There’s no need to rehash all three parts of Blez’s fantastic Lew Wolff interview (Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3). Doing so would repeat a lot of material that we’ve already written about, so I won’t do that. I also won’t get into a gotcha-fest as some other blogs have, and I won’t dig into Lew’s usual smattering of interview flubs. I’ve gotten used to it by now.
The lie
Instead, I’ll focus on some of the new information we’ve gotten from the series, and read between the lines on it. First, I’ll frame the discussion with one declarative statement:
I know specifically that Lew has lied about one thing in public all these years.
The lie? When Fremont started to go south, Lew said that was he didn’t know what he was going to do, that there was no Plan B. San Jose was always Plan B, or C if you choose to make it part of the longer history. That’s not to say that he hasn’t lied about other things, far from it. It’s just that what some people consider lies or damned lies others think are realities borne of statistics.
Back to the lie. San Jose was continuing to perform its due diligence and that, frankly, Wolff would’ve been a fool to not explore it – at least to the constraints placed upon him. Of course, this was pretty obvious to anyone watching this for any serious length of time. Yet from that lie, I’ve picked up a behavioral pattern that shows how this whole process is moving, at least from the owner’s perspective.
Simply put, Lew tends to only use certain terms and couches his language until he feels he has the leeway and confidence to move forward. While the Coliseum North project was in play, he never mentioned Fremont by name, even though he met with Cisco a few months after the Oakland unveiling. While Fremont was in play and even after it unofficially died, he never talked about either San Jose or Oakland. When the San Jose EIR was certified, he started talking about San Jose in real terms and advocated for it. He started sending players and Stomper to South Bay events. And now he feels confident enough to proclaim that there’s
“…absolutely no reason any of us can come up with that either the Giants or the baseball Commissioner should not approve us to move 50/60 miles away to San Jose so A’s can get a new ballpark.”
He’s couched this newfound confidence by saying he doesn’t know when the decision will be made, but we all know what the timetable is. At this point, over 5 years into Wolff’s tenure as managing partner and 7 into his search for a new home for the A’s, both the A’s and Raiders are running into a hard limit. That limit is the end of both teams’ leases in 2013. A fairly significant revelation from the interview is that he has asked the Coliseum Authority for lease extensions and the requests weren’t granted. Part of this is perhaps due to the Authority feeling duped the last time the team got its extension from 2010 to 2013. Now it’s a matter of the Authority choosing to deal with the Raiders on a new football stadium which would replace the Coliseum. There isn’t room to work on two new venues simultaneously at the Coliseum. By buying the Home Base lot on Hegenberger and incorporating that into the study area, the City made its choice – at least for the Coliseum grounds. Frankly, that’s the right choice. A football stadium makes much more sense in a location with an ocean of parking, not a locale that would be mutually beneficial for a ballpark and downtown.
Wolff’s language has even gotten to the point where we’re not really talking about T-rights compensation. We don’t have a baseline from MLB, a demand from the Giants, or an offer from the A’s. In fact, the only people that are actually talking about it are the media and blogs. Ever wonder why that is? I’m starting to think that T-rights are like Fight Club or a internal political third rail within the lodge. T-rights have much more power if they aren’t enumerated. Once you name a cash price, T-rights start on the slippery slope towards being commoditized. The last thing the lodge wants is actual free market principles working within their antitrust-protected economic structure. They don’t even want the public to know what their finances are other than an annual December press release exhorting record league-wide revenues. (They don’t believe in full revenue sharing either, but that’s another story.)
Bird in hand
In Part 3, Wolff sneaks in a little comment about Oakland’s and San Jose’s relative populations. He starts off talking about the history of Bay Area T-rights and then dives into the population discussion:
LW: OK, I don’t want to bore you with it. In Oakland, from the 70’s to 2007, the demographics from Oakland have changed, through no one’s fault – it just changed, and that’s a big problem. For example, they grew from 362,000 to 372,000 or something like that, a very low compounded rate. San Jose went to a million people in the same period. We’re not suggesting that’s the reason to go there but that’s the reason we’re not doing well here.
TB: There are more fans to draw from.
LW: Right. San Jose hit a million a couple of years ago and that is just within the city limits.
In March I wrote about population density and the myth of Oakland being more truly urban than San Jose. My conclusion was that there was only one truly urban center here, SF, and the others are just pretenders. I did a variation of the standard population survey, based on the home ZIP codes of ballpark sites. While the Diridon, Victory Court, and Coliseum sites were fairly close if the circle were drawn only 3 miles from the ZIP, distinctions are made once you go farther out.
