If you didn’t get a chance to listen to Lew Wolff on The Monty Show at 8, the good people at Sports Radio 95.7 got the MP3 version out in a hurry. Download it and give it a listen. Then come back here and comment away.
My thoughts:
I think we actually got some new insight into how MLB’s panel is operating. Wolff said that the committee hasn’t contacted him about Victory Court or any other Oakland option. Combine that with the zero communication between Wolff and the City of Oakland, and it has me wondering if the committee is supposed to be keeping everyone at arms length. While Victory Court is being evaluated and the EIR process is happening (note the updated counter on the right) any additional talks among the parties would be premature at best. Wolff is only going to act based on the panel’s recommendations and Selig’s actions. I don’t think that’s the way this should be progressing, but that appears to be the game.
As Jeffrey pointed out, the panel is looking at financing, which is the make-or-break issue for Oakland. Oakland can minimize site and infrastructure costs by reducing footprint (and needed parcel buys) and limiting new parking construction cost, both of which have been done in San Jose. I figure panel is not going to recommend that Wolff builds at Victory Court unless the financing pencils out, because MLB is not going to put a team’s ownership in a bad debt position just to satiate local critics. For reasons explained previously, it’s a bad assumption to think that the money in San Jose is easily transferable to Oakland.
Undoubtedly, the ongoing redevelopment saga will factor in. If SB 286 passes and both Oakland and San Jose require votes for their stadium projects, how would that affect the panel’s perspective? Adding a vote requirement complicate the timeline for Oakland, since it’s not a given that they’ll be able to line up EIR certification and ballot deadline perfectly. Consider the following timeline:
- SB 286 passes and is signed into law by Governor Brown (as opposed to scrapping redevelopment altogether) this June.
- Victory Court Draft EIR emerges, also in June. (hypothetical date)
- 60-day review and comment period puts us in August.
- EIR staff takes another 3 months to respond to questions and comments. That puts us in November.
- Final EIR is distributed in December.
- Final EIR comment period is 45-60 days, puts us at February 2012.
- Currently the 2012 primary is scheduled for February 7, though a bill (AB 80) is working its way through the legislature that might push the date back to June. If it passes, Oakland could get its vote in June. If not, November or a special election/vote-by-mail.
- That puts a Victory Court opening day at 2016 unless Oakland is simultaneously doing additional site acquisition, which Mayor Quan has indicated they aren’t. It also messes with the Raiders’ new Coliseum project because the A’s would have to play at the current Coliseum through 2015. The Raiders’ stadium would also require its own vote. Now that’s tangled.
The redevelopment stuff wasn’t discussed in the Wolff interview, but it may provide insight into how the panel is doing its work. As long as these pieces keep moving and the earth shifts, it’s going to be hard to make a decision until everything settles.
Sidebar: Wolff started the interview by plugging the film Jews and Baseball: An American Love Story, which is playing as part of the Silicon Valley Jewish Film Festival. The film will play at the Camera 3 theater at 7 PM. After the showing there will be panel with Wolff, retired player Shawn Green, and A’s play-by-play man Ken Korach as the moderator.
newballpark.org 
Was the Jesse that Monty ripped on the air the Jesse that posts here?
@Tony — you have wondered out loud if MLB was really talking to and working with Oakland. Well, Lew just said they are. Too bad they are not working together (A’s ownership/MLB/Oakland).
FWIW,
Finally able to listen to the interview. What Wolff said was that he “assumed” the committee was still studying Oakland…AND FREMONT AND SAN JOSE. Not once did he say that MLB was “working WITH Oakland.” Bad interview comprehension my friend. All is not lost however; the interview itself was awesome!
Lew Woolf was very disingenuous when he said he looked at all the options in Downtown Oakland. He did not look at the air rights over the 980 Freeway between 14th and 18th. In addition, he said that he needed a housing site to make the ballpark work. Well if he had a housing site, he would be looking to do something else on it because the housing bubble market is gone. For evidence, look at Signature properties trying to get Lawrence Berkeley Lab on their Oak to Ninth site. The 980 Park option is viable because the site work, parking, and West Oakland public safety measures can be paid for by land rent generated by the freeway air rights. This option does not require redevelopment funds.
