News for 8/10/12
We’re overdue for a news roundup. Now seems like a good time for one.
From BANG’s Joe Stiglich:
A’s managing partner Lew Wolff says, to his knowledge, the team’s stadium issue is not on agenda for next week’s owners meetings.
#Athletics— Joe Stiglich (@joestiglich) August 10, 2012
Last week’s visit to Oakland and San Jose by Bud Selig’s three-man panel foreshadowed this.
Update 1:04 PM – Stiglich has a writeup with quotes from Wolff, such as:
“It’s up to the commissioner’s office,” Wolff said. “… This is a process that unfortunately is taking longer than I hoped, but it’s a fair process.”
Other news:
- Janet Marie Smith, who oversaw the construction of Camden Yards and the renovation of Fenway Park, is moving out west to Los Angeles to take a similar role with the Dodgers. If her previous work is any indication, she will keep it classy all the way. [Dodgers press release]
- NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has set a deadline of September 15 to wrap up labor negotiations before the league imposes a lockout. The NHL and NHLPA are always playing catchup with the other leagues in terms of CBAs. They imposed a 57% player share in the last agreement as other leagues were dropping towards the 50% mark. Now the NHL wants to drop it to 46%. It’s going to be a long winter. [AP]
- A developer is proposing a ballpark for the Tampa Bay Rays in the Gateway area of St. Petersburg, just over the bridge from Tampa. St. Pete’s stance has been to not allow the Rays to get out of their lease at Tropicana Field unless a new stadium were conceived in St. Pete, not Tampa. No financial details were available. [Tampa Tribune/Michael Sasso]
- The 49ers and the City of Santa Clara settled a lawsuit with a County oversight board. $30 million in redevelopment money was at stake. In order to keep local school budgets balanced, the 49ers won’t get the $30 million for several years. Seems fair. [SJ Mercury News/Mike Rosenberg]
- Get used to metal detectors at NFL games starting this season. [Oakland Raiders]
- Speaking of the Raiders, they are using the league’s new 85% measure to determine sellouts this season. The way it works, a team has to sell out 85% of its non-premium seats by the usual deadline (normally Thursday for a Sunday game) in order for a game not to be subject to a blackout. The catch is that any tickets sold between the 85% and 100% marks are subject to higher revenue sharing. Teams like the Raiders and Bucs chose to use the new standard, the Bills and Jags went with the old standard, which required all non-premium seats to be sold by the deadline.
- The City of Industry approved a deal to buy 600 acres within city limits for up to $26.7 million. The land is where the somewhat-forgotten Ed Roski/Majestic Realty stadium would be located. The parties still have to scramble to find a proper replacement for now-evaporated redevelopment funding. [Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/Ben Baeder]
- MLB’s postseason schedule has been released (knock on wood). [Biz of Baseball/Maury Brown]
More if it comes.
“MLB is leaky enough . . . .”
.
ML: oh come on. Now you’re moving from interpreting tea leaves to interpreting teapot squeals (or the lack of them). mlb has not done anything tending to approve or reprove any of the transaction or litigation moves either franchise has made. Certainly, an A’s move to San Jose is not impossible. That’s the only card mlb has tipped.
While we all know and bemoan the fact that the A’s ballpark os not on the upcoming owners meeting’s formal agenda, it looks like it is slated to be discussed ” informally” at the upcoming meeting.
http://ballparkdigest.com/201208135351/major-league-baseball/news/as-ballpark-situation-to-be-informally-discussed-at-next-owners-meetings-report
It amazes me that Lew Wolff has been a successful businessman given the passive, milquetoast approach he’s had so far with MLB, Selig and the Giants.
.
If Larry Ellison were the owner, we’d have a stadium in San Jose by now.
Yes, what has waiting patiently gotten Wolff in this process? Years and years of absolutely nothing from a cowardly commissioner who’s supposed to be his best friend.
The waiting doesn’t make sense to me, unless he already knows he’s going to get SJ regardless.