Population/Business counts per ZIP code radius. Source: 2000 Census
The numbers are now 10 years old and aren’t reflective of housing booms in both Downtown San Jose and Oakland in the early part of the decade. I doubt that either city’s downtown received more than 10,000 new residents each due to this rise in the housing stock, but it’s possible. Either way, it doesn’t change the 5-mile number more than 3-5%. I’m looking forward to the 2010 numbers coming out in the near future.
I buttressed the argument in March with the notion that at its size, San Jose is capable of doing large projects alone, without county or state help. SJ is actually rather adversarial with Santa Clara County, and tends to throw its weight around frequently and in a rather crude manner. That’s not really the case with Oakland and Alameda County, where partnerships are more necessary. With the Coliseum Authority tied up with the Raiders project, Oakland will be doing the ballpark project solo. And that, given Oakland’s recent political history, has to give MLB’s commission and Bud Selig pause.
I am a ballpark. Hear me roar!
For a stadium geek like me, the most intriguing news was the admission that there would be no stadium club (Part 3). gojohn10 and I expounded upon that in the comments thread, and I’m glad to say that the speculation was – based on what we know so far – correct. The club seats are in the small third deck, with no indoor concourse behind them.
One of my favorite things about the Coliseum pre-Mt. Davis was the openness of the Plaza concourse. There were no concrete walls in back of the seats, and you could see the setting sun between the decks, through the portals, as if the Sun itself had its own knothole to watch the game before it had to go to bed. You know where else you see this? Fenway. Wrigley. At Fenway, you can stand at the back of the lower deck along the first base line and all that’s there is a chain-link fence. The air circulates better, the place feels less claustrophobic, it just feels more like baseball. As the new ballparks stuffed more, well, stuff into their bodies (suite levels, club concourses), from within the ballparks started to look more monolithic. In the last 5-7 years designers have tried to break things up by breaking up the seating decks, which is simply not the same thing as what I described earlier. There’s still a mall on the concourse. Nowadays, all you’ll see behind the plate are seats, then windows, then more windows, then maybe some seats way up top. It looks more like a high-rise office building than a ballpark. Exterior façades have brick or stone glued to concrete, highly reflective glass curtainwall, and in very few cases a look inside the ballpark for passersby.
The new Cisco Field design may be the most “retro” ballpark design of all because it looks to eschew all of these new conventions. Do we really need three club levels, each more exclusive than the last? I don’t think so. How about a massive wall of suites? Don’t need that either. What about just making the sight lines the best, the closest? That sounds good. As I write this I’m shaking my head because I’m wondering how future revenues will be affected. The baseball fan in me completely buys into it, while the number cruncher doesn’t.
What about integrating the ballpark into the neighborhood as just another piece, instead of making it a centerpiece? Neither Wrigley nor Fenway make much of an attempt to scream, “I AM A STADIUM AND YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO ME.” The Green Monster, so imposing inside Fenway, doesn’t look like much from the outside. Wrigley is clad with simple fences and is colored light gray, with accents in the form of neon and signs.
When revealed, Cisco Field’s colonnade was met with a great deal of unease. Readers here didn’t know what to make of it. It didn’t look substantial enough. It didn’t look complete. And maybe that’s the point. At the best, most classic ballparks, there are few barriers for the sounds and smells to leave, enticing more people to come in. It’s supposed to be transparent. It’s supposed to allow people to feel that there are no barriers between them and the team they love.
What will Wolff do to make up for the lack of indoors at the ballpark? Service. People who have club seats and suites will get the best service (yes, that sucks given the state of service at the Coliseum). And some heaters overhead to keep the April nights a little warmer. Me? It looks like I might not get the restaurant/bar in the RF wall that I’ve wanted all of my adult life. But if I can walk the dog by there every day and see it from multiple angles, different perspectives – I’ll be fulfilled beyond earthly belief. Because when it’s 5 PM in December and the sun is setting through the decks in left field, I’ll walk by and remember how good it was when I was nine. How good it can be when it’s done right.
Quick note: The Quakes have a date for their stadium! 2012, no later than 2013, according to Wolff (thanks, Elliott Almond). That would seem to tie in with the idea that both A’s and Quakes venues are to be built in sequence, if not concurrently, to take advantage of package deal lower costs for materials and labor. Congrats Quakes fans. Few can relate to the hell you’ve been through, and you deserve your new Epicenter.