The city of Oakland has to eliminate the crime or perception of crime in West Oakland to make 980 Park and the continued revitalization of Downtown viable. I don’t what it will take but our current police force and administration don’t seem to have a clue. Maybe the city should hire an outside consultant to shed some new light on the problem. This consultant would take the heat off the Police Chief, City Attorney and City Council. However, there must be the willingness to follow through on the hard recommendations.
The city should scrap the EIR on Victory Court and use the money for a feasibility study of 980 Park and Public Safety Study for West Oakland.
Finally, it would be great if MLB took over the management of the A’s and get Lew Wolff out. It is amazing to me that the Fisher’s haven’t kicked him out. What has he done! Bad mouthed Oakland, spent $30 M Fremont on a site without public transportation and and untold millions on a San Jose Site that won’t have BART for two decades and forget about High Speed Rail there given the opposition of Peninsula residents.
@Jeff, yes that was me.
@Bryan — I’m no engineer. I saw your presentation at the City of Oakland meeting that authorized the Victory Ct. EIR … but your plan just seems too difficult to pull off.
re: a San Jose Site that won’t have BART for two decades
A’s have excellent BART access today; they are ranked 25th in attendance. Doesn’t look like BART is the necessity it is made out to be. Sharks have no BART access and sell out every game for years. Same with the 49ers.
re: transit at San Jose site
It’s right next to San Jose’s transit hub, which today has CalTrain, ACE train, Amtrak, VTA Light Rail and bus access. Not sure the intent of high-speed rail would be to get people to baseball games, anyway. More of a job for Caltrain and Light Rail, which are already plentiful at the Diridon site.
I would love it if Wolff would give his famous 1.5 hr Oakland presentation as a webinar.
@Gojohn10 – I mentioned at the Sports Radio 95.7 Facebook page that several of the commenters clamoring for the “binder” was akin to people asking for a long form birth certificate or photographic evidence of a death. I don’t know if making a presentation would be productive since the panel continues to evaluate Oakland despite the info.
Here is what I wrote on athleticsnation in February 2009:
.
After running through this little comparison, I think it is safe to say that the real answer to where they should play in the long run, from an ownership perspective is how this financing model can be tweaked to make the stadium actually happen. As Iggy said, “Who is gonna pay for it?” Or more accurately, how are the A’s gonna pay for it? I will personally support a new Oakland stadium or a new San Jose stadium as long as that financing question is answered and it matches deMause’s 10% number in San Francisco.
.
Not much has changed in the 2 years since I wrote that. It is still the most important question to answer and I still don’t see an answer in Oakland.
Instead of continuing to bash Lew Wolff, can we remind ourselves who wrecked the current stadium and did nothing for the A’s for decades? Oakland and Alameda County. I remember an A’s player talking about all the effort being made for the Raiders while the A’s couldn’t even get an indoor batting cage from their landlords.
Lew is not telling the WHOLE truth. He keeps saying he “tried” in Oakland. When we all know, as early as 1998, Lew said: “… the only place I would build a stadium in the bay area … is SJ …”. He said it in a SF Chronicle article in 1998, Google it.
@David – And as many pro-Oakland people point out, Selig thought Oakland was a mistake. Yet Oakland continues to be part of the picture. Things tend to be more complex than a single soundbite.
@ML – Wolff has never publicly uttered “Victory Court”. I listened to the whole thing driving to work and while did mention that MLB was working with the City of Oakland, i didn’t notice him mention the Oakland plan, by name.
that funny ML … “birthers and binders!”
2015 new stadium in Oakland, we win, 2015 new stadium in SJ, we win. I just hate that Lew Wolff has to lie so much.
Now shaking head up and down very, very slowly.
