Cue the weekly flamefest in the comments. In the Trib, Monte Poole writes:
They have become a wealthy guy (Wolff) and an obscenely wealthy guy (Fisher) who acquired a valuable property, neglected it outright and continue to reap profits. It’s the slumlord model.
At this point in the Wolff/Fisher tenure, perception tends to be reality. Local perception is that the team is neglected by ownership. National perception is that the team is stuck thanks to a bad stadium. Both are equally true. As much as Lew Wolff will point out the need for revenues, fans in general don’t care. They want marquee players. They want Billy Beane to swindle another GM before the non-waiver trade deadline every year. Fans also don’t care that the A’s payroll is $67 million and should’ve been close to $80 million if they had signed Adrian Beltre as desired. It’s about results. It’s about scoreboard.
The inconvenient truth is that the revenue problem does matter. Wolff/Fisher may be the 4th richest ownership in baseball, but if team revenues are near the bottom every year even when a handsome revenue sharing check is included, they can’t do anything other than operate the team within its means. That means the payroll will rarely be higher than $70 million and never beyond $90 million as long as this economic state lingers. When you’re getting swept by the 3X payroll Yankees, it’s not comforting. The worst part is that even if the tarps were ripped off the third deck and attendance rose to 2.5 million, the A’s would still need some $5-10 million in revenue sharing every year.
In the past we’ve discussed contention windows and how brief and sensitive they are for low revenue teams. Beane gambled on Eric Chavez and lost, and we suffered as a result. No position player in the organization has that franchise cornerstone look or appeal. The other poor, bad stadium team is Tampa Bay, and they have a franchise player in Evan Longoria who, fortunately for the Rays and Rays fans, did not break his back in the playoffs. They’ve had time to figure out whether a previous phenom like B.J. Upton is worth a big future contract (so far, no), and while they’re at it they might throw money at Matt Joyce instead when the time comes.
A's and Rays financials for the past dozen years. Data from Forbes.
In the chart above, the percentage of player expenses as part of revenue only rises above 60% once. That was the 2005 Athletics, another example of when a clearly overpaid journeyman lineup repeatedly failed to support a brilliant young pitching staff. The Rays shed so much payroll during the recent offseason that (unlike Forbes’ numbers above) they have a lower payroll than the A’s. They can do that because Longoria isn’t hamstringing the team fiscally as Chavez did and they didn’t lock up Upton, giving them flexibility. They’ve been able to play the rent-a-slugger game effectively, the same way the A’s did 5-10 years ago. Even with their recent success, the Rays aren’t taking any major risks, and have put themselves in the position to delay those kinds of decisions for at least another couple of years. Same risk-averse money strategy, different results, thanks to whomever is on the team.
Unfortunately, history is repeating itself regarding the A’s hitters. The notable exception is free agent-to-be Josh Willingham, who is, as I pointed out to Jeffrey the other day, 2nd on the West Coast in home runs. (In this era that has to be an achievement of sorts.) As long as the A’s have that severe pitching-hitting imbalance on the roster, and none of the pitchers is a 200 K/year flamethrower, there’ll be little to provide buzz for the media or casual fans.
There is a Cahill Street outside Diridon Station that ends at what would be the third base gate for Cisco Field. It’s not like Wolff and his marketing people don’t see the great marketing opportunity that awaits if they can get a ballpark in San Jose. Curiously, Trevor Cahill was signed through the 2015 season, with reasonable options for 2016 and 2017. Cisco Field can’t open before 2015. Beyond the value of a good young pitcher with cost controls in place, there is a definite effort to cultivate a star, and a uniquely Californian one at that. The thing is that ground balls aren’t sexy.
What does that have to do with Wolff and Fisher being slumlords? Nothing, because it’s a bad comparison. It’s not like Beane and David Forst aren’t trying to draft, trade for, and develop great hitters the same way a slumlord won’t fix the heating or plumbing in an apartment building. People often point to the Carlos Gonzalez trade debacle, but we’re nearly three years removed from that and we still don’t know who the real CarGo is, or if he can really hit a breaking pitch at sea level (kind of important at the Coliseum). Now we can point to what appears to be a systemic failure to develop hitters over the last several years, and that goes straight to the top. That may be incompetent, but not necessarily negligent. Does anyone honestly think that a guy of Billy’s reputation and ego doesn’t want to go out there and compete? Come on now. And I’ll go out on a limb and guess that no one within the organization was counting on the amount of regression shown by the A’s hitters collectively this season.