I had heard way back in 2009 that bs wanted to wait until 2017 to open up SJ if the gints wouldn’t agree to a negotiated settlement–coincided with gints mortgage payment ending–not sure if that was accurate or not but the longer this thing goes on the more I think it was the plan. If this is true then I would expect before opening day in 2013 bs balances the bay area territories by “sharing” the area. He doesn’t pick SJ over Oakland he just rights a wrong from the past. It is up to LW to choose where he wants to invest in a park. Ballot measure in SJ in June/November of 2013. Gives you 3 years to build the park and take care of any of the lawsuits that always follow any development of this size (regardless of where it is built). Opening day 2017—
@GoA’s- The argument you propose does have some logic but you are missing the key point on the delay….Selig’s prayer of a Oakland miracle.
Selig when he appointed the BRC thought something could have been done in the East Bay. He foolishly thought Wolff had missed something and that his BRC would find it and convince Wolff to stay away from San Jose.
Turns out the worst possible scenario came true….Wolff missed ZERO and the BRC has been going in circles on Selig’s orders praying for something or anything….All because Selig is too cowardly to confront the Giants.
Victory Court, Coliseum City, and now once again, Howard Terminal proves this point. While San Jose has stood by its site for years and needs only to move 2 businesses and clear the site which is minimal in cost compared to the other sites….BRC and Selig know this full well.
They pray and cling to hope Oakland or the East Bay can prove themselves. But in the end there is no public $$ available for such a miracle. If Oakland was wiling to pay the land, infrastructure, transportation costs and 50% of the ballpark then you would see Oakland in the game with Wolff all about it.
It costs far $$ to build at any of the 3 sites above compared to Diridon. It would take a massive public subsidy to keep the A’s in Oakland but the recession and RDA being killed has destroyed any chance of that.
In the end a privately financed ballpark is the only hope of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. Unless the BRC can go to Wolff with a plan for an Oakland miracle with public $$ and a huge MLB loan the only way is San Jose…
@ Anon. Has Oakland presented their “notebook” for EIRs, funding, and corporate support?
The short answer: Yes
Please show it so I can see the details of funding and corporate supporting and that elusive EIR…
@SS-doesn’t an EIR take 12-18 months to complete? to my knowledge Oakland hasn’t done an EIR for any of their sites–
Relative to corporate support–you cant force a private investor to build something in an area where they dont belive they can get their return on investment. Because of this Oakland has got to show public dollars that they are willing to invest in the construction of a ballpark in order to manage the investors risk. No different than they did when the Raiders returned and they invested $200M I believe or with Oracle Arena where they invested another $120M–both of which have outstanding debt remaining–
I’ll get right on that Anon since you are the guy Oakland needs to convince…
By the way, what do you think Oakland has been doing with Selig’s Committee for three years? Sitting around drinking Blue Bottle coffee?
So in other words, you’re talking out of your arse….nicely aligned with Jean Quan and the Oakland polis…
From what I understand, Oakland is sticking to its no-public-$-for-a-ballpark stance. Not seeing how that’s not a deal-killer, even if Oakland had a viable site, which it doesn’t appear to have. Three+ years of MLB talking to Oakland and no plan announced?
Think whatever you’d like, Anon. But in the same way as some posters here draw conclusions of why SJ is the preferred option (i.e. MLB didn’t bat an eye at wolff’s land transaction), I would counter by saying, after 3 1/2 years, if Oakland, as you suggest, has nothing or has provided nothing, then why wouldn’t Selig just make the call for SJ. Maybe the SJ transaction has issues? Maybe what Oakland has provided looks better (waterfront), easier (no public vote) and cheaper (no territorial rights to pay for) than SJ? Ever think of that? I doubt it.
@pjk, Oakland is sticking to what MLB has required of it — not what you are striving to require. Oakland didn’t come up with the transaction construct (city provides land, infrastructure and some parking, team finances stadium), MLB did. Take it up with them.
