Let the bidding begin. Here are several links for you to peruse:
- Tim Kawakami looks at several bidders besides Larry Ellison
- ESPN’s Marc Stein has the national take
- SI’s Frank Hughes brings up Jerry West as a GM candidate
- SF Business Times article
The Golden State Warriors surprised everyone today by announcing that they have hired Galatioto Sports Partners to help facilitate a future sale. GSP is no stranger to the business, as they just finished the sale of the Charlotte Bobcats to Michael Jordan. They also have some serious league experience onboard in former NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik.
Beleaguered owner Chris Cohan may be looking for upwards of $400 million for the team, even though Forbes pegged the W’s value going into this season at $315 million. Assuming Forbes is correct, that’s at least a 27% premium, which could make some prospective buyers balk. Larry Ellison is obviously the most prominent suitor, but there’s no shortage of moneyed interests from all over the Bay Area that could take a shot.
Beyond the sale, which will probably take at least a year to consummate, there is the issue of where the W’s will play after their lease (and Oracle’s naming rights deal) ends after the 2016-17 season. While Oracle Arena is unquestionably a superior basketball venue compared to HP Pavilion, it remains to be seen if that will be satisfactory to whomever buys the team. If Ellison buys the team, it would stand to reason that he’d take the Oracle brand and use it as a cornerstone for a new arena deal, perhaps in San Francisco. Kawakami muses on this further:
According to my sources, almost all of the major parties interested in the Warriors are looking to possibly move the team to San Francisco, in a newly built (privately financed) arena in Giants’ parking lot adjacent to AT&T Park.
That includes Ellison, I’m told, though I believe he’d want to own the Warriors wherever they play–his company’s name, after all, is on the current arena.
With a bigger sponsorship base and a new luxury downtown arena, the Warriors would almost certainly have a higher revenue stream if they were located in San Francisco.
I’ve heard that the Giants could be involved in several of these forming groups, either as a background partner (remember, they’re also minority owners of Comcast Bay Area) or larger player in the purchase.
Right now, AT&T Park is used about 100 dates a year, for Giants games and concerts, etc. If there’s an arena built next door, that’s possibly another 100 dates for that area, and you can easily imagine more retail and other use of that corridor.
It’s not out of the question, though it’s a given that a new arena would have to be privately financed. In any event, W’s fans have to be happy that the one thing they’ve wanted the last decade – Cohan selling their team – is one step closer to happening.
newballpark.org 
man, how sad and lonely is the coli complex going to look if everyone who wants to get out of dodge will succeed in doing so.
It does look like that is the way the wind is blowing. The A’s will be gone in the next 5 years, be it to SJ, Fremont or elsewhere in Oakland. The Raiders will be going to Santa Clara, LA or elsewhere, the timeframe dependent on how soon Al Davis dies or how soon he decides he’d be willing to part with an aspect of control (be it to a co-owner or paying rent to another NFL team in SC), and now the Warriors sometime in the next 7 years either to SF or possibly San Jose.
Will the last team in Oakland please turn out the lights?
Hey ML, how could the convention center reuse idea change to incorporate an empty arena?
It wouldn’t be hard. I suppose it could be like the Anaheim Convention Center, which has an arena as part of the complex.
Maybe Oakland should try to steal the San Jose stealth or some other fringe sport. If this all comes to pass, the Arena might be competing with the Cow Palace for events.
San Jose Stealth already left town last season. They’re in Washington now playing in Everett. And the Sabercats folded with the AFL. The rest of the “fringe” teams folded over the last 12 years in SJ. There’s no fringe sports left to steal unless you count the SJ Giants.
Viva Las Vegas and Steve Wynn!!
Several takes on this piece of news.
1) Doesn’t Larry Ellison realize that the current Oracle Arena (Coliseum) is the center of the Bay Area universe, is already constantly sold out, and next to a BART stop (sarcasm)? If he does buy the Warriors, builds a new palace in Frisco and moves them, will he receive the same Oakland-only scorn as Lew Wolff?
2) New arena for Warriors at AT&T Park/South Beach is easier to swallow if (when) A’s set up shop at SJ/Diridon. MLB/NBA at one end of the Caltrain line, MLB/NHL at the other. Frisco shouldn’t be the only area of the Bay with year-round sports foot traffic.
3) Where’s SVSE and Greg Jamison in all of this Warriors being sold talk? And why not HP Pavilion being the future home of the team? Is NBA at HP still realistic with the Warriors in SF?
4) Speaking of HP Pavilion, if a new Warriors arena is realistic for South Beach/SF, SVSE and the city of SJ better start planning on some major (I mean major!) revovations to The Shark Tank; or else you know where the Sharks could be playing in 2020.
Anyhow, this will be very interesting to follow over the next coming months/years.
Why would SVSE “start planning” renovations to the SJ Arena based on an arena in SJ. SVSE owns the Sharks. The team wouldn’t move unless they wanted it to, which doesn’t make sense since they own the rights to the ancillary revenues in the SJ Arena. Your comment would only make sense if SVSE didn’t own the Sharks but did own the management rights to the SJ Arena. But that’s not the case, they own both.
