and I want them to be more profitable (for player payroll sake)’. With that said, I’ll set aside how small a SJ stadium will affect the Giants to focus on this: the no SJ subsidy argument (for what ML says and beyond) is a rather obvious straw man. Municipalities subsidize on a routine basis…..as they should. It’s about ROI. Should a municipality not invest $$$ for greater return? Of course they should. They would be derelict in their duty if they did not. Would you frown upon the SF city government throwing sweeteners at, for instance, Facebook if they were offering to open a 1000 employee office downtown? You and the city council would be crazy to not use ‘reasonable’ sweeteners to land Facebook. The ultimate ROI means the city council just made money for the city. And those sweeteners are subsidies!
LW is going to build the stadium. SJ is going to provide land and some infrastructure. ‘IF’ that is the deal, it is quantifiable in terms of potential ROI. And considering that ROI will be voted on by the voters of SJ (did SF voters get the choice on Pac Bell park????), ‘the A’s shouldn’t go to SJ because SJ shouldn’t provide land’ is a very flimsy argument that is pretty transparent in terms of motivation.
@JL
Lol dude I can care less. Again even of C.C doesn’t work , the city of Oakland will have to do something with all that space…and don’t blame Bud Selig… It’s clear he doesnt want to push the money making SF Giants around so he is annoyingly allowing all this to lag out .. if I was Lew Wolff I would turn my attwntions to Alameda and Contra Costa county and see if he has a bettter place in A’s territory to make a better ballpark than the SF Giants
As has been reported many times, he has already done that.
Downtown Oakland has a lot of existing office space for rent as well as approved space awaiting construction … No ones going to fill Coliseum city with offices until the downtown is saturated
No Wolff could do more.. he just got frusterated and GAVE UP on any avialble area in all of alameda to contra costa county… hell i dont care.. the Concord A’s or San ramon A’s… still Wolff needs to put San Jose on pause… and refocus on a .500 Oakland A’s team (yes they can make the playoffs) and seeing if there might be new oppurtunites to get a stadium in A’s territory.
i bet a lot of you guys dont even remember the Good days when Oakland teams were good.We are Oakland.. we are not handed things like San Francisco and San Jose.. we have to earn ours by winning first and then everything from stadiums, sponsorships and tv rights comes with it.. but we have 3 and i say 3 pro teams that have not been good in 7 years… gotta change that fortune first..
@Chi, you’re late to the party. Wolff has already spent time looking at areas in their their own territory. Even MLB agreed, when they gave him permission to look at areas outside of their territory.
We don’t remember the good days? Or, we don’t look back at them through rose colored goggles?Or we don’t look back at them and make completely illogical conclusions like “Hey, the team has been great before and that didn’t result in any better tv deals or more sponsorships of ay significant value, but it will someday. Just have to keep doing the same thing over and over until it finally ends up with a different result!”
@ Jeff
So u don’t remember the good days? Ask ur older brother or step dad. Oakland as a city and sports teams have not won in a long time.
@lonestranger
I know… That’s why I recommend to Lew.
Dude forget san Jose… Find another area to build… Build in North Richmond or West Oakland Hell even the Pleasonton would be a great area..San Jose belongs to the Sf giants and should be.
Chi: MLB has been looking for 3+ years for a viable place to build a ballpark in Alameda or Contra Costa counties. Don’t you believe that if they’d found one, they’d have told Wolff to build there or sell the team to someone who will? The fact is, MLB has looked and looked and couldn’t find a site, which is why the blue ribbon committee, initially tasked with finding ballpark opportunities in the A’s current territory, expanded its search to include San Jose. Throwing out nonsensical suggestions such as Pleasanton doesn’t offer a solution…
Chi… I have been going to the coliseum since 1979. I remember the good days. Clearly, I remember them much better than you.
Guys stop feeding the troll.
Hi Dan! How r u?
ML: “So what is the right price to make the Giants whole?”
ML: “Why would xootsuit remember anything important such as Wolff taking over in 2005, not 2006? He’s a Giants fan and his only interest in the A’s is the TR debate, and in advocating for the Giants’ case.”
.
First, I think the “right price” is where the complexities enter the negotiations. It could be a bunch of money over time, coupled with delay in building the new SJ ballpark to allow the Giants to develop a new business plan to accomodate whatever changes really are likely to flow from the San Jose move. That’s my current guess.
.