So if Wolff won’t finance the stadium in Oakland, we need new owners who will. Names and balance sheets, please. And have them sign on the dotted line with a solid date for groundbreaking. No spending five years to find out Wolff was right all along and we still have no new ballpark…
You’re forgetting, wait….IGNORING the fact that MLB cannot force JW/LW to build anywhere, only can say where he can and cannot build. I find it ironic that you tray to challenge LW on opening up his private notebook (it is his “company” after all), yet you would not even dare ask your own government to open up a “public” plan. It’s this closed minded, we deserve shit even though we don’t do shit mentality that is going to doom you while you continuing closer your ears, talk out of your ass, pretend you’re SF/SJ, and point fingers to everyone else. Sounds like the “Oakland” way…..
pjk, on the point about new owners we agree. But I can’t imagine any group who would want to buy the A’s coming out publicly to announce that. Rather, any ownership change would occur via the opaque handiwork of the commissioner. He will determine who’s balance sheet is the strongest. Not you, me or ML. And I would agree with you that whatever ownership group is selected, they would clearly sign on the dotted line to say we’ll get a stadium built on Howard Terminal by a date certain.
You Oakland only folks are so myopic in your views. You’d think LW/JF would sell the A’s when they can continually rake in millions from MLB in revenue sharing and upcoming broadcast money? MLB can’t force ownership change, so might as well add that pipedream scenario along with VC, CC, and now HT. You speak of the A’s as if it was a tourist attraction (waterfronts, hip culture, etc.) when you haven’t even broached the subject of a self-sustaining business. Again, if you are so sure of the viability of the A’s in Oakland, would you condone public subsidies ensuring the A’s meet attendance / STH goals every year?
The A’s can build anywhere in Alameda or Contra Costa Counties. Wolff can buy land anywhere he wants to (this is still a free country). What he can’t do is move the A’s out of his two county territory, without MLB approval. He bought land in Fremont. Why not San Jose?
Anon, thanks for pointing my myopia. Funny thing about these situations — you can view them many ways. The way I look at it, with a sale of the A’s, Fisher/Woff can cash out at approximately 2.5x their initial investment in six years (that’s without counting their free cash flow over those years — what you would call “raking in millions”). Seems like a darn good IRR, especially while our country enduring one of the worst recessions ever during that time. Who’s myopic?
By the way, it’s not my job, or your job, to make such determinations about the A’s potential for success in a new Oakland ballpark. MLB’s committee is doing it’s own research about the A’s financial viability in Oakland and they’ll make their own conclusions regardless of what you think.
@david- not sure of your point- the A’s bought the ballpark land in downtown SJ also-
Have you ever taken math in your life? You’re going to take forgoe $60-70 million a year in revenue sharing so that that you can get a one time lump sum of $300 million? Really? Are you a mortgage broker from 2007 also? And you think billionaires/millionaires like JF/LW are worries about that paltry sum?! That’s your position and Oakland’s?! WTF?! /facepalm
“It’ not my job or your job”…WTF?! No shit Sherlock, but you’re still spewing the same tired Oakland pipedream crap. If you can’t even answer the most basic questions on your position, then you might be at the wrong place, buddy. So, I take it that you are not as confident in on the A’s after all, since you didn’t reply to my inquiry about public assurances for the A’s (a la the Raiders)….figures.
@SS- regarding ownership change- when else has MLB operated secretly by not announcing which groups were contenders and who isn’t- surely not with the Dodgers, Astro’s or Padres- nor the Cubs– what makes a small market club like the A’s require secrecy? And btw- I agree LW isn’t selling anytime soon or building a ballpark in Oakland without a sizable public investment- wasn’t too long ago when he said that while bs can tell him where he cant build he can’t tell him where to build
@GoA’s – the SJ parcel is not owned by Wolff or Fisher as of today. Nothing stopping them from bidding higher than anyone else, if the option is deemed illegal by the State. My point was – buying land doesn’t mean a stadium is going to get built on it. What’s on the Fremont land, Wolff bought?