This is very simple: in conjunction with Mark Purdy’s interview in the Fall,
Oakland appears to be merely a “backup” to San Jose. Hence MLB not talking to
Wolff about VC or The O. Don’t feel its an “arms length” kind of thing at all.
Wolff’s imminent equity infusion + San Jose acquiring the last two parcels = GAME OVER!
@tony d. – Wolff’s position with the team is less than 10%, closer to 5. Yet you expect him to dump a bunch of his own money into a ballpark even though the revenues have to go towards the team and ballpark? That’s silly.
So David,
Please explain to us all how MLB is working with Oakland; give details and what “working” actually entails.
I’m all ears brah!
RM,
Wolff himself said that equity would play a part in ballpark financing. If I’m wrong,
maybe you can define what exactly “equity” means in this case.
@tony d. – The team is going to make some kind of upfront contribution. That’s usually how it works. You’re connecting dots when that connection may not really be there.
Thanks R.M.,
Just interpreting information/news as it comes out. Not conjuring up/connecting hypothetical dots or anything of the sort.
@Tony – did you listen to the interview? Lew str8 up said that MLB and the committee are working with the city.
You still haven’t answered my question. No worries; probably doesn’t matter anyhow.
@Tony – i don’t work for MLB or the city … how the hell would I know any details? Especially, since there is a gag order in place.
I heard the interview live and an hour plus afterwards with Monty and JD, who are towing the company line and agreeing with the Wolff lock step that San Jose is the only option.
One amusing thing one of them said is that they be called the Oakland A’s of San Jose. Yeah, right! That will really go over well with Wolff, Reed and TonyD on here!!
If Fremont flew, keeping the Oakland name would make more sense, but Wolff didn’t want that, and wanted Fremont, San Jose or Silicon Valley in the name. He wants nothing to do with Oakland, even while his team is still playing there. Shameful.
@ML, a 2016 VC opening would be cool. The next year, 2017 (or 2018, depending on how you do the math) they can have the All-Star game there to celebrate their 50 years in Oakland. They had the 1987 All-Star game (i was there; typical pitchers duel at the Coli), which was their 20th (or 19th?) year in the O.
@David–Tony doesn’t see anything that puts Oakland in a positive light. It’s San Jose or forgettaboutit with this guy.
I’ll have to go back and listen to the interview, but I thought he said that he “assumed” they were still working with the City fo Oakland but that they have not presented anything that would work.
.
I know he mentioned freeway infrastructure, which was directly related to Victory Court. That is still a question that Oakland has to answer. How is car traffic going to be accounted for and what changes need to be made to existing freeway infrastructure/off ramps to make it feasible.
.
Another question to answer is the foot traffic v. trains question that “Victory Court is Viable” folks always ignore. I went to Petco Park this past weekend (my favorite stadium that I have been to so far). There were train tracks right by the stadium and really expensive looking foot bridges to mitigate the risk of people v. train collisions. Also, street cops directing foot traffic all over the place. I am not saying these aren’t possible in oakland, but I do question how expensive it will be and how it is paid for by the City.
.
Maybe I am naive, but I didn’t think anything he said was a lie and I don’t think Monty toed any company line. He asked him some pretty direct questions. Some folks just don’t like the answers… Financing the joint in Oakland is a huge challenge. The residential entitlements, as Bryan points out, won’t work. What replaces that financing method? 35 luxury boxes won’t .
@Jeffrey A minor issue: the gameday cops are currently paid for by the A’s, so I assume that would continue at any future ballpark
.
@ML Agree that the presentation wouldn’t convince Oakland onlyers, I’d just like to see it myself. But really, it doesn’t matter. Nothing outside of the ballpark financing issue matters. Not the franchise legacy, not whether Wolff is a crappy owner nor whether A’s attendance is bad or the best in baseball. As you know all too well, If the park doesn’t have a viable financing model it is game over in Oaktown.
Who all is going to the viewing of “Jews and Baseball: An American Love Story, ” at the Camera 3 in SJ on Saturday?
You can meet two great baseball people, Shawn Green and Ken Korach. Some south bay/LA Real Estate mogul’s gonna show up too I hear.