Are Wolff and Beane doing everything possible to win? Of course not. Are they doing everything within their means? I’d say so, for better or worse. For Sunday’s game, none of the concession stands on the plaza level other than the club area were open. It felt like a ghost town. Yet the stands elsewhere else weren’t busy enough to warrant staffing another stand. Just because the landlord isn’t gifting a granite and maple kitchen with stainless steel appliances to his tenants doesn’t mean he’s a slumlord. He’s working within his limitations. It’s not his fault the location sucks. Oh, and if you want those amenities, guess what? You’ll need to move into another building. He’s got one of those if you’re interested…
newballpark.org 
sounds like more of the typical “those meanie owners” nonsense. Does Poole talk about the A’s owners offering what have to be the cheapest prices in all of pro sports but the team still being near the bottom in attendance? Maybe the A’s owners should put the team up for sale and see who rushes to come in and buy them and donate a free ballpark to Oakland. In the early ’80s, the people of Baltimore shed their disdain all over Colts owner Robert Irsay. They wanted him to get out of town. He did. But he took the team with him. Maybe there’s a lesson there.
800+ days and we still don’t got a decision from bs regarding the tr.
this a’s franchise, a charter member of the american league in 1901 has been treated like crap by those who run mlb. i don’t understand how one of the most successful franchises, 3rd all time with 9 world series championships, in a major pro league can be looked upon as 2nd and maybe even a 3rd class org by the league itself.
how many ownerships have switched hands or had mlb brass take control over it this time period? rangers, mets, dodgers, astros and we the a’s get nothing, not even a hint on when an announcement can be made. the org and more importantly the fan base is basically in purgatory right now.
would this happen in any other league other than mlb?
“would this happen in any other league other than mlb?”
In any league other than MLB, the A’s would have left the Bay Area years ago.
re: would this happen in any other league other than mlb?
…Other leagues are not run by Bud “I’m too afraid to make a tough decision so I’ll do nothing at all” Selig.
gutless wonder!
Poole is spot on! The A’s ownership is negligent. Beane is watching soccer matches while his team suffers. we all know Beane says it doesn’t matter who the manager is, because he runs the team. He is the one who keeps Barton on the field. Ann Killion also wrote about the owners neglect for SI.com. If you want to sell and market a product, you don’t drive away fans like Wolff does. That is indisputable.
@ML – “they can’t do anything other than operate the team within its means.”
This is where we disagree. This is an excuse. They have “the means” to compete (spend money) but they choose not to.
@David – My point is that the money will be spent (and has been offered) as long as there’s a franchise hitter to build around. Unless Beane can swing a Volquez-Hamilton type trade, there’s no such hitter coming soon.
Just blew up Poole with a “nice” email. CC’d Purdy asking him to keep that garbage off the pages of the Mercury News.
That’s all I’m going to say about this. Go A’s and Go SJ!!
Every fanbase everywhere blames ownership for poor attendance. Talk about excuses. And if we’re going to call anyone a slumlord, it would be Oakland/Alameda County. They own the dump we’re being forced to “live” in.
.
letsgoas – I could not agree with you more. So sick of MLB neglecting the A’s. They’re another entity for which the title “slumlord” fits much better than it does for Wolff and Fisher.
re; The A’s ownership is negligent. ..They have “the means” to compete (spend money) but they choose not to.
…The A’s twice tried to sign Adrian Beltre to a competitive offer. He just didn’t want to come to Oakland. What are the A’s supposed to do when players don’t want to play to empty seats in the obsolete Coliseum? Can we really blame them? Once again, we’re hearing more pleas for the A’s to be run as a charity – let the owners fritter away their personal fortunes on a franchise ranked 27th in attendance, despite the cheapest tickets in pro sports. I believe that toward the end, the Haas grew frustrated with their charitable ownership of the A’s, feeling like they were offering something the East Bay didn’t seem to want.