I did make a mistake about the year Wolff bought the A’s. My point still stands — Wolff/Fisher inherited a team that they allowed to sink to the bottom. 2010 — .500; every other year since 2006, below .500. Meanwhile, Wolff/Fisher have made money on revenue sharing (correct me if that’s too simplistic–I’m perfectly willing add to my knowledge of the situation). The A’s are losing money for the owners; the Giants are making money for the owners. The owners should not want to see a new A’s stadium result in those profits merely redistitributed. Wolff/Fisher have to come up with a plan, including payment, that tends to ensure Giants’ continued success, while opening up the possibility of A’s success, too.
.
I have absolutely no interest in advocating the Giants’ position in this. I’m interested in the disputes and potential resolutions for several reasons. I live and work in Oakland. I’ve been in the East Bay (Berkeley/Oakland area) since 1980. I think losing the A’s will be devastating to Oakland. I’m actually more concerned about that prospect than about the economic competition between the Giants and A’s. But I also take your hostility seriously, ML. It’s your site. If you don’t want full and free discussion on these issues, that’s your prerogative. . . . .
@xootsuit – Teams’ records rise and fall with great regularity. When you’re a team with consistently low revenue and a < $100 million payroll, that's the game you're playing. One or two major injuries to key/franchise players and the wheels come off (see: 9-game losing streak in May). The A's simply aren't insulated from poor performance the way the big market teams - including, yes, the Giants - are.
When it comes to profit for baseball and The Lodge, the Bay Area is not some zero-sum game. I’ve written many, many times about how baseball has barely tapped into its potential. Clearly there is some recognition of that within The Lodge, otherwise they wouldn’t have entertained San Jose in the first place.
If you want to argue for revenue protection that’s fine. Looking back at your previous comments, that appears to be the thrust of your argument. Yet you’ve never bothered to describe in even the slightest detail what that means. How about some numbers? I’d like to push this debate forward, but without framing it in terms of tangible figures we’re just going around in circles. Here’s an example:
The Giants pulled in $230 million in revenue with a $118 million payroll, or a comfortable 52% of revenue. Ownership chose not to go above that number to preserve profit. They demoted Bill Neukom because his competitiveness threatened the group’s profitability. The ownership group will always be profitable, especially when the mortgage is finished off/refinanced. The Giants’ payroll this season is $130 million, which leads me to believe that the Giants will hit $250 million in revenue this year. The issue is not one of profit because that’s practically locked in. The issue is revenue for the Giants – always has, always will be. Do they have the right to protect their revenue streams? Of course! But it doesn’t mean they can spread FUD and get away with it. At some point the Giants will hit a down cycle, just as virtually every other team does. With that will come a drop in payroll and a drop in revenues in order to preserve ownership’s slice. Maybe the A’s will have taken away some fans, maybe not. Maybe they’ll be in San Jose, maybe they won’t. Whatever the case, the Giants better have an airtight case for pulling from the A’s revenue as the latter is trying to pay off its own stadium. From what I’ve seen so far, they don’t have it.
Also, I’ll quote you from something you wrote four months ago: “As always, I greatly appreciate the intelligent information available on this blog.” I’ll stick with that assessment.
ML: My earlier compliment still stands. That’s why I return to this site — despite the hostility. But you misinterpret my intent. I’m not arguing for or against anything. I’m trying to decipher and comprehend what’s occurring, while commenting on what I see when I have something to say.
Much of what is going on is secret. (If you know how to get info on the presentations the Giants and A’s made to the owners during the last mlb meeting, please let us know.) My expertise, such as it is, is certainly not in the numbers. My eye is on Wolff/Fisher and the way they deal with mlb. If I offer anything here it’s a critical view of the A’s owners. I’m not disinterested (for the East Bay loyalty reasons I mentioned earlier). But my interest is not clouded by fan bias. (btw, I am not real pleased with the current Giants group, post-Neukom. The reasons for firing Neukom, and stripping his majority ownership interest, are more complex than we know. I greatly enjoyed his leadership tenure. But note: He delivered the presentation for the Giants at the recent owners meeting.)
.
As to your “cycles” argument, I don’t buy it in the new mlb world. mlb is expansionist now; mlb doesn’t want to see “virtually every team” sink into down cycles, financially. My guess is that the marquee franchises will be at the top, or near the top, as part of the overall business model, even if they aren’t winning WSs. For example, the White Sox will go through many more revenue dips than will the Cubs. The business minds evaluate these facts very coldly. The A’s are now trying to become the Bay Area White Sox.
don’t forget that the G’s never did have a 100mils payroll while Bonds played. If you look at the roster that Bonds had to carry on his back, it was a joke but Larry Bear , Magowan and the G’s did not care
The highest payroll during Bonds years was 95mil or something like that. Peter Magowan threatened to reduce payroll after WS 2002 but backed down . The G’s were/are profitable then and now.