If the truth of this whole matter ($$$) does not put Oakland in a “positive light,” then I don’t know what to tell yah (respectfully).
I doubt I can go, but would love to see it, especially since they got an interview with Koufax, which he almost never does.
I am sorry, can someone explain to me exactly why the A’s need a new stadium?
Someone mentioned that they were 25th in attendance. Who is 24th? Seattle with a fairly “new” stadium. They are drawing only 900 more fans on average.
If you remember in the 90’s Pittsburgh was crying “oh, we will never be able to win without a new stadium…”. They have (from what I can tell, I haven’t personally been there) a GREAT new stadium, but they are drawing 2000 less fans a game than the A’s. Kansas city is below the A’s in attendance, and they just had their park renovated.
The two realities here are that new ball parks have nothing to do with winning and losing, and new ball parks are all about making their owners more and more money. While I don’t begrudge the owner of a professional sports team trying to make money, when an owner buys a team just because he thinks he can flip it and make a profit, then I have a problem with it.
The truth is that there is NOTHING wrong with Coliseum when it comes to playing and watching the game of baseball. Sure it is quirky, sure it has warts, sure I wish Mt Davis wasn’t built. But if you want to look at the East Bay hills, then while are you at the ball park watching a baseball game? I’d much rather watch a baseball game at the Coliseum for $20, than at a new park for $40. What am I getting for that extra $20? Not a better team, not a better seat.
Why is it Wrigley and Fenway are “historic” but old Tiger Stadium was a dump? I have been to all 3. I can say that public transportation to the stadium in Boston and Chicago is better, but that has less to do with the ball park and more to do with the city itself. I would also say that the old Yankee stadium didn’t really NEED to be torn down (I am not saying that the Coliseum is comparable to the old Yankee stadium, but then again Oakland is not New York). I can say that I had a better time at Yankee stadium than I did at the then 2 year old Petco Park. Petco might be better than the old “Murph”, but it is at the same time almost too quirky for it’s own good, and (at the time) very sterile (I think it was all that new bare concrete).
I feel like the day and age of tax payer funded ball parks are over. If you can’t pay your cops, keep your libraries open, or pay to maintain your neighborhood parks, how can you justify spending anything on a new facility for owners who are billionaires so that they can pay their most valuable employees millions. I think the Uptown ballpark would have done wonders for Downtown Oakland and probably would have been worth whatever it cost to build. But that was almost 10 years ago and city finances aren’t what they used to be.
This is absolutely right, Chris. But it’s not reflective of the economics of Major League Baseball. To compete you need a chance at higher revenues, which aren’t coming at the Coliseum. You need a place with buzz to attract casual fans. You can’t compete year in, year out with minor league prices, which is frankly what the A’s are forced to provide right now. If the new ballpark can’t happen in Oakland, it will happen somewhere else. That’s the brutal reality of it. If you’re okay with minor league baseball, I’m sure it can be made to happen in Oakland.
Chris– I took my family to Safeco a couple weeks ago for two A’- Mariners games (and to see the lovely city of Seattle). It cost us $60 each for seats in the first deck up from behind the dugout. In Oakland comparable seats cost $35.
@Chris “I am sorry, can someone explain to me exactly why the A’s need a new stadium?”
1. Because it does not generate enough revenue to consistently field competitive teams;
2. Because it provides a lousy fan experience;
3. Because it cannot host a major league ballclub on a break-even basis without massive subsidies from other MLB owners;
4. Because the situation will get progressively worse with the passage of time, and it takes a long time to plan, finance and build a new MLB venue.
“Someone mentioned that they were 25th in attendance. Who is 24th? Seattle with a fairly “new” stadium. They are drawing only 900 more fans on average.”
Obviously, “new ballpark” isn’t the only factor driving attendance. Team performance, market size, competitive and other factors are large considerations as well. But you are kidding yourself if you believe that, all other factors being equal, having a new ballpark doesn’t make a big difference in attendance. The notion defies logic and runs counter to available evidence.