Dan,
You’re right! I stand corrected. Still, I think renovations to HP Pavilion would be a good idea in the future, since it would in theory be competing head-on with a hypothetical SF arena; non-sporting events, concerts, etc.
ML:
How is Oracle Arena “unquestionably a superior basketball venue compared to HP Pavilion”? I assume you’re going to say something about optimized sightlines, although since many NBA and NHL teams share arenas, I can’t imagine this is that big a factor. (Others have actually complained about Oracle sightlines compared to other NBA arenas; see thesportsroadtrip.com). Or maybe it’s just about capacity. In other respects, HP is superior: Intimacy, seat comfort, user friendliness, concessions, location.
Capacity is the only measure I’d say that the SJ Arena is inferior to Oracle Arena. And even then the SJ Arena only holds 400 less people than the NBA’s premier venue at the Staples Center in LA.
If you had seen HP Pavilion’s basketball setup for the NCAA tournament over the weekend, you’d see the problem. At both ends is a large, gently sloped set of seats. However, that leaves a huge empty space in the corners where seats should be. That isn’t that bad because those corners aren’t properly angled towards a basketball court anyway, but it highlights how the views aren’t optimized for hoops. The problem is repeated in other venues which aren’t optimized for basketball, such as HSBC Arena in Buffalo – also an opening weekend NCAA site.
I had the good fortune of working for a photographer in the mid 90’s, which gave me good access to the pre- and post-renovation Oakland Arena as well as the interim period in which the W’s called SJ Arena home. IMHO, Oracle Arena > HP Pavilion > Oakland Coliseum Arena. I took the opportunity to scope out seating angles during pregame from every section in all three instances, so I’ll take my own judgement over two guys who came to Oakland once for a one-sided Kings-W’s game.
If we’re talking about the venue as a whole, HP Pavilion is better than Oracle. It’s better run and more efficiently designed. Let’s not mistake those advantages for being a better basketball venue. In terms of pure sightlines and the seating bowl, neither arena is as good as ARCO Arena, which inside is more akin to an old field house than a slick, modern NBA arena.
Watching some of the SJ games from Vegas over the weekend, HP doesn’t appear to be a bad venue for basketball; looks like many other basketball arena’s from around the NBA in terms of setup. So while Oracle Arena may have slightly better sightlines at both ends, don’t know about being far superior. FWIW, the NCAA likes having its March hoops at HP and they will be returning in the future.
ML–I am pretty sure there was talk about re-staking the Tank for the NBA when Ellison was trying to buy the Sonics and move them to SJ? If so what was this plan and how would it improve the site lines?
They’d have to add what are called dual-rise seats in the ends. It allows all of the end/corner seats to have adjustable height for hockey and basketball. Chunks of the lower bowl would have to be ripped out and replaced with these telescoping seating sections. For examples of this, check out a Lakers or Clippers game at Staples Center. The Blazers and Wizards also use this technology. It’s not perfect but it’s a lot better than the current HP Pavilion hoops setup.
Additional event level amenities might also have to be added, such as bunker suites or courtside clubs. I’m not sure if there’s enough room at HP Pavilion to accommodate such facilities.
I remember, a while back, there was talk about building basketball arena in SJ at the fairgrounds. What ever happened to that, because it could be an option for moving the Warriors too.
So I guess this means Lew Wolfe is howling with laughter? Should be nice to share Oakland’s public enemy number one label with someone else for a while. It’s sad to think that somewhere in Danville a sad little Navigator has probably lost his way…..and what’s left of his mind.
I’m sure when the Baseball to San Jose news picks up again Nav will navigate his way back here.
We need him, without Nav there is now way this blog will be able to meet it’s internet mandated Troll quota for the year.
Isn’t funny how that SI article from 1968 about Oakland and its sports teams turned out to be so true.
Whenever I see these talks about an arena in SF, which have come up before, I start to get antsy about the Sharks future in the South Bay. Not that I have any inside info or anything.
We can be about 100% certain they’ll want a second tenant, an NHL tenant, for this SF building. And that would be the Sharks. When would this arena be built? Around 2017. When does the Sharks lease expire in SJ? Around 2017.
Let’s ponder a move to SF for the Sharks.
Positives for Sharks:
* No more airport curfew. Some brilliant SJ officials already have prided themselves on publicly humiliating the Sharks over this issue, when the Sharks came in after the curfew during the playoffs.
.
* A move to a higher profile city with more foot traffic from highly paid commuters.
* A brand new arena to replace the, yes, aging San Jose facility.
* Full sellout of luxury boxes, via partnering with NBA.
* Did I mention there would be no more airport curfew, and dismissive SJ officials, to deal with?
Negatives for Sharks:
* Would they accept second-tenant status when they run the show now? Could mean they get the crummier dates (fewer weekend dates).
* Sharing of revenues with the Warriors.
* Would they want to leave Silicon Valley, which is bigger than SF and a much better sports market?