ML and I and our little baseball convos… I think it was last year I told him that Ellis and Kouz had to go. I’d take Weeks and LaRoche everyday right now. I know, I know… That would be a marginal improvement at best. Still beats watching Kouzmanoff swing and pitches three feet outside and Ellis flailing at the plate.
.
Weeks can be a dynamic leadoff man in the mold of Rickey Henderson. Not to call him a Hall fo Famer in waiting or anything, I’d be happy with something north of Coco Crisp.
.
My current, frantic, not well reasoned hope, is that there are DFA’s waiting for Kouzmanoff and LaRoche after the road trip. Rosales, Sizemore and Weeks to the big club, Ellis nudged into retirement.
What I never understand about Pro-Oakland guys like Monte Poole is the fact not one person blames Oakland and Alameda County for the debacle the A’s are in right now.
They are the ones who went back on a “signed contract” with former owner Steve Schott to renovate the Coliseum for baseball only (much like Anaheim) in 1994 to turn around and build Mt. Davis.
The Steve Schott got 16M in a subsequent lawsuit from the County/City and lease concessions. The A’s relationship is not good with the City or the County for obvious reasons as anyone can see.
Therefore I ask from Fisher and Wolff’s perspective why should they pay to improve the Coliseum when the County/City own it and they have a bad relationship with them?
Why promote anymore than you have to when you know full well your helping the City/County whom you have a bad relationship with and have shown “they cannot be trusted”.
This is a big reason why the A’s want to leave to San Jose amongst others of course.
Call Al Davis to have it improved as the County/City decided years ago to deal with him instead of the A’s who play far more games than the Raiders.
To get a ballpark done, there needs to be a private-public partnership and simply put Oakland/Alameda County do not care about the A’s and are content to let them go.
If there was any kind of partnership there the A’s would have a new stadium already in Oakland as next year the Coliseum will be the last NFL/MLB shared stadium in the United States….that is straight sad.
It is San Jose or bust for the A’s….
re: What I never understand about Pro-Oakland guys like Monte Poole is the fact not one person blames Oakland and Alameda County for the debacle the A’s are in right now.
…Of course not. People can only claim precious victimhood if they blame the “rich meanie owners” instead of the people who should be blamed – the duly elected public officials. It’s all about class warfare, you know? Why take personal responsibility when we can point fingers at those mean rich people? It’s all THEIR fault….Oakland’s strategy seems to try to cage the A’s into Oakland so the owners have no other options. But like Wolff said: He can’t be forced to build in Oakland. And the stalemate, led by gutless Selig, continues.
But can you explain ….
why the previous ownership somehow had much better attendance even in this location the pro-San Jose crowd (most of the people on this board apparently) says “sucks”?
Nothing to do with threatening to move for years now, denigrating the fan base, right?
The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum is a fine location for the Raiders and A’s.
Do the A’s need a new stadium? Yes? But how about making the current experience as good as possible for the fans – the only people who really matter in this equation – while you work for a new stadium in OAKLAND?
@A’s observer – If you can quantitate what percentage of fans are not coming due to them being “denigrated” as opposed to the team simply not being good, I’m all ears. Unless you’re conflating the two, which is silly. What kind of fans are we if we can’t stick it out through the tough times?
Agreed with David–another great spot on article by Poole. I just wrote him and told him to keep up the good work and to ignore LW apologists like TonyD.
Yes, threatening to move a whole 30 miles away. If Oakland really wants the A’s it is going to have to pony up general funds for construction of the ballpark to compensate for the lack of corporate support, something that is not a problem in San Jose. Instead, Oakland and pro-Oakland columnists expect the donation of a $500 million ballpark to Oakland. ie, let the owners spend away their personal fortunes so Oakland can have the ballpark to which it feels entitled.
I wish people would stop arguing back and forth about current and projected “attendance.” What the A’s need is higher REVENUE, which no longer correlates directly with attendance figures.