Also: Justin Morneau wants the fences at Target Field pulled in.
newballpark.org 
In Part 3 of the AN interview, Lew suggests he is willing to listen to someone from Oakland about a site that can work. Lew says nothing in Oakland works. Well I think he is not being real sincere about that because there are options. Great freeway access and under utilzed land with motivated sellers of large chunks of land.
Ethan, can you be more specific? Which land, who are the sellers? I am not asking to be facetious.
Ethan,
Trust me, I use to think that underutilized land with great freeway access (and perhaps willing sellers) was enough to entice the A’s to build a ballpark; in SJ AND Oakland as well.
But after being schooled by ML for nearly 6 years, I can tell you it takes a lot more; GOOD freeway/transit access, downtown proximity and (most importantly) city acquired.
If Wolff is confident enough now to talk about altering territorial rights, and the timetable is set due to the expiring coliseum lease, why is he so angry about not hearing anything definitive from MLB? Is this all part of the lie or is he going out on a limb b/c he is under pressure to have something ready for 2014?
GJ10,
I wouldn’t say LW is lying or even “mad.” I just don’t think he’s spilling all the beans and, at the same, putting up a facade of frustration.
The man is good friends and talks all the time to BS; I have no doubt in my mind he knows how all this is going to go down.
The Coliseum Authority’s refusal to grant an extension to the current lease is another illustration of the fractured relationship between the A’s and the City of Oakland/Alameda County. If the A’s are not granted access to SJ, you can bet any ballpark in Alameda county would take years to get done, if it gets done at all.
.
ML, do you know the exact date the lease expires? Is it based on the calendar year or the end of the baseball season? Whatever the case, the A’s would have exactly 3 years from the time a ballot measure is approved, to Opening Day 2014, to plan and build the ballpark. Doable, provided the final two parcels are secured in a timely manner, and there are no legal speedbumps along the way.
@gojohn10 – He’s venting. He doesn’t have a lot of friends in Bay Area media. He still wants to explain his side of the story. Though if/when San Jose is approved, that’s Day One of “I don’t have to explain myself to Oakland anymore” Lew.
@fc – I believe it’s the end of the calendar year.
@Jeff I am familiar with an area in Oakland. I really think it could work. It has a lot of interesting pieces to the puzzle. There is available land to purchase very close to some large chunks of city owned land. I think the costs to build additional infrastructue are somewhat limited. So from that standpoint it has pluses. But now I’d rather not go into specifics of the location on this site for various reasons. Of course feel free to contact me privately so we can discuss. Who knows we might be the ones who save the “OAKLAND A’S”.
I know building a baseball stadium in Oakland that costs hundreds of million dollars in this economy is a tall task. Add the fact San Jose is courting the franchise, the odds are against Oakland keeping the team. Oh yeah the city of Oakland needs to step up for anything to happen.
@ML I was a bit skeptical of your take, but then I went back and carefully parsed through the interview. Now I agree with you. He doesn’t know specifics, but he knows. I’ve posted the snippets I think are most telling below. Obviously this is edited so be sure to check out the specific portions of the interview yourself and not take my word for it.
.
.
The closest he comes to a lie is when he says he hasn’t been told anything.
@gojohn10 – You got it. It’s more about what Lew’s holding back.
This month’s owners meetings start this Thursday. Do you think we’ll hear any news at all?
@Chris–nope. I predict sometime in January…January, 2013, after the next presidential election.
@Chris–word on the street is that it will be before the end of the year–March election to follow–having said that I have heard that before so you never know with BS and MLB—
One wonders why Lew felt he had to lie. He may have been able to pull the whole thing off much more smoothly and successfully if he had played it straight from the very beginning and just said that his goal was to move the team to San Jose but that in the meantime he would:
1) put money into the Coliseum for cosmetic improvements, improved food, drink and other amenities, and to make the clubhouses more modern and desirable,
2) put the best possible team on the field and spend as much on players salaries as possible; while re-building would be necessary at some point he would pledge not the increase ticket prices during that time,
3) aggressively and creatively market the team, especially for season ticket packages,
4) make sure that the radio station had a strong signal and would be available to fans for more than just pre-game, game and post-game broadcasts,
5) make positive efforts to retain the existing fan base by developing easy transportation alternatives for fans in the East, North and West Bay (such as commuter buses)
6) promise special ticket deals for those fans, and state that ownership values the existing fan base and would make it work for them in San Jose,
7) in general be honest and forthcoming to the extent possible, considering that this is a business venture.
Lew could have avoided so much of the contentious mess that this has turned into by taking those and similar actions. Instead he lied, alienated fans and promoted an environment of mistrust and paranoia that has left an indelible stain on what should be a happy and positive time for A’s fans.