* The games in San Jose are sold out anyway so foot traffic doesn’t really matter.
* Alienation of masses of South Bay fans who would not renew their tickets, conceding them to the “fans” in Frisco, the Worst Sports City in the Nation. I’d be one of those who wouldn’t renew.
It’s possible. I see it as more a bargaining chip to get improvements that SVSE wants for the arena.
* SVSE running the show is how they make money. At best they break even running the Sharks.
* A new SF arena will require a deal with the Giants, who have dev rights at the site being considered
* The curfew issue has been mitigated since the Sharks started using the Fry’s/SaberCats plane, which has built-in exceptions. (That reminds me, I have a post on the curfew coming in the future)
It’s much the same issue as the W’s moving to San Jose – there’s little real incentive to do it, other than to move to a city with more cachet.
Problem is you’re ignoring the fact the Sharks are in a very profitable situation right now (and by Sharks I’m also talking about SVSE since SVSE owns the Sharks). They sell out almost every game, and just had a slew of upgrades put in place at the SJ Arena. Additionally SVSE has full control of all the ancillary revenue streams at the SJ Arena for not only the Sharks, but for Strikeforce fights, concerts, etc.. etc… They likely would not find such a situation in San Francisco, no matter how nice the Arena in SF is if/when built. They would have to split revenues with the Warriors, Giants, and possibly the city of SF.
No the worst they’ll do is leverage the new stadium as an excuse as to why the SJ Arena needs some additional upgrades in a few years assuming the SF Arena gets built. But SVSE won’t be moving the Sharks from a very profitable location to an unknown one.
1. I foresee the arena in SF being fit to basketball, like many NBA arenas in non-NHL towns.
2. That would overcrowd the SF market, which is part of why the Sharks set up camp down here in the first place.
3. San Jose is now a hockey city, believe it or not. The nation’s largest rec league is located in the south bay. No point in starting from scratch again.
4. What does foot traffic matter? I don’t know that China Basin has a ton, anyway.
SF a “higher profile city,” yet is also the “Worst Sports City in the Nation?” SF a “higher profile city,” yet SJ/Silicon Valley is “bigger than SF and a much better sports market?” Look, the MLB Giants at one time wanted to relocate to San Jose, Lew Wolff currently wants to relocate to San Jose, and the Niners are looking to move to Silicon Valley as well; so much for the “higher profile city” nonsense. And Dans right; renovate HP over the next 5-10 years and the Sharks are going nowhere.
So does San Jose want Warriors now? What about the Sacramento Kings, what happened to that?
I don’t think San Jose is making a pitch for any team. They briefly met with the Kings some months back, but that’s because the Kings went out looking for new potential homes way down the line.
Warriors would never let the Kings enter “their” market. Plus it looks like KJ is going to force a new Arena in Sac down their throats if it’s the last thing he does.
A’s Fan,
While I would love for the Warriors to call SJ home, I’d much rather see the A’s come a calling. NBA at HP not much of a priority right now since “The Dream” is currently Major League Baseball at Diridon (just my opinion). Sharks and A’s year-round will work just fine!
As for the Kings, in the future I could see SJ being a backup city for relocation in the event nothing happens arena-wise in Sac. The Kings would still be in Northern California and continue draw from their Central Valley fanbase in SJ; it’ll help when the ACE high-speed rail line is up and running in the future.
One thing I don’t see is the Kings winding up in Vegas. After this past weekend, no way in hell do I see the casino’s taking NBA off the sports books.
I know this isn’t a shocking new idea to anyone, but urban sports venues are the way to go. I’m an A’s fan but I still go to Giants games because they’re only a 10 minute Muni ride from my place. I’d see far more Warriors games if they set up shop in China Basin. I know most fans would have to drive from the suburbs and it’s a pretty easy trip. I drive down to SJ and pick up my parents for a game from time to time. I’d hate to see The Oracle vacant in a few years, but any team that plays at the Oakland Coliseum will never feel like a Bay Area team. Instead, they’re the team that plays off the freeway surrounded by a bunch of warehouses. I don’t think the Warriors franchise deserves better, but Bay Area fans do. Also, the Warriors could use some major rebranding. How about the SF Fog?
Or go with “San Francisco City”, so people just refer to them as “the City” and they can wear their throwbacks.
Are the Kings still looking to move? Or did it fall through?
re: Problem is you’re ignoring the fact the Sharks are in a very profitable situation right now…
…the Sharks and SVSE have insisted for years that they lose $$, even with concerts and other event.s Of course, this is the Sharks’ own fault since the place to make money is the NHL playoffs (each game is like a license to print $$) and the Sharks flop in them each and every year. Guaranteed, high-revenue sellouts down the drain because the team loses in the first or second round every season. Looks like this year will be no different.
2. That would overcrowd the SF market, which is part of why the Sharks set up camp down here in the first place.
…the Gund brothers, the original owners of the Sharks, wanted to be in SF. But no arena was to be forthcoming from the Worst Sports City in the Nation. So they ended up in San Jose, where a new arena was on the horizon. They settled on San Jose; they didn’t seek out the South Bay.