.
Attendance stinks right now in Oakland, and for the most part it has always stunk. If the Overstocked Mausoleum was located in the middle of San Jose, attendance would stink there, too. If the A’s get a new state of the art ballpark, attendance will go way up, regardless of whether the park is located in Oakland, SJ, or some other part of the Bay Area.
.
The reason Wolff is focused on San Jose is revenue, not attendance. Nobody seriously believes that a San Jose location would mean huge numbers of people in the seats every night above what a new Oakland stadium would have. But SJ does offer lots of potential Silicon Valley corporate sponsorships and buyers of premium seats. That’s what makes it more attractive to the A’s than Oakland. Unfortunately, since the Silicon Valley corporate and individual wealth is located more in the north part of the county than in the City of San Jose itself, it’s also the main reason why the Giants are clinging tightly to their territorial rights.
@ML – I honestly believe “they” knew Adrian would not sign with them. The A’s are doing just enough to make it seem as if they care about competing in Oakland.
We are all A’s fans … no one here really believes Beane is as motivated and engaged as he was (2000-2006). Soon as Beane got his percentage of the team, he hasn’t been the same.
@pjk: I am an Oakland sports fan. If the team moved to Hayward and were still the “Oakland A’s”, I wouldn’t bat an eye.
re: I honestly believe “they” knew Adrian would not sign with them.
…Proof, please.
@David – I have a problem with that notion. The pro-Oakland crowd already hates Wolff and he knows that. Why would he even bother having Beane bid for Beltre in the first place, or twice in two years? If Wolff really wanted to go the “Major League” route he’d sell everyone and drop to a $30 million payroll like the Pirates. Why isn’t he doing that? The payroll is $67 million, and with Beltre signed it would’ve gone to $75 million. Even if they traded a bunch of guys by the deadline the pro-rated payroll would still be around $50-55 million. Are you telling me that they’re passing up $20+ million to save face with the Oaklanders who already hate them? Keep in mind that the A’s bid on Beltre before last summer’s team financial leaks.
@Simon94022- San Jose is the “Captial of Silicon Valley” therefore it does not matter that all the businesses are on the north part of the county. How is that an unfortunate thing? Those corporations you speak of are far closer to Downtown San Jose than San Francisco by far…So I do not know what you are referring to.
The Giants regardless of where those corporations are in the county would still be clinging to their unjustified rights.
I disagree with your statement that San Jose would have equal or less fans than a Oakland ballpark as well. Oakland has never drawn well even before Mt. Davis over the years (The Haas years were an abberation not the norm). This plus even when they were good it did not matter.
In San Jose the Sharks get 18k of fans per game! More than the A’s right now. The A’s would average 30k in San Jose for years and make $$.
So I ask all A’s fans why build in a place when you:
A. Distrust the County/City who have shown bad faith over the years
B. There is a massive historical data to show fans do not care in that area
C. You are building 12 miles away from the #1 ballpark in MLB
D. You have no public $$ to help subsidize the lack of a corporate base
Why I ask would anyone in their right minds build “anywhere” under these conditions?
San Jose has a City that wants to deal, historical data to show fans care (sharks, sabercats, earthquakes etc..), 50 miles way from the #1 ballpark in MLB, huge corporate base to help build it privately.
This is a no-brainer from a business perspective…….I am shocked so many fans think having a team is a right…it is a privelege.
@ML – I believe the doing just enough to stay .500 isn’t to satisfy A’s fans. They do it for the other owners. The bidding for Beltre is done to make the other owners think that they can’t get it done in Oakland. Fortunately, an agent recently was quoted as saying that “card” the A’s play is not the whole truth. Yes, the A’s need a new stadium. But “pissing where you sleep” is not a strong marketing tool.
ML — How did you make the calculations for these statements?
“The worst part is that even if the tarps were ripped off the third deck and attendance rose to 2.5 million, the A’s would still need some $5-10 million in revenue sharing every year.”
“That means the payroll will rarely be higher than $70 million and never beyond $90 million as long as this economic state lingers.”