I want the A’s to win and to have a new park but I also want the BA teams to do well. It would be great if we have an A’s-G’s WS every year here. Screw The Yankees and Redsux.
But I am hating the g’s more and more now because of what they are trying to do. The G’s is using TR as an excuse to push the A’s out of BA. NO if or but about it. I am pretty sure the G’s will do just fine w/o SJ or SC or any other places but greed is evil and the g’s are greedy. They want the whole BA and N. Cal for themselves.
I want to see an AT suit soon. get rid of ATE. Baseball should not have ATE when FB, BB, NHL etc..don’t.
I’m not trying to pick on Ted, but as I read through the comments on this posting (been tied up at work for a while and haven’t been able to keep as current as I would like), I found this to be interesting:
Ted: “I am not sure what that $500 million investment really means for San Jose either.”
As a proud son of San Jose, the city’s investment in downtown development (albeit indirect, in the form of a land sale) seems like a no-brainer to me. That being said, I live on the east coast at the moment, so I’ve missed out on several of the more recent political battles (pension reform, etc.). My question is this: has there been a litmus test on the general public opinion on a San Jose A’s deal? I know that Reed and Liccardo have been vocal about it, but what has been the public reaction?
@ JLL
Leave Ted alone…im on his side. Let’s the giants have sf and Oakland have the A’s both big major cities win
@JLL – Mark Purdy has gone on record several times saying internal polling by the Mercury News shows a land deal vote would pass easily. But that’s always been while on Chronicle Live, I have no link to back that up.
TW, I am not sure how much return a stadium brings to a city compared to 1000 high paying full time jobs but I am OK with a little sweetening. We’ll see how things shake out if it ever gets to a point where they need to spell out the specifics.
Daniel, the Giants kept payroll somewhere around the top 10 and in line with revenue and franchise value. They weren’t cheap just because they didn’t have $100 million payrolls when the only one or two teams cracked the $100 million mark. For the record, the A’s under Wolff have been every bit as profitable as the Giants. About the ATE, if it is what keeps MLB from having the unfettered movement that creates a game of musical chairs with franchise moves like the other leagues have I am all for it. The movement in the NBA, NHL and NFL is terrible and would hurt MLB.
I’ve recently heard that one of the major reason that Wolff and Baer want to move the A’s to San Jose is because most of the employee of the Oakland Coliseum are union workers, & if they move to San Jose there would be no unions involved & they could pay all of the employees less @ Cisco Fields then they can in an Oakland Stadium. I was wondering how true that is? 2nd I was wondering if the A’s do move to San Jose, would that change the way the team manages their Payroll?
@xootsuit – I’m not going to say you’re biased because that’s unfair, just as many of the Oakland-only crowd like to label me biased. You do have a perspective as a Giants fan, an Oakland/East Bay resident, and, I’m assuming, as a lawyer. There’s nothing wrong with that. You’re bringing something to the table. To say that perspective doesn’t come into play is rather silly. And to say that you don’t agree with the post-Neukom ownership makes no difference. In the end you’re looking out for the franchise. That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to stop being a Giants fan because of ownership, are you?
Every team has to go through down cycles. The Giants did late last decade. Then they rose thanks to bunch of hits via the draft first round (Cain, Lincecum, Posey, Bumgarner) and a series of productive fill-in players (Huff, Ross, now Cabrera). The Giants haven’t had the luxury of three top-12 picks in the coming years, making reloading the roster difficult. That’s fine, it’ll be up to Sabean to make good trades and FA signings. Every team operates like this. For the big markets, a down cycle may mean dropping to .500 or slightly below. It’s still a down cycle, and it’s inevitable.
The Gnats also own the development rights to the whole Mission Rock area, which they can make a bundle on (this will likely be the W’s backup plan). You don’t think that is even more favorable than the A’s deal? /scratches head
So are you saying that PhoneBooth Park is a failure and shouldn’t have been built? /scratches head
Please show us data that supports this (please don’t cite Forbes guestimates).
Anon, I don’t live in San Francisco so it is not my concern. I am a Niner fan that thinks Santa Clara is being screwed by the 49ers deal but I don’t live there either so it is not something that really concerns me. Do you live in San Jose?
Forbes is the best we have and there is no reason to believe that it is not reasonably accurate.
Anon,
The Giants won the rights for the Mission Rock area after a competitive bid against other developers. that deal was entirely separate from the ballpark deal with its own terms etc…
re: Forbes is the best we have and there is no reason to believe that it is not reasonably accurate.
..There’s plenty of reason to believe Forbes isn’t accurate. They get their numbers through guesswork without any access to official books.