@Jerry–you nailed it. Best post of the month. Good job. 🙂
nice Jerry …
I thought Oakland was prime because transportation was already so great…
Just curious: what “contentious mess”? And do any MLB teams offer commuter bus service for its fans?
It’s not like the Coliseum is served by BART or anything.
Pretty tired of the lie accusations—the big lie going on these days is that Oakland has anything going on for the A’s–and doesn’t the city of Oakland/alameda County own the Coli and responsible for its upkeep? Why should LW invest in fixing what they have failed to do….and remind me how much money Uncle Al has invested in upkeep of the Coli
We’ve known for a couple of years that Lew may not have been as forthright as possible about whether he was really focused on Fremont or not.
http://www.giantsportal.com/news/san-jose-cool-to-tepidly-optimistic-on-a-s-stadium-.php
“As they have all week, the Wolffs on Wednesday maintained their fealty to Fremont. Addressing the issue of territorial rights for the first time, Keith Wolff said, “We’re not talking to the Giants about anything at this point.” Some have speculated that the San Francisco team would demand some kind of compensation for relinquishing those rights.
“We’re totally focused on Fremont,” Wolff said.
But Cortese, one of San Jose’s most vocal stadium boosters, contends he’s been hearing from team insiders about a possible shift south for several weeks. San Jose owns most of the land for a likely 14-acre stadium site near the Diridon rail station and has already prepared an environmental impact report on the site, something Fremont officials have yet to finish.
“Be prepared: There’s going to be another look at San Jose,” Cortese said he was told. “I wasn’t terribly surprised when I saw that come up. Obviously something must be going on.”
Jerry – It’s never easy for a sports team to openly discuss moving to a new location, even though that new location may still be within their current market area. I suspect neither you or any of the pro Oakland supporters would have been satisfied with anything Wolff may have said. In your minds, any move out of Oakland is a bad move.
.
Owning a sports franchise is a business, and no business is in business to lose money. We can talk about history and tradition, but what good is it if all that talk doesn’t translate into butts in the seats. Rather than bad mouthing the team, the LGO group ought to have been rallying fans to get out to the ballpark. As far as I can tell, neither the City of Oakland, the Coliseum Authority, nor the pro Oakland group have done anything to help persuade the A’s to stay. Do you really think bitching and moaning is going to change the A’s mind? Give the A’s reasons to stay!
.
Maybe it’s the pro Oakland fans that are the ones lying. They have themselves believing that despite poor support for team for the better part of the last 42 years, that Oakland is the answer. And maybe if we bad mouth the team and it’s owner enough, they will change their minds and stay. Think about it, do you really think Oakland is currently the best answer for the A’s, or are you just lying to yourself?
@fc–FYI, the A’s outdrew the Giant’s 17 of the 32 years before AT@T, and 10 out of the 15 years the Haas family owned it. It’s time to get out of the multi-purpose stadium and into a baseball only park like the rest of the league. And Oakland should get first consideration above late comer San Jose. Franchise moves, like this potential SJ move, should be only done as a last resort. It’s a shame Montreal had to lose the Expos.. This Victory Ct. site is creating a lot of excitement and even though it has many hurdles, it’s still very doable. Lew should jump on board or get the hell out and put them up for sale to local ownership. I’m tired of lousy ownership in the east bay for the last 15 years. It looks like the W’s are a big improvement and like the Oracle, and won’t go to SF for many years. We still got Al and are stuck with LW/JF unless the BRC says something to the contrary.
@jk–how are you doing on what Jeffrey suggested for you which was to find out for yourself that VC is not doable. Have you talked to any of the property owners to find out 1) if they want to sell and 2) at what cost? For you to continue to promote a site that even your buddy Newhouse says is not feasible is a lie—I understand why you won’t take up Jeffrey on his challenge because than you will no longer be able to claim that LW was lying—rather you will see that what Oakland has been doing all along has been a charade—they still do not have a viable site.
@jk-usa: Like GoA’s said. Do it!
@jk — If you want to compare the A’s attendance to that of the Giants (pre ATT), go ahead and knock yourself out. But once again you’d be lying to yourself because Candlestick was an aweful place to play baseball. It was a multi-purpose facility with limited public transportation options.
.
You claim Oakland should get first consideration over late comer San Jose. This is not an issue which just surfaced in the last couple of years. Oakland has known for over a decade that the A’s wanted and needed a new yard to play in, but they chose to do nothing. Now you want the A’s to embrace VC. How long will we have to wait for Oakland to move forward with that idea?