Want evidence that SF is the Worst Sports City in the Nation? Here you go:
* The Giants had to build their own stadium because SF taxpayers were perfectly happy to let them leave rather than build one for them. After the deal to keep the team in ’92 involved lease concessions at Candlestick Park, a group of residents immediatele rose up to oppose the lease concessions and demanded the team pay its rent.
* the 49ers are on the way out of SF and no one there seems to care all that much. I think the 49ers have as many or more season ticketholders from Sacramento – 80 miles away – than they do from they city where they play.
* Frisco is the largest city in the nation without a sports arena. Even Newark, NJ and Oakland, with far fewer residents, have them.
What evidence do you have that SVSE claims they’re losing money? Everything I’ve read says just the opposite, particularly in light of them getting revenue from almost every event held at the SJ Arena.
re: SF a “higher profile city,” yet is also the “Worst Sports City in the Nation?”
Unfortunately, yes. SF is a much higher profile city. ESPN still does columns asking what state San Jose is in. The stupid MLB owners gave the Giants “territorial rights” over San Jose, since they are too stupid to realize San Jose is the bigger city. Apparently, Lew Wolff has had to tell at least one MLB owner that SJ is a city 40 miles away from SF, not a suburb located right next door.
When the Warriors were playing in SJ for one season, a prominent NBA All Star asked if San Jose was near LA. FWIW, I had one of my own family members ask me if I was OK after the Northridge earthquake, 400 miles away from my SJ home, since knowledge of SJ is sparse.
Remember the 1997 NHL All Star game in San Jose? MTV held is NHL AlL Star Game Party in – you guessed it – downtown Frisco. San Jose just aint happening for enough people.
As far as renovating HP Pavillion, we’re lucky to get the new scoreboard and the ribbon graphics thing that encircles the upper bowl of the arena. Like other cities, San Jose is broke and is looking at massive layoffs of city employees. Big-time renoivations to the arena are unlikely anytime soom.
We’re talking about renovations that would be happening 7-10 years from now, not this offseason.
Keep in mind that regardless of renovations, HP Pavilion will be cheaper to operate and book than either Oracle Arena or a new, privately funded, higher overhead SF arena. If SVSE didn’t have Tom McEnery and various other SJ interests involved there might be some serious concern. But when ownership is so locally based and concentrated, it’s hard to see them taking the out considering the + / -. Strategically, the Sharks/SVSE will be in bed with the A’s should the A’s move south. That’s another bond that will be difficult to break – especially if it’s to partner with the anti-MLB-in-SJ-Giants. I suspect that SVSE would have to be bowled over by an offer, which to me would mean operating the arena and getting equal footing on dates.
Also, by the time 2017 rolls around, a new China Basin arena will probably cost at least $600 million. That’s not chump change, not even to Ellison.
re: Fry’s airplane
The new plane gives the Sharks I think 12 exemptions a year from the curfew. At SFO – no such bother. (Of course, it’;s not as if teams flying into San Jose have to land at LAX if SJ Airport is closed. Oakland aint much further from downtown SJ than O’Hare is from the United Center in Chicago or DFW is from the arena in downntown Dallas.)
Alameda and San Leandro residents aren’t exactly happy about normally SJC-bound planes landing in the wee hours at OAK just to avoid a SJC curfew violation. If that keeps up, it’s quite possible that we’ll see a curfew at OAK for passenger aircraft.
re: What evidence do you have that SVSE claims they’re losing money?
A few years ago, I had a personal conversation wiht one of the higher ups there who claimed they still lose money even with the concerts, etc. The Sharks have pretty much always said they lose money in SJ and pan those annual Forbes reports that say the Sharks make money.
pjk,
You have no room to be asking anyone for “evidence” when you throw out crap like:
1) Gund brothers wanted Sharks to be in SF, not SJ (late 80’s).
2) ESPN still does columns asking what state SJ is in (huhh?).
3) Some NBA “All Star” asking if SJ was near LA (mid-90’s).
4) MTV having some party in Frisco for NHL All Star game (when did MTV become some barometer of greatness?). FYI, you might be referring to a NBA All Star party that was held in Frisco for the Coliseum Arena NBA All Star game held a few years back.
Look, my family is fortunate enough to travel extensively, and I can tell you with my many conversations with locals and other travellers that the days of “We’re 50 miles south of San Francisco..” are over! By the way, what does all this anti-San Jose garbage have to do with the topic at hand anyway?
If you want to be anti-San Jose and kiss up to Frisco that’s you prerogative pjk. But please provide facts/evidence (if they exist) to back up you diatribe.
anti- San Jose? OK. I live 5 minutes from downtown San Jose and commute to SF to work (as few times as I can get away with.) I must really be pro-SF to want to live in San Jose when I work in Frisco 45 miles away.
Everytihng I said is true. San Jose still, unfortunately, has a profile that is dwarfed by inferior Frisco. It is ridiculous that it stil is this way but that’s the way it is just the same.