I just don’t see any factual proof for these quantitative statements.
re: But “p***ing where you sleep”
…shall I again list what the A’s landlords have already done to the franchise – public overtures of disdain and apathy toward the A’s – or do we not need that repeated?
re: The bidding for Beltre is done to make the other owners think that they can’t get it done in Oakland..
So if the A’s don’t make a bid, it shows they don’t care. If they DO make a bid and the player doesn’t sign, that just shows that the A’s are disingenuous and really don’t care. OK.
@David – If that were true, they wouldn’t need to pad the payroll to $67 million. They could leave it at $40-50 million and pocket the change. Even though the Pirates got exposed during the financial leaks, guess how much their payroll rose this year? $3 million. Wolff doesn’t need to do anything else to “prove” his case. It’s self-evident.
@WEP – Follow along closely. An additional 800k fans x $25 each (very generous given the discounting) = $20 million. The A’s revenue sharing receipt is typically around $25-30 million every year. So they’d still get $5-10 million from MLB. They’ve been on welfare ever since the revenue sharing system was put in place.
As for payroll, look at the chart above. The A’s went over 60% of revenue once – during Wolff’s first year of ownership. Most of the time it’s around 45-55 depending on arbitration years for players. Last year’s total revenue was $161 million, this year it will probably stay the same. 55% of $161 million is $88.6 million. Drop 10% of that figure due to benefits and such and the actual payroll is around $80 million.
One other thing – the scheduling of the revenue sharing receipt is such that the A’s get it in December, well after the season is over and all auditing is complete. That means they can only apply the money towards next year’s payroll or draft signees. That’s why the A’s went after Ynoa, Chapman, and Iwakuma. They’re trying to use the money.
@sid – “the Haas years were an abberation not the norm.” Really? I’m sort of confused. The pro-SJ crowd continually beats up on the lack of attendance yet we also hear how the Oak city gov’t sucks. Which is it? It’s the same tired old comments regarding attendance with no basis. Do you not think that some of those big drawing years during the Haas era were due to different factors, such as big names, winning on the field, great fan experience, marketing, etc.? It was the exact opposite of what it is now. Let me ask you a question. If Albert Pujols and Roy Halladay were on the A’s are you telling me that they’d be drawing 18k per game? If the A’s were continually above .500 and competing they would be drawing 18k per game? If ownership actually gave confidence to the fans that they were staying and were proud of their city they would be drawing 18k per game? This is the only business I have ever heard where fans (the customers) are being blamed. It’s quite ludicrous to read actually because the arguments are contradictory and have zero basis. Is it the city gov’t, the lack of fans, the lack of corporate base, Mt. Davis, which one is to blame? I could care less about the “mlb median” argument. Have you looked at the 1970’s? The bay area should have never had 2 teams because the population was too small. However, as bad as the attendance numbers look for the A’s during those years, if you look real close, the A’s grabbed a majority of the market share over the Giants during the winning years. It wasn’t until the late 70’s that the A’s turnout became extremely bad RELATIVE to the size of the market available. But wow! If you look at the 1980’s the season ticket sales grew despite the fact that the bay area’s population was still too small for 2 teams (in my opinion). My father-in-law lives in Giant territory and recalls that there were way more A’s fans in his area than Giant fans during that time. Do you think that might have something to do with winning and the overall fan experience and excitement? Bottom line — If the team is attractive and plays well and the fan experience is there the team will draw well. I find it hard to believe that, yes even in Oakland, a new ballpark would attract fans for any length of time if the team is not winning and has no big and exciting names. Lastly, the pro-SJ crowd seems to perpetually dismiss the idea that the threats of moving and general lack of interest in the city have any bearing on attendance. I can only compare it to having a wife who tells you that you’ll do for now but the minute a younger, tanned, muscular guy comes along she’s gone. Some may say that the guy should try to win back the wife so as to change her mind, which I don’t disagree. But, at some point, I would think any normal man would lose interest altogether.