@fc–the G’s drew very well at the Stick before the A’s came, usually 2nd place in the NL after the Dodgers, so fans found ways to get to the stadium and put up with not the greatest baseball experience like the A’s fans do now since the Coli has gone down hill. And the G’s drew decent in winning years, breaking 2-2.5 mill a few times like the A’s did, just not as often. But both drew flies in those lousy years, but even the A’s at the Coli will never sink to those lousy 300-500k years, because they do promote more than cheap ass Finley ever did.
BTW, A’s ownership and MLB is also to blame for this, but you choose to give them a free pass.Where the hell was Schottman when the Uptown site was proposed at city hall? How come BS and the lodge turned down a group who had the means to buy the A;s and keep them in Oakland? It’s partially but not all Oakland’s fault as you say it is. Yeah, it may be too late, but there is a plan and I think it should be pursued, which I hope the BRC is doing.
2 years, no decision and scolding Reed , explain that?
Jk,
Do you realize that the Stick was considered state of the art in the 1960’s. Add to this the Giants being the only MLB team in the Bay pre-1968 and of course they drew well. And how many NL West teams were there then?
Two years, no decision, and scolding Reed (?) and explain that to you? Why? Explain why MLB keeps talking to San Jose (RDA) even after this so called “scolding?”
Explain why there was even a “BRC” in the first place if the status quo was going to remain in effect?
Lastly, why should Oakland be given more time for nothing when they haven’t done anything for nearly 15 years?
By the way, looking forward to your Victory Court “report.”
@ML and other A’s fans on here–there’s a Breaking News article from the East Bay Express abut the city picking the VC site and how Jean Quan is 100% behind it andhow it will spur development in that area. She called MLB the day after she was announced mayor saying she’s fighting to keep the A’s and to keep the negotiations going.
You go, girl!!!
Here’s the link to it and I’m sure most of you will say it’s too little to late, but I’d say phooey to that. It’s never too late if this site was meant to be.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2010/11/16/breaking-news-oakland-picks-site-for-new-as-ballpark
Mayor Quan is an (Oakland) A’s fan!
Skeptical Oakland can get a site ready, but glad they’re trying. Even though Wolff wouldn’t build in Oakland, if the issue gets framed to the 28 disinterested owners as Oakland vs. San Jose, it’s better for the goal of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area than if it’s framed as San Jose vs. the great void.
Interesting:
“City Administrator Dan Lindheim, who has been leading the city’s negotiations with Major League Baseball, said the city decided to go ahead with the environmental impact report process, because the league wants to have a new stadium for the A’s in place by Opening Day 2015”
“Quan believes that the only way Major League Baseball would turn down Wolff and Fisher’s request to move the team to San Jose is if the City of Oakland shows that it has a viable plan for a new A’s ballpark..”
So a new ballpark in ~4.5years from now….and Oakland is fighting for its (sports) life…..
Oakland to Wolff: Kiss My Estuary
BC,
Wolff to Oakland: I’ll kiss your estuary…FOR A BILLION DOLLARS! You have to pay to have any chance to play, but who wants to talk real money when barking rhetoric is so much fun.
Let’s see, Quan calling MLB or some of the richest companies on the planet (SVLG) writing Bud Selig?
Hopefully we get some real “breaking news” soon.
@TonyD–you don’t think this is significant? It’s more than barking rhetoric.I do hope Quan and LGO are courting big companies for naming rights and more support, even potential buyers because Wolff don’t want nothing to do with this plan, and that’s a shame.
This is not a surprise. We have all known it is Victory Court or bust for a long time. Even is Oakland wouldn’t come out and say it.
Thank you Jeffrey,
For the record, MLB decides who owns their teams (not Quan and LGO) and where they play.
That’s all I will say about this.
Anyone who thinks that MLB doesn’t know the financials behind VC is pretty mistaken–Oaklands’ chief cheerleader Newhouse has already said its not feasible. You might have fooled BS once a few years ago but 2 years have no passed and your throwing a site on the table that doesn’t pan out from a numbers perspective…..I think he gets what Oaklands strategy is….beyond the fact that they still don’t have a viable site—Quan can call anyone she wants—hasn’t she been a councilwoman all these years when Oakland failed to deliver anything viable—
I agree! If Ballparks are to be built, the most important facet of all needs be TRANSPARENCY to the fans and having that Ballpark feel like it is a part of the surrounding neighborhood whether it’s in SJ or Oakland.