San Jose is still best described as “a place about 40 miles from San Francisco.” MLB owners have had to be educated about where the place is, even, when considering this whole territorial rights mess.
Here’s anoher example of who has the higher profile , from the Media InfoCenter list of Top 50 Markets based on Population:
12 4,157 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
San Jose is the largest city of the three but still gets listed last when they describe the market. I can’t count how many times I’ve had to tell people San Jose is a bigger city than Frisco because, as I said hours ago, Frisco is the more high-profile city.
also, please show us where I asked anyone for evidence of anythig
pjk,
Accidently confused your “re:” question a few posts up as originating from you; my bad!
And believe it or not, I hear what you’re saying and actually agree with you. However, I don’t necessarily agree with the way you are framing the SF>SJ argument.
San Francisco will always be the “World City” of the Bay Area, highly sought after and known by citizens around the globe (a tourist Mecca). San Jose can’t, or never will, compete against that. But we are becoming more known around the country and across the globe thanks to the Sharks (foreign players), the NCAA tournement (see this past weekend) and high-tech/Silicon Valley (Cisco, EBay). Throw in the A’s and the “profile” will become stronger. Will it make us a “World City” like Frisco? No, but who cares!
I remember the early speculation regarding the hockey team that became the Sharks (was then the North Stars moving to the Bay Area before a deal was struck to have the North Stars remain in Minnesota [for two more years, snicker, snicker] and give the Bay Area an expansion team) and that was focused on Oakland, mainly because that was the only suitable arena that existed at the time. At some point, San Jose entered the picture and that’s what happened.
I believe that about as much as I believe anything coming out of Bud Selig’s mouth.
If SVSE was such a money losing business, they would be asking for an annual subsidy from the city, as many other teams and arena operators do. However, the only one they’ve asked for recently is the scoreboard/ribbon board upgrade/control room relocation. They’d also have difficulty justifying expansion into peripheral businesses such as the ice rinks. Sure they can say they’re losing money on paper because it’s not difficult to push money from one related business to another. But to say they’re actually losing money as a whole? Bullshit. Let’s see the books.
ML—have never heard you utter a discouraging word about BS—what’s caused the change of opinion? Personally, I have never been impressed with him—slow to take action whether it be steriods are fixing the TR issue for the A’s
There’s a lot of newsprint and blog pages wasted every year about how bad Bud Selig is. And all of it is complete ineffectual. This blog isn’t about that. Just because I don’t write about him doesn’t mean I tacitly approve of what he does. Do I think he’s an awful person? No. I do think that his naturally conflict-filled position as an owner-turned commissioner makes it hard for him to ever argue that anything he does is in the best interests of baseball as a whole, not just the owners. That said, as a CEO he’s done the duties asked of him by his shareholders, or rather, the owners.
I’m not sure I see the advantage of a privately financed arena is SF. Any slight increase in revenue would likely be more than offset by the cost of the arena. They have the entire market to themselves there is no real competition. If you add together the franchise purchase price and the cost of the arena you are approaching 1 billion dollars.
You need to stop focusing on whether San Jose is larger than Oakland or San Francisco. Anyone in their right mind would focus on the size of a particular market, not just the size of the city. The Oakland-East Bay market is larger than the San Jose-Sunnyvale market. And the San Francisco-San Mateo-Marin market is larger than the San Jose market, as well. Besides…if you look at just the size of a particular city, then you are missing the boat. For example, San Jose has more than twice the population of either Atlanta or Miami, but they’re in larger markets than San Jose. They are also way higher profile cities than San Jose. The fact is, San Jose is a fairly bland minor league type city…very similar to Columbus, OH or Jacksonville, Fla. I know this, because I have worked in downtown San Jose for years. No matter how desperately San Jose wants to run with the big dogs, it’s still a minor league city, and it always will be. Pjk was absolutely correct when he said the Gunn family originally wanted the Sharks in SF. The Sharks ended up in SJ only by default. Yes, San Jose’s population is larger then Oakland or San Francisco, but its market isn’t.
The market is richer. That’s what they care about. Try again.
Yes….I little bit richer. But the cost of living is substantially higher too. So it’s not that much richer.
If the cost of living was always directly proportional to salaries, there’d be no relative wealth anywhere on Earth.
It does in this area.
Oh, and what makes Oakland a “major league type city” over the other three, all of which are home to major league franchises? All they did was build the Coliseum complex and the franchises came for the handout (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081012/1/index.htm). A “major league type city” is a place where the owners would actually be willing to pay for their own venue because they know the return on investment will be there, like Wolff in San Jose or potential bidders in San Francisco.
I didn’t say that. What I am saying is that all of your posts makes it sound as if San Jose was a major city and Oakland wasn’t. It take more than just population to be considered a major league city.
I’ve never once said or even implied that population alone makes San Jose “major.”
I love how San Jose is referred to as “a flaccid, sprawling urban adolescent.”
I finally found time to read that whole thing.