@david- doesn’t mean one will get built but it does show some level of risk that LW is willing to consider- and btw- until a ballpark is built I wouldn’t count out Fremont-
@all – Selig has said for years now that one of his charges is to ensure that owners get the max return on their investment when they sell. There is no reason to believe he’d ask Wolff/Fisher to sell at anything below market value, which will only rise in the coming years. Besides, if he can’t grant them the South Bay, a $500-600 million sale price is at least a good consolation. The idea of a hometown discount is from a bygone era.
That puts any incoming ownership group at a huge disadvantage. Unless they come in with huge amounts of cash, the debt rule will force them to come up with cash (instead of additional debt) for a new ballpark. Add to that the fact that revenue sharing will sunset in 2016 and the criteria to keep a team in Oakland is higher than it is in other markets. Judging from Selig’s oversight of recent sales, he’s not going to allow any new group to slide financially.
The SJ land option is contingent on the TR, since it is single purpose use only: a ballpark. But, since you are so concerned about LW/JF buying the parcel, please read on:
While buying land certainly doesn’t mean a stadium is going to get build, i think it has much more credibility then say a press conference or a fake EIR or a proposal where other businesses are at. WOuldn’t you agree?
@ ML – a little confused by your statement. In the new CBA, the teams in the largest 15 markets will eventually all their revenue sharing by 2016, except for the A’s…..IF they don’t build a new ballpark. So they should still be subsidized by the league if they’re in the Mausoleum.
Regarding team value. If A’s don’t have an adequate stadium and they can’t move to San Jose does not help the market value. ML you are telling us that someone would pay $500M for the A’s today. I doubt it.
@Anon – No ownership group will be allowed in without a plan to succeed the Coliseum. Irony there is that debt rule works against incoming owners.
@Ethan – New national TV money should increase A’s revenue to nearly $200 million annually in 2014. That makes a $500 million valuation entirely reasonable. San Jose would be the bonus on top of that.
Ok Mr. Wolff buys the team for $175M in 2006. The team is is now worth $500M. Next year the revenue is going up for the A’s by $200M. Staying in the Coliseum is not that bad of a business model for the A’s ownership. Like SS stated not too bad considering what most fans have gone through since 2008.
We know the A’s won’t offer up big money to free agents so let’s fund a $500M stadium on the moon. The annual debt service is only $30.5M. (4.5 interest rate and 30 year amort). Maybe the Astros have territorial rights to the moon so that won’t work either.
@Ethan – It’s fine for A’s ownership, it’s not good for MLB in the long run. The rest of The Lodge won’t allow the A’s to be a continual drag on the rest of the league.
Isn’t the Lodge the ones who wanted Revenue Sharing to keep MLB competitive?
I was under the impression the revenue sharing provision is for 2-team markets not being able to take from the pot under any circumstances except for the A’s in Oakland by 2016.
The other 2-team markets (NY, LA, CHI) have all of their teams contributing into the pot in some form. The 2016 provision forever bars any of those teams including the Giants from ever getting revenue sharing help regardless of situation.
The A’s are the exception and Baltimore/Washington do not count as they are not considered the same media market.
Am I missing something? I did not think this provision extended to any other teams outside of the 2-team markets.
@Ethan – Sure, for small market teams in the Midwest. The A’s are not in a small market.
“Maybe the Astros have territorial rights to the moon so that won’t work either.”
Yup. Can’t build in the oceans (Rays, Mariners, and Marlins), or the air (O’s, Cardinals, Blue Jays) either. Guess Lew better sell!
Hopefully we get some info on the A’s future in the next couple of days.
@Mike2: you’re new to the conversation aren’t you?
LOLOLOLOLOL hilarious…….this will be resolved sooner than you think. Go Oakland only crowd! We love the support and we shall be victorious!
San Jose only people? Sorry but you do have the lame 49ers playing in that 1 pct stadium in Santa Clara lol….but in no way will they put your area’s name on their logo ever! Funny huh?
@TD-guess you know all about that- difference is the Golden State Warriors actually play in Oakland and refuse to take the city’s name- in the unforeseen event that the A’s remain in Oakland who knows what name they will take- that part will be entirely up to LW- nothing the gints can do about it if they want to be the San Jose A’s at Oakland-