I’m going to utilize a little comparison to the endless comments about Oakland expecting a free stadium and the owners “donating” their wealth, etc. I would compare this to the owners telling Oakland fans, “sure, even though we hate you and can’t wait to move, come on out and spend your money on us. Oh, forget that we don’t have recognized superstars and the fan experience sucks, just come on out and spend. Oh, no, this turnout is horrible. It’s the lack of a fanbase. See, Bud, there are no fans to speak of in Oakland so we need to move.” Or…. (wife to husband), “You are terrible in bed and I hate you for ruining my life. Your ugly and I can’t stand you. I will leave you when I find my handsome prince. Now come on over here and make love to me.”
@Columbo – re: last your point. Its not “you’ll do for now but the minute a younger, tanned, muscular guy comes along she’s gone.” Its one specific guy that she/they want: San Jose. Unfortunately, San Jose is married to the SF Giants and they are fighting to keep the marriage in tact.
@David – Better analogy is that San Jose was forced into an arranged marriage and they want it annulled. There is no “trying to work it out.”
ML — The Wilpon piece in the New Yorker says that 200K more fans at Citi = $25 million in revenue. That would mean that 800K there yields $100 million. I know tickets are cheaper in OAK, but the A’s would only make $25-$30 more with 800K fans a difference of $70-$75 million versus NYC? You aren’t factoring in concessions and parking for one thing. I think the actual number is somehwere higher than $30 million but less than $100 million.
@David – Both Wolff and SJ are cool with the Lil’ Giants sticking around. no harm there.
@WEP – The Mets! Are you freaking kidding me? Most of the unsold inventory for the Mets is really expensive seats. It’s the exact opposite for the A’s. Average ticket price for the A’s is $26, frequently discounted by 30-70% or more. Concessions are baked in for many levels and promotions. Parking revenue would increase but only to the tune of $4.5 million for the year. (800k fans – 20% BART usage / 2.5 fans per car * $17 per car) Don’t insult me by not doing the math and making me do it for you.
@ML – What about the children (Single A Giants)? The relationship isn’t abusive…. stay together for the kids! LOL
re: Better analogy is that San Jose was forced into an arranged marriage and they want it annulled. There is no “trying to work it out.”
…Thank you. MLB’s dealings basically ban San Jose from ever having Major League Baseball without any input whatsoever from San Jose. But the amazing part is that so many people don’t have a problem with stripping away the right of self determination of 1 million people in San Jose on this matter. MLB basically ignores the emergence of San Jose as a major city and pretends it is still a Frisco suburb.
“San Jose is the ‘Captial of Silicon Valley’ therefore it does not matter that all the businesses are on the north part of the county. How is that an unfortunate thing? Those corporations you speak of are far closer to Downtown San Jose than San Francisco by far…So I do not know what you are referring to. The Giants regardless of where those corporations are in the county would still be clinging to their unjustified rights.”
.
@Sid: My point was that it’s the Silicon Valley wealth that draws Wolff to the South Bay, not the number of people in San Jose or their supposed ability to generate vastly higher attendance figures than any other Bay Area city. South Bay corporate and personal wealth translates into higher potential revenue, even assuming attendance would be the same in both the South Bay and the East Bay.
.
But the situation is complicated by the fact that the major Silicon Valley towns are north of SJ and have always been the most thoroughly Giants-oriented parts of Santa Clara County. This is the gold mine that Neukom’s group bought and Lew Wolff is now trying to wrest away from them.
@ML–i just checked out the Mets tix and they are pretty high overall, even after 2 years of price reductions I read. We do have it pretty good here. Enjoy it while it last cuz tix at VC or Diridon will be in line with AT&T, which are kind of high but not like in NY.
@ Dude – you are spot on. The city of Oakland is to blame for the a’s dire situation. I mean agreed to Al coming back (and shafted its citizens with PSLs)? What city is planning a renovation w/ the Raiders already while neglecting the a’s? What city has done basically nothing for the past 15 years while knowing the dire need of a new A’s facility? I mean, man even the court system agreed that the city of Oakland was negligent of the A’s when constructing Mt. Davis.