It is amazing how , even back in 1968, Oakland was the future of the Bay Area! I love Oakland, but come on…. Jack London Square was the next big thing 40 years ago. It still is… I wonder if in 40 Years it will still be the future of the Bay Area, or if ti will have grabbed the mantle of “present” for the Bay Area by then.
The sports teams mentioned in the article… The Clippers petered out (with the rest of soccer in the US) 2 seasons later. The Seals moved away within a decade… to Cleveland?!?!?!?! Even the Raiders left.
What a wild and woolly adventure this has been.
Also, I think it is safe to say that San Jose is not really adolescent or flaccid anymore. Sprawling, sure.
Actually, the NASL lived one for another decade and a half. The original San Jose Earthquakes were there for most of it, also outlasting a second Oakland franchise (Stompers). Ironically, both hockey and soccer now survive in the South Bay.
To clarify, I didn’t mean that all of soccer in the US was done within 2 years, just that the Oakland team was done and eventually the NASL.
As far as soccer surviving in the South Bay… there is a stadium to be built before I concede that point. I’d love for the Quakes to become a fixture, but we are not that far removed from a relocation, and there will be a second one if Uncle Lew doesn’t get on it and build the stadium.
Dennis H.-
Seems a bit arbitrary to declare adjacent counties such as San Mateo and Alameda part of other markets, when huge populated chunks of each are closer to downtown SJ than SF or Oakland. Just because the census chooses to chop up the Bay Area into MSAs a certain way for statistical purposes doesn’t mean they aren’t part of a teams target market. It’s still all in the SJ-SF-OAK CSA.
That vintage Deford/SI article is priceless! Love the reference to “Al Davis, the shrewd young boss of the Raiders.”
Before you folks get too giddy and too far ahead of yourselves about a new arena for the Warriors in SF or SJ, see the following quote from Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, chairman of the Coliseum authority board.
“I hope the new [Warriors] owner realizes that, even though the team hasn’t had many wins lately, the fans continue to pack the house,” Haggerty said.
“There’s a really strong, supportive fan base in the East Bay, so I would certainly hope the team would stay here at the arena.
“And because of the lease, it would be in a new owner’s best interest to stay,” he said. “If they leave prior to 2027, they would be obligated to pay off the debt from refurbishing the 19,596-seat arena back in 1997.
There we agree. Unlike the A’s, the Warriors have drawn respectable numbers even in bad times. They should stay at Oracle.
Who made Scott Haggerty the “Master” of the Bay Area? And doesn’t he realize that 1) Warriors fans come from all over the Bay Area, not just the East Bay, 2) They’re the only NBA team in the region, and 3) Oracle Arena is a decent venue because of its upgrades in 96? Obviously, he doesn’t realize any of this. Put the Warriors in Frisco or San Jose and they’ll draw the same as they do at Oracle, gauranteed! They’ll also be a richer franchise. By the way, can you provide a link to the story regarding the Gund Family and their “yearning” to have the Sharks play in SF vs. SJ; thank you.
“And because of the lease, it would be in a new owner’s best interest to stay,” he said. “If they leave prior to 2027, they would be obligated to pay off the debt from refurbishing the 19,596-seat arena back in 1997.
You might want to quote the right person, in this case Larry “I’ll stake my career on the ballpark village plan” Reid. To those who think the lease is protection, I have three words for you:
Remember the Sonics.
Don’t worry, I quoted the right person.
Er, no.
From the article:
In any case, Remember the Sonics.
Er, yes……if you read the entire article, you will see Haggerty’s quote.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_14733858?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
Haggerty’s quote in the Merc was shorter. The quotes are similar, the articles are edited differently.
I think it’s strange to place faith in the same man who spearheaded Fremont’s efforts to take the A’s from Oakland.
Next time, post a link when you quote.
In any case, Remember the Sonics.
Like I said before. If you put “San Jose” accross the chest of a basket weaving team they’ll draw in San Jose.
That was childish and made no sense whatsoever DH. Stop trying to be clever because it aint working! Next topic R.M.
So why have all the niche sports left town?
SaberCats are gone because the league folded. The Fry brothers wanted to keep AFL going and owned one of the healthy franchises. The Stealth probably got a better revenue deal in Everett at the new arena there. Interestingly, through last season the Stealth were the southernmost team in NLL. Lacrosse is more of a Northeastern/Canadian sport, and the attendance here sort of proved that.
It’s 2027? I thought it was sooner than that. Those bonds were a few hundred million dollars, I believe.
Several years ago, there was talk of privately funded arena in SF. But soon, the Sharks extended their lease in SJ to 2017(?) and the Warriors signed on for a refurbished Oakland arena. Talk of an SF arena quietly died out. Most likely because they had no chance of an NBA or NHL tenant.
re: San Jose is a fairly bland minor league type city
…bland works fine for me. I’ll take the shopping malls, the Targets, Home Depots and freeways over the clutter and crowding of Frisco. We’ve got the Sharks here, the Nutcracker ballet every year, schools that aren’t that bad. I’ll take it.
