The AP article titled A’s President Says Team May Build Own Stadium is a little misleading because the title could be easily misinterpreted. Take a look at the quote from A’s President Michael Crowley:

“We’re going to look at ourselves, take a look at the options, take a look at what can be done. And when we come up with something we feel comfortable with, then we’ll talk to the city at that time.”

There’s nothing about how much the A’s will pay (or conversely, what the city’s share is). It’s a given that regardless of the types funding sources, as long as the requirements are met, the A’s will build it. That’s Wolff’s forte.

Also, a Merc editorial approves of San Jose’s Diridon South site.

Gwen Knapp writes about Wolff in her Opening Day column in the Chronicle. Several good nuggets were inside, including:

1. Wolff met with Signature Properties’ Jim Ghielmetti on Monday. They may have been discussing Signature’s multiple Oakland developments, especially the Estuary plan. (See one of my previous entries for a mock-up.)
2. Wolff stayed at his daughter’s place in Los Gatos over the weekend. The daughter, Kari, has been a longtime A’s fan. She helped put together a season-ticket package she could sell to friends and acquaintances, to get more of a following in the South Bay. 20 packages have been sold, and half were for full-season plans. Depending on whether you’re exclusively an East Bay or South Bay supporter (or neither), you may interpret this differently.

It didn’t appear that Knapp had any direct questions about the ballpark, which must have come as a relief to Wolff.

I was one of the 44,000-plus announced at the McAfee Coliseum last night. Kirk Sarloos’s inability to get left-handed hitters out allowed me to look around and note some of the changes:

1. The improvements made to the Meyer Sound PA system are noticeable. Not that Roy Steele’s voice could ever sound tinny or weak, but the enhancements made him sound clearer and boomier than ever.
2. The GM Friday night campaign should bring out a few new folks, though I am disappointed that they didn’t have a Saturn Sky or Pontiac Solstice roadster up for grabs.
3. More signage. I saw a few more advertisers in more locations. The outfield wall is saturated with ads. The two big signs that hung above the stairs in left and right now have a trivision-type display that features A’s Brand and Verizon Wireless. I also saw a new sign for E-Loan and a couple more new advertisers. It looks like the team has been more aggressive in the offseason looking for stadium sponsors.
4. The centerfield, plaza-level sign showing the names of previous A’s greats is gone. There are two new signs on the plaza facade near the foul poles that show the years of the A’s world championship teams.
5. The historical video montage shown before games has changed. It now has more contemporary music and ends with a vintage 70’s-era Swingin’ A’s graphic.
6. The team has also produced a cheesy-looking “public service announcement” promoting proper fan behavior, also to be shown before every game.

Wolff was on Mornings on 2 Monday morning, interviewed by Ross McGowan. The archived video can be found here.

Here’s a snippet from the interview:

McGowan: Considering that Oakland has no money, is this going to be privately financed?

Wolff: It (public funding) may not be in the traditional way in terms of issuing a bond issue or by guaranteeing seats and things like that, but there will be public participation. Just in the fact of getting entitlements and zoning, so there’s value that cities can add without going broke.

I get the feeling that Wolff is going back to his old redevelopment roots, and the A’s are the anchor of an ambitious development plan. Public financing for a ballpark without bonding or seat licenses? Pardon me for being skeptical, but I’m having a hard time seeing it. Then again, he may have something up his sleeve. That’s why he’s a billionaire and I’m just an observer.

Note: A small clip of the interview was shown during the 10 p.m. KTVU newcast as part of business editor Brian Banmiller’s featured story. Banmiller also interview Councilman Ignacio de la Fuente, who reiterated his stance that Oakland doesn’t have any public money to put up for a ballpark. He must be referring to Wolff’s “traditional” methods as well.

Undaunted by the collapse of the Del Monte-KB Home deal, the SJ City Council is moving forward on talks to purchase much of the Diridon South site. Diridon South has several advantages over the Del Monte site, including existing parking and transit links and its proximity to downtown San Jose. The biggest issue in acquiring the site is the challenge of acquiring property from multiple landowners. This includes PG&E, which has a substation that may be difficult to relocate.

Below is an aerial photo of the Arena/Diridon area. The Arena is to the north. The Diridon South site where the ballpark would be situated is in green. Red indicates the existing transit links in the Caltrain/Amtrak/ACE station just north of the ballpark, the VTA bus transfer center north of the train station, and the light rail station to the east. The train station is also the site of a proposed BART extension, though it’s looking more and more like BART is getting scaled back.

If you’re interested in what a ballpark may look like on the Diridon South site, here’s a link for a conceptual aerial plan (warning: it’s a large file to download – 300 kB).

Disappointingly, the Wave Mag article that promised “the lowdown” on the San Jose plan two weeks ago contains little new or revealing information. The print version also has a bizarre Photoshop-job picture of a mis-sized Shea Stadium (Shea? How about a stadium that isn’t a cookie-cutter?) southwest of downtown San Jose, in the suddenly riparian Gardner neighborhood.