Plus, as has been pointed out many, many times, it’s not all about attendance anymore, it’s about generating revenue. While new ballparks in Seattle and Pittsburgh can’t work miracles and draw huge crowds to watch losing teams, they are serving their purpose: Generating enough revenue that ownership can field a competitive team if they choose.
“The two realities here are that new ball parks have nothing to do with winning and losing, and new ball parks are all about making their owners more and more money.”
The reality is, owners making money has LOTS to do with winning and losing. While healthy revenue does not guarantee an owner will use it to field a competitive team, unhealthy revenue all but guarantees that they will not.
“While I don’t begrudge the owner of a professional sports team trying to make money, when an owner buys a team just because he thinks he can flip it and make a profit, then I have a problem with it.”
There is no evidence that this is the case with the A’s. Lew Wolff is retirement age, has plenty of money, and could make a lot more money in other ventures that would be far less painful and time consuming than trying to build a privately financed ballpark in California. I believe the A’s are a hobby for his golden years, and that he looks forward to attending games in the new ballpark as owner for years to come.
“The truth is that there is NOTHING wrong with Coliseum when it comes to playing and watching the game of baseball.”
The truth is there is LOTS wrong with the Coliseum when it comes to playing and watching the game of baseball, and one must be delusional not to see it. The seats are far from the field and the sight lines are uniformly terrible: Every time I buy a ticket which looks like a great seat on the seating map, I am disappointed when I actually get to the park. The atmosphere overall is gloomy and depressing. And the fact that the Coli generates almost no premium seat revenue means that the team cannot maintain long runs of success. Anytime I go and see a young rising star whose career I’d love to follow, I have to keep in mind it is almost certain he will be gone within a few years.
“Why is it Wrigley and Fenway are “historic” but old Tiger Stadium was a dump?”
This is a straw man: I have never seen anyone, anywhere, anytime, suggest that Tiger Stadium was a dump. Tiger Stadium was a gem. The problem with Tiger Stadium was it’s location. It was in a bad neighborhood which was not near anything else, a problem which Wrigley and Fenway do not share. It made far more sense for both the City and the team to put the new Tigers’ stadium in Foxtown, where it could contribute to building critical mass in the entertainment district that would make suburbanites feel safer and lure more people into the city.
@David–You don’t have to be an engineer to see that building a ballpark over 980 is essentially connecting the existing bridges. None of the spans required are over 60′, the same as a parking garage.
The A’s need a new ballpark. It is one of two existing stadia that baseball plays in a dual use facility that is not good for baseball or football. Oakland can offer something better than the Giants stadium in Downtown Oakland not far from the previously suggested Uptown site that can be financed with a revenue bond, does not require redevelopment money and does not need land condemnation. I am beginning to think that the A’s/MLB don’t have the money to build a new ballpark. They are using their exploits in Oakland, San Jose and Fremont as smokescreens. Each of the previous options had a problem that prevented them from building the park. Well 980 Park option does not have any problems. It is essentially a free site, on a freeway, near BART and Bus Rapid Transit, acres of parking a nearby entertainment district and a Downtown. San Jose, should ask them to “show me the money”.
The 980 ballpark is a very interesting idea, and would be pretty cool if completed, and might re-connect West Oakland to Downtown. However, I just can’t see a ballpark, which would house 35-40K people being built above a freeway in a post-9/11 era. No politician will want to take that risk as if something does happen, it would without a doubt ruin their careers.
Lot’s of good points from Chris(above). I also think there is nothing wrong with the Baseball experience at the Coliseum. I even enjoy the atmosphere. I live out of state and try to fly in for some games every year. The one major drawback is trying mentally to phase out Mt. Davis. Though that is hard to do….The Raiders did ruin this aspect of the park. If it wasn’t for that and being a co-tenant, I would of loved to see the Coliseum remodeled like Anaheim did with Angel Stadium, They did a superb job!
I know that is not possible with the A’s situation…So they do need their own stadium, but not for the reasons owners always cite…….Higher revenue streams to purchase MLB hyped up “Superstars”.