I don’t like Targets or Home Depots, nor do I see them regularly, and SJ works for me.
From the Tri-City Beat
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/03/23/diaz-met-with-mlb-officials/
Fremont Manager Fred Diaz met with MLB officials
By matt artz
Tuesday, March 23rd,
They met last Thursday. I have no details, and he didn’t seem to have any sense of when the MLB committee would make its recommendation or what that recommendation would be.
I’m hoping they would make a recommendation to the commisioner after April 1st when NUMMI shut down. Also, I heard that Fred Diaz meeting with them was a success. On March 26, Fremont mayor might talk about the A’s stadium in Fremont at his State of the City Address http://www.Fremont.gov or http://www.Fremontbusiness.com
MLB in Fremont is a pipe dream. It will never happen.
ML….I suggest you do the same.
Actually, when I quote I link. We’ve wasted enough of everyone’s time with this.
Is Fremont any more of a pipe dream than a willing Lew Wolff working out an JLS ballpark deal? Seriously.
ML…you’re right. I am tired of talking about this as well. Peace.
Rumor/speculation but what many have suspected about the “process” might be correct–and most likely why Fremont is being bantered about again. BS hasn’t been able to secure the votes opening SJ—guess some of these owners prefer to continue to subsidize the A’s—-all in all—if this holds up—A’s could be headed elsewhere out of the bay area—doubt that LW will invest his own money in either Fremont or Oakland after this process-
ESPN’s Rob Neyer, as usual, has a cogent take on that never-ending Oakland A’s relocation study:
It should be 29-to-1; you can hardly blame the Giants for wanting to keep the A’s out of San Jose. But it’s not 29-to-1, because some of the other clubs are afraid of setting a precedent, and also because the Giants (presumably) have some favors they can call in. And despite the impression you might sometimes get, Bud Selig can’t just do whatever he likes.
It’s been a year (and counting) not because Selig’s committee can’t come up with a reasonable recommendation regarding the future of the Athletics. It’s because Selig knows what that recommendation is (or will be), but hasn’t yet been able to garner the support from enough owners to implement the recommendation.
GoA’s,
Neyer is simply trying to stir $hit up; that’s his job as a columnist (for ratings, reader traffic, discussion, out of boredom, etc.)
And despite what some think here, Fremont isn’t being “bantered about again.” All the ballpark possibities need to be included in the final MLB committee report, including Fremont. It will be part of BS’s “strong case” to MLB ownership re: allowing the A’s into SJ.
I did email Neyer and expressed the following:
1) The “precedent” of altering territories was set years ago, both geographical and television: the NY Giants move into Boston Red Sox territory in the 50’s (yes, the Bay Area was once part of BoSox T!), the expansion of the SF Giants territory into Santa Clara County in the early 90’s to allow their move to San Jose, and the Expos move to DC/Orioles TV territory in 05. Besides, with the exception of the A’s and Rays, all the clubs are set with their ballparks and host city’s/territory.
2) The Giants curry no favors in MLB. This is an organization that infuriated MLB ownership when they privately financed Pac Bell and, a few years later, allowed a drug dealer unfettered access to the club house. Their standing within MLB is nill. Bill Neukom is also a junior owner in MLB and won’t be allowed to rock the boat. He will be put in his place soon.
3) Lew Wolff’s relationship not only with Bud Selig but others in MLB; Reinsdorf/White Sox and Cardinals ownership to name a few. They’re not going to keep the A’s out of SJ just because some selfish, “New Booty” owner out of Frisco keep crying about it.
Look, the Merc’s Mark Purdy was quoted last year as stating (based on information from MLB’s “inside”) that Bud Selig had the votes to overturn the Giants TRights to Santa Clara County, but ONLY if a ballpark in San Jose was to be built as a result. I think we’re very close to getting to that point GoA’s.
Tony D—I want to agree with you but many of us who want to see a ballpark at some point in the next 5 years are amazed at the pace of developments. Do writers need to stir it up…sure…but its hard to refute what he is saying—takes 22 to support it and while LW has a few relationships keep in mind that he is relatively new. The gints aren’t playing around–they want to be the only team in the Bay Area—if SJ stays closed they feel they can be successful in achieving their objective in the near future—note how they are now televising some SJ gints games in SJ–change the uniform colors etc–remember–it was LW who when asked about TR and the gints said it should be about money but it isn’t to them…this time around he felt BS could secure the votes but BS lost his leverage when he didn’t penalize the gints for knowingly allowing steriods in the locker room—true to his character he took a pass on the tough issue and let it fade into the sunset—
would be great if someone had an assessment of the 30 owners and who might be in what court but figure that is difficult info to find–
Also apologize for this being in the Warriors area–meant to post it origninally to SJ SEIR blog
GoA’s,
It’s not hard to refute what he’s saying. He’s just a columnist, he’s not on the “inside” so to speak. And while we are all tired of the pace of this committee study, the truth is that SJ is not quite ready to build the ballpark (land acquisitions, EIR completion, etc.). Heck, in theory they won’t be ready until after November of this year because of the election/vote. And yes, the G’s do want the Bay Area all to themselves, but where would the A’s go? They already exist in the Bay Area and it’s much easier to move them further from the Giants/within their existing market then take a risk in, say, Sacramento or Portland. LW relatively new? Again, try “New Booty” Neukom. He’s junior to LW and doesn’t have enough stripes to stir shit up. As for the “Lil” SJ Giants, they have no relevance to this whatsoever, so I won’t comment on that. Again GoA’s, it’s all rampant speculation, not “inside” reporting.