As they have since 1998, Forbes has just published its yearly franchise values list. Not surprisingly, the Yanks and Red Sox are at the top of the list. An exploratory article accompanies the rankings.

The A’s slipped in value $1 million to be worth an estimated $185 million, which is slightly higher than the Wolff/Fisher group’s $180 million purchase price. Was this a hometown discount? We may never know.

The A’s reportedly received $116 million in revenue in 2004, which when factoring in the $19 million revenue sharing payment they received, is probably correct. With revenue sharing, they pulled in a nearly $6 million profit. Without it, they’d run more than $13 million in the red, though it’d be more likely that they’d slash payroll enough to stay more-or-less in the black. It does make one wonder where the rest of the money goes. Every team claims $40 million or more every year in player development and other non-payroll operations-related costs, but it’s not as if the A’s draft players that demand huge signing bonuses. They don’t have any stadium debt, and rarely do they venture into the expensive non-draftee foreign markets (Japan, Cuba). Perhaps there’s a directive from the commish that teams who get large revenue sharing payments cannot extend their payroll as a result. That would make sense, but then what would the owners do with the extra cash? Well, it certainly does not suck to be them.

Then again, they may want to pocket that change, since KFRC will no longer broadcast A’s games after this season. That makes one less high-power AM station available, thereby driving down the price of broadcast rights. On a related note, It’s about time the A’s and KNBR started getting along again. On and off for a few years, KNBR wouldn’t broadcast A’s highlights on radio because of a competitive situation between KNBR’s parent, Susquehanna, and CBS/Infinity, which owned KFRC.

In the CoCo Times interview, Hurd inquires about Wolff’s relationship with Selig:

CCT (Hurd): You mentioned at Friday’s press conference that Mr. Selig approached you about buying into the A’s. Would you have been as enthusiastic about it were it not for your friendship with him?
Wolff: Well, he helped me get involved because he knew me, and he knew Steve and Ken and what their situation was. What you have to remember is you can’t really get involved in baseball unless the commissioner lets you. My friendship with him was not the big issue. The big issue was that with this particular team, the downside risk isn’t that huge, but the upside potential is.

CCT: But it seems like without a ballpark solution, this franchise is stuck. Mr. Selig has expressed doubts in the past about whether this is a viable two-team market, and he’s made his stance that the Giants own the territorial rights to Santa Clara County clear on numerous occasions. So how do you respond to those who might say your friendship with him and your choice to buy into the A’s is a sign the franchise may be headed out of the Bay Area?
Wolff: Well, I’ve never heard him discuss the market, and the issue I think I made pretty clear at the press conference. We’re going to focus on Oakland. We’re not going to do what-ifs. If people want to focus on that, fine. There’s 30 owners in this league, and I’m sure Bud is closer to a lot of them than he is to me. So I think that’s a lot of hogwash really.

Then Hurd went further into the ballpark issue:

CCT: Clearly, finding a ballpark is the franchise’s No. 1 issue. You’ve said you won’t give daily updates, but for the record, can you tell us where you are in that process right now, and where you’d like to be a year from now?
Wolff: No. I want to be consistent on that statement, and I just don’t think I need to do that. The real estate industry is the one area where I really know how to operate, and I just don’t feel that’s what I want to do. Otherwise, every real estate broker in the world will be lighting up my phone. I’m not trying to hide anything. It just wouldn’t serve any purpose to comment on it at this time. That’s not to say we won’t have things to say as this process continues.

CCT: The ballpark aside, you talked Friday about “thinking outside the box” with regard to operating this team. What other ways are there to grow revenue given the franchise’s current state?
Wolff: We’re exploring those things. I’m going to have a series of discussions with (Crowley). We think that there are, but we’re not sure. We’re only into this three days.

CCT: In 1992, when Peter Magowan headed an ownership group that bought the Giants and kept them in San Francisco, his group faced many of the same problems the A’s do now. How similar do you think your current situation is with their old one?
Wolff: I love the ballpark. I think times are different, and a lot of different things have changed since then. But they’ve been able to prove that a great ballpark in a downtown area does a lot for a community. At the same time, they tried to do it with 100 percent private money. That’s very difficult, and I’m not sure you could get anything built today entirely on private money. But I was at that park on Opening Day a few years ago, and it was just wonderful. I think if we were able to do something like that in Oakland, it would have a very high impact.

CCT: What has changed?
Wolff: That’s an entire discussion in itself. But the economic and political landscape are always changing.

Wolff’s responses are carefully constructed as to not give the appearance of a commitment to any one idea (site, funding sources, timeline). The proposal(s) will come along soon enough. One refreshing thing I can see from Wolff’s press conference and interviews is that he doesn’t seem to be the type who will negotiate through the media. He’s doing his necessary rounds with the media, then he’ll go right back into silent mode. The quote confirming the lodge mentality of the commish and owners is unexpected, though not surprising.

Small details have emerged. Tidbits from the interview:

Q (Newhouse). Are you encouraged that a ballpark can be built in Oakland?

A (Wolff). I always feel that way, but the biggest issue is pinning down a site, and we’re working on that right now.