I really get tired of this kind of whining.
Baseball is a team game and is about team chemistry. I could care less about “Superstars” The A’s put out a very good and very enjoyable team every year. I believe they have a chance every year to make the playoffs and beyond.That’s what the fans should care about.
As for new stadiums..If every team had a new stadium and was doing great, somebody would still be ranked at the bottom(30). So rankings could be deceptive…. People always complain about smaller markets receiving revenue subsidies…so what ..those are the rules in Baseball. If they had a salary cap the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn’t be able to buy the teams they have, so they shouldn’t complain.
Got a little off track at the end.
@bg- you can’ t even get the leaders of Oakland to support your proposed plan and than somehow you turn this into a statement that the A’s don’t have the money to build a ballpark and they are using San Jose and Fremont’s as a ruse?? Wow- riddle me that
@all: if you haven’t read it, here’s the latest from baseballoakland on Wolff vs. Oakland — worth the read, whether you agree or not.
http://baseballoakland.blogspot.com/2011/05/wolff-holding-as-franchise-back.html
Not worth the read at all. The same whining from BBO.
A “c” chord on a piano, is the same three notes as a “c” chord on a guitar.
@Jeffrey – same three notes is just scratching the surface. The chord may be in inversion. Also, different articulation and timbre may make the chord sound very different.
@DavidL – I read that post. Lew is acting like a little kid, with his refusal to utter the words :’Victory Court’.
Did anyone else notice he didn’t completely close LA Dodgers (ownership) door?
David, yep… But it is still the same triad…
San Jose does not have to “show me the money” because of the private sector support as evidenced by SVLG’s letter.
A revenue bond? In Oakland? No way anyone can find investors to fund that thing in an Oakland stadium.
In San Jose a revenue bond can be floated with ease because the private sector will back it up in Silicon Valley. (I.E. Anaheim did for the Kings a few months back).
Lew Wolff is either getting a San Jose ballpark or the Los Angeles Dodgers. If he gets the Dodgers the A’s and the Rays owners get the Mets you can kiss the A’s and Rays good bye.
I know contraction is tough but at the same time it would seem Selig would rather play that game then deal with the Giants for San Jose. It goes to show how messsed up his priorities are.
Will Bud Selig croak already? I hate him more than I hate Al Davis!
@DavidL–another spot on post by BBO. The history and the facts are hard to dispute.
@A’s Fan–the only whining I’ve been hearing lately is from LW’s constant whining in the media.
@Sid–i don’t think contraction’s on the table. That’s just not right. Oakland should be given a fair chance to make this VC site happen with some help from MLB (better to give that money towards a park than the Giants?). I also hate BS more than Davis. He has dissed Oakland and the A’s for years. If he would of let the Dolich/Piccinini group buy the A’s in 2000, we’d be already playing in a new park somewhere in Oakland.
@jk- and last we heard from Dolich he proposed building another joint stadium for the Raiders and A’s—yup–that’s the type of owner we want—just what we need!
re: would of let the Dolich/Piccinini group
Hasn’t it already been discussed at length in here about how under-financed the Dolich group was? Am I missing something? Building another joint stadium for the A’ s and Raiders is a total non-starter
@pjk–under financed? Total bull crap. The Giants didn’t want a good ownership competing with them.
Piccinini’s wealth has gone up big time with his grocery empire in the 11 years since BS gave him the finger.
In an article in the Modesto Bee last year:
Piccinini’s group offered $122 million when the price was $120 million. Wolff was able to buy the team six years later for, reportedly, $165 million.
“I’d make that deal every day of the week,” Piccinini said. “I think baseball is as appealing as ever.”
Please, all the SJ rah rah’s on here read this article on Piccinini. I hope he’d still be interested in buying A’s if Wolff sells. He’s a class act like Walter Haas, and unlike the two frat buddies from Wisconsin.
http://www.modbee.com/2010/01/23/1019702/piccinini-reflects-on-as-deal.html
Here we go again.