Not inferring that it is “inside” reporting but that it absolutely makes sense–Neukom may be new to the lodge but his strips as chief legal counsel for Microsoft during pretty challenging times speaks volumes–he is now lightweight—and yes I know–they can’t sue but I am sure he is able to put together a pretty convincing arguement to rationalize his position—who knows–maybe the A’s get sold back to MLB like the Expo’s and they figure where to place them out of the Bay Area in the future—what we do know is that LW is frustrated- the gints are snickering about the what inning the blue ribbon commission is in and BS says that it is stil under analysis 12+ months after he commissioned a small team to establish some answers with a sense of urgency–something doesn’t add up—
I want the A’s to stay in the Bay Area and becasue of that I see SJ as the best option but I am beginning to question whether or not the lodge will pull together to make it happen—ridiculous–sure—but that’s what an anti-trust exemption will provide for you–
This will be my final say on this Neyer garbage; sorry R.M. for straying so far off the Warriors topic.
I disagree GoA’s. The Neyer rampant speculation does not make any sense because the supposed “delay” in getting the report out has been explained ad naseum. Besides, no one except the media and ignorant politicians has said when the report will come out.
Like the “Lil” SJ Giants, Neukom once being chief legal counsel for Microsoft has no bearing/relevance to this whatsoever. And your right GoA’s, it’s because he can’t sue! It’s as simple as that. Beside, the A’s have lawyers in their ownership group as well, and Lew Wolff’s good friend (besides Selig) is Big Time attorney/White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf (two can play it that game, so bring it on Bill if you must!).
Also, Neukom CAN’T put together a pretty convincing argument to rationize his position because he simply HAS NO CASE! For one, the MLB Giants play in Frisco, not 40 miles down the road in SJ. Two, the SVLG survey of 09 completely blew the “Giants corporate support in Silicon Valley” argument out of the water. Three, they can’t prove that Giants season-ticket holders in SCCo. (perhaps 7,000) will all miraculously become A’s fans with the team in SJ. Lastly, four, they have the rights to SCCo. only because they were supposed to relocate here themselves. Again, as has been said before, NO CASE because there is NO ARGUMENT to be made.
Speaking of argument, let’s say the committee released its report in, say, September of last year. We’d all be “happy” right now, right? Would anything be different though? Again, SJ still hasn’t acquired the entire Diridon site, the revised EIR still isn’t complete, and the hypothetical November vote would still be 8 months away. I know we’re all getting impatient about this, but why the rush/sense of urgency?
Last thing: Selig gave both Wolff/A’s and Neukom/Giants gag orders in December to not talk about territorial rights to the media until further notice. That means no one in MLB will discuss the report/territorial rights to the media until told to do so by Selig; hence Neyer’s piece being complete, rampant speculation that doesn’t make sense whatsoever. That is all.
Tony…you need to check your confidence meter my friend because its redlining right about now…When ever anyone, even SJ partisans, brings up anything remotely close to the A’s possibly not being able to move to SJ, or having trouble for that matter, you just plug your ears and start singing “la-la-la-la-la”…I guess the reason Lew hasn’t been granted the rights to SJ after trying the last half decade has only been to keep everyone on this blog entertained…
Sometimes you gotta raise your “SJ Partisan Hat” just a little bit…its starting to block your vision
Two things:
.
Why are so many people in this thread repeatedly referring to SF as “Frisco”?
It’s embarrassing and uninformed.
.
And why are so many people minimizing the distance between SF and SJ?
It’s 48 miles, not 40 (measured train station to train station, or AT&T Park to the SJ future park site.)
That’s more than the combined ballpark-to-ballpark distances in the other three 2-team markets.
I like your last stat CM–can you circulate that to the other owners so at least 22 of them realize the gints TR claim is BS….and than maybe BS can do something—
I refer to Frisco as Frisco as a personal defiance of the city’s full-of-itself image, calling itself “The City” and all. Friscans don’t like their town referred to as Frisco so I do it anyway.
I grew up 40 miles from a real city – New York City. Frisco a small town compared to NYC.
Everyone say it with me: “Frisco!”
Ar we heading to Texas or what?
How do you folks define how strong or big a city’s market is? I am sure it goes more than just populations. The size of the population doesn’t accurately tell how strong a market is, although you can infer that the market is big and can potentially become strong.
For the record all, there’ s nothing wrong with disagreeing with someones opinion and/or wild speculation. Doing so, as well as expressing your own opinion, does not constitute “plugging” ones ears or singing childish songs.