Q. You mentioned last week that you would be looking at alternative sites: Would that include something along the estuary?

A. First of all, we don’t know how many alternatives there are. What we can’t do is look at a site we can’t use because it might take 10 years to get there. The answer is I’m going to do everything I can to find a site.

Q. The Coliseum parking lot, which you’re focused on, offers BART and highway access, but no aesthetic qualities. Would you agree?

A. You haven’t seen what we plan to build there yet.

Q. What has been your relationship with Alameda County’s Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to date?

A. They have been very supportive, and I would like to thank both the county and the city of Oakland. A lot has gone on since our (Friday) press conference, and they’re just terrific. When I call, they’ve responded right away. I see no problem dealing with them.

Newhouse did his best to pry some steak from Wolff, but all he got was sizzle. That’s what makes Wolff the consummate professional he is. He’s good.

Q. With the close proximity of sports teams to one another in this country, would “territorial rights” stand up in court?

A. I’ll never know because I’ll never test it.

It’s nice to see that Newhouse didn’t lob the typical San Jose or Vegas/Portland question that would’ve gotten the typical response. Wolff’s response, as expected, leaves the territorial rights battle squarely within the San Jose civic and booster groups, making it a real uphill climb for them.

Maury Brown of SABR’s Business of Baseball committee and the Oregon Stadium Campaign wrote a brief op-ed in the Merc about the differences between the DC situation and the Santa Clara County situation. I agree with much of what he says in the piece, including the idea that San Jose proponents may have to go to court to get a remedy. There is one point I disagree with:

The other alternative would be taking MLB to court, in which case he would have solid footing, given San Jose being within Santa Clara County.

The “he” in the quote refers to Giants managing partner Peter Magowan, and the “footing” is a legal claim over the territory. I don’t think this is necessarily the case. Brown implies that if it went to court and territorial rights were not to be challenged because of the anti-trust exemption, it would be an open-and-shut case. That would make sense if the A’s were suing baseball, but I doubt that’s how it’s going to happen. If a party outside MLB such as a San Jose civic group were to sue the Giants/MLB over territorial rights (they’d be challenging the exemption), the Giants and MLB might have trouble explaining the following issues:

1. Why three of the pre-existing two-team markets have identical territory sharing agreements, while the Bay Area is an exception, with the territory divided inequitably (4.2 million in 6 counties for the Giants, 2.8 million in 2 counties for the A’s).
   
2. Or the judge might ask why television rights are equitably shared, but stadium-building rights are not.
3. What compensation the A’s received for the Giants moving closer to the A’s when SBC Park was built, to a location that could better serve and attract East Bay fans. If you’ve ever been on a BART train filled with Giants fans from Concord or an Alameda special ballpark ferry to SBC, you know what I’m talking about. The ‘Stick was not a public-transit friendly venue. In fact, I’m surprised Steve Schott never raised a stink about this at all – or maybe he did and we just don’t know about it.
4. Then there’s the issue regarding how the territorial rights were granted and retained in the first place. Some say they evaporated once the last ballot measure in Santa Clara County failed, Magowan says he bought the Giants based on having those rights. That makes sense now that Santa Clara County is the high-tech capital of the world, but when Magowan bought the Giants, Yahoo! was just a glimmer in two Stanford students eyes, and Google was only a number. The area was in the midst of the recession, and many here were worried about losing defense contractors who were shutting down daily, not thinking about an impending technological boom. Magowan would then argue that he wouldn’t have built his privately-funded ballpark without those same rights, but then he’d have to actually show potential damages that would result from a San Jose ballpark. I don’t think he really wants to do that, because A) He’d have to open up the books, and that would show how much revenue is being hidden because of the vested interest agreements between the Giants and KNBR and KTVU, B) If Giants fans knew how much was being hidden, it’d create a huge backlash (the cost-controlled $75 million payroll), and C) Bud Selig and MLB have no interest in actually showing anything truthful about how money flows into and throughout the league – in fact, history has shown that MLB has done everything it could to prevent litigation, including foolishly drawing up settlements.
   

The problem with all this legal posturing and wrangling is that it’s expensive, and it takes a long time. Would a party that challenged the exemption try to tackle just the anomalous situation that affects the Bay Area (and by extension, Baltimore-Washington), or the entire exemption? Who’d foot the bill, and would that group see it through? No one’s going to become this era’s Clarence Darrow from challenging the exemption. Still, attracting interest locally might work, since San Jose will always be stuck with its inferiority complex when comparing itself to its cosmopolitan neighbor.

Chip Johnson of the Chronicle writes in his column that building on…

the Coliseum parking lot — would be the most expedient, but perhaps not the most desirable, choice of sites.

He notes that the Uptown site is due for groundbreaking later this month. The best site would be along the waterfront, anywhere from the Oakland Army Base to the Estuary. The Army Base does have some potential because it is city owned, but despite the waterfront feature, it’s far from downtown and would require a BART station to be built there. All waterfront sites would also require environmental cleanup, which would cost in the tens of millions per site, and there’s the issue that the City and Port may actually want to get some amount of money for these sites, since they have some value.