Isn’t Forbes the source for ML’s numbers as well and their guesswork is most likely well educated, no?
If I recall, one of the Sharks execs years ago used to complain about how wrong the Forbes numbers were. They do it by guessing. Would be like filing your tax return by guessing what you earn without any access to official documentation.
I understand why a subsidized team like the Sharks would be bitter if someone exposed their finances to the public. Team payroll’s and team finances are certainly all guesses but they are what we have to go with.
You’re going to believe what you want to believe so I’m not going to waste anymore time talking about Forbes estimates of what sports teams make.
pjk, what else do we have to go on? ML is comfortable using those estimates and so are most people, unless they feel like it goes against a point they are trying to make.
Very touching Ted, as an utterly Giants centric fan, that you are looking out for the citizens and ultimately the voters of SJ. Those citizens/voters need to know the truth of what can happen when a city (for instance SF with the Giants — and SF voters?) tries to put together a deal for a baseball stadium! And you are there to protect them with the purest of intentions! LOL, wow, just wow.
So move, Ted. Clearly, your morals change with your address.
That’s a convenient excuse. I might as well say I’m an A’s fan and don’t give a flying @!#$ about the Gnats as well. And yes, I am a die hard Niners fan that is amazed how the SF media has given them a pass moving to greener pastures in the South Bay, yet criticizes LW. And yes, I live, grew up, worked voted, and pay my property tax in San Jose. Can you say all those things about yourself?
@ martin – thank you for correcting me on MR development. I erroneously thought it was part of their original sweetheart deal.
Ted conveniently cites sf as a model for how to handle pension reform—of course even though he doesn’t care because he doesn’t live there- ironic that the sf gate and many experts in industry label it as a band aid- http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/San-Francisco-must-confront-its-pension-debt-3274172.php
I bring this up because Ted implies that a ballpark initiative will struggle in SJ- polling results cited previously by the SJ Business Journal show overwhelming support- and Mayor Reed is a very popular mayor for trying to restore sanity to the city’s finances by promoting pension reform which was passed by nearly 70% of the SJ voters
@bartleby “TW, I am not sure how much return a stadium brings to a city compared to 1000 high paying full time jobs”
.
This is a false choice. Who says it’s an either-or? If anything, having an MLB team would raise San Jose’s profile, make it a more desirable place to live or work, and help bring in those high paying full time jobs. The Chamber of Commerce of every mid-tier city that has even an NBA or NHL team makes it the centerpiece of their marketing effort. It’s not like downtown SJ is so built out that an A’s ballpark would displace a theoretical office tower, if the demand was there.
“For the record, the A’s under Wolff have been every bit as profitable as the Giants.”
.
This is questionable, but even if it were true, it would only because of league subsidies. Not a desirable or sustainable business model.
.
“About the ATE, if it is what keeps MLB from having the unfettered movement that creates a game of musical chairs with franchise moves like the other leagues have I am all for it.”
.
It isn’t. What keeps MLB teams in place is demographics and the unique economic needs of the sport.
.
“The movement in the NBA, NHL and NFL is terrible and would hurt MLB.”
.
There’s no way MLB would ever see franchise movement like in those other cities, even without the antitrust exemption. The simple reason MLB teams rarely move compared to those other leagues is that MLB teams need large markets and all the large markets in the U.S. and Canada already have or have had teams. Columbus may or may not be able to support an NHL team over the long term. It definitely cannot support an MLB team.
@Ted “Team payroll’s and team finances are certainly all guesses but they are what we have to go with.”
.
Just because they are all that’s available doesn’t make them worth anything. I don’t place a lot of stock in magazine rankings of “Most Desirable Places to LIve” either for the same reasons. The Forbes numbers exist because they sell magazines, period.
TW, I am concerned with my interests as I live in San Jose. Like I said, if it comes to a vote and it looks like a good deal for San Jose I will likely vote yes to a ballpark proposal.
Anon, I am glad that you too live here it adds weight to your opinion, I grew up one town over but have lived in San Jose for the better part of two decades. I think I have been open about what motivates my opinion on the matter since I started posting here. I have even been swayed a bit by what I have read from ML and some of the folks commenting on the articles.
GoA’s, I stated that Reed might have a hard time justifying spending funds on a lawsuit against MLB when he is claiming that the city is in or on the verge of a fiscal crisis. I disagree with Measure B because I think it is unfair to yank away negotiated compensation, I believe pension reform should be negotiated. How much is the city going to spend to defend Measure B in the courts?
Ted, you keep forgetting: the business community is ready to pay for the lawsuit against MLB, should it come to that.