In general, MP has always been a Beane hater….look back at all his articles and has never once said anything positive about the current ownership. Worse yet, he uses emotions and general conspiracy theories and speculation to back up his words, as opposed to columnists like TK who use actual data. He’s a wannabe East Bay ratto deserved of the sister city reputation that Oakland has.
I also find it hilarious that Pro-Oaklanders are defending Neukum, the same man that wants to drive the A’s out of the Bay Area altogether. And really, Beane is trying brown nose other owners by soliciting offers on free agents and driving up the price? Umm…ya sure.
This whole discussion is so Bay Area– it’s less about Oakland vs. San Jose than it is the techie libertarians who dominate Silicon Valley vs. the progressives who thought they had control because they win the local elections but then found that money is more powerful.
@ST–not quite 15 years of the city doing nothing. I admit that Elihu Harris, then J. Brown after him, didn’t do much for the A’s and a new ballpark, but Dellums wanted to and Wolff told him more or less to go eff off. Now Quan wants to make VC a reality and LW hasn’t even acknowledged that she’s their new mayor. Trying to buy anti-stadium guy Perata election, an unprecedented $25k, just shows LW’s true intentions from day one: out of the O and down to San Ho.
@ JK – wanting to do something and doing something is entirely different. Dellums didn’t do squat, not even an EIR. As Quan has shown, he is equivalent to Elihu and Brown in that regards. I’ll give the new mayor that even though it is really a futile last second hail mary attempt. If buying $100million dollars of land in fremont doesn’t show you that he was trying to stay in the East Bay, i don’t know what will…
JK: How much general fund money has Quan proposed be used to help pay for construction of a new ballpark in Oakland? Or does she expect Wolff and Fischer to give Oakland a new ballpark for free?
Good to the the same crap can be flung….
It’s a shame that an otherwise intelligent website can be so blinded to the events of the last several years. You guys are so thrilled with the idea of a baseball park in SJ that you gloss over the misery that the current ownership has laid on this team and its fans. Tell me why any free agent would want to come to Oakland after the GM publicly states that the stadium is terrible? Tell me why fans should be blamed for low attendance when Wolff publicly states that he does not care if the current fans follow the team to SJ, that they will just pick up new fans down there? No, it is obvious that these owners are NOT doing everything within reason to win. And worse, they are the only business that I can think of that tries to make its product LESS appealing. Yes, they went through the motions last year in trying to improve the team. Unfortunately, they turned the A’s into an unexciting, underachieving team managed by people with no clue. If they had really wanted to, they could have promoted the team, the city and the fans and they would be getting off their asses and actually doing some creative, meaningful marketing.
Baseball is supposed to be fun but all this crap is making lose interest in a team I have supported and followed loyally for over 30 years. But that is exactly what Wolff and company want, isn’t it?
@Jerry – Here’s what I wrote:
A couple months ago I got a request from a MBA grad student about sports economics. He had worked for a university athletic department and a MLB franchise. In turn I asked him about the secret to getting casual fans. It really comes down to three things:
Cry denigration all you want. It’s a convenient excuse that can’t be easily quantified.
What’s this!? The Coliseum is terrible? I would have never known that if not for BB. Shame on him! And shame on BB for trying to sign Beltre and improve the A’s! Shame, shame, shame!
@ML – “convenient exuse.”
I don’t mean to sound combative but have you studied the A’s under the Haas era? You can certainly find evidence that they were underwater for a long time, in fact, you will clearly see that they didn’t turn a profit for 7 years. There is a factual account of the new Haas ownership in 1980 when they first took over — … They walked into Finley’s old office and found a shoebox with 75 index cards with names, addresses, and phone numbers. These turned out to be the season ticket holders. Right away they hired a sales staff that immediately began literally knocking on the doors of businesses and not too long afterward they had 3,000 season ticket holders. This is before the ’81 season began. Haas didn’t want to be involved in the day-to-day operations and he appointed his son and son-in-law to run things. Those in charge of the organization said that they utilized the marketing skills they had learned to promote the team. Yes, they lost money. They also made money. Most importantly, they put a product on the field that was winning with fan support and could have been a dynasty. Haas bought the team for 12.7 million and sold it for 85 million. He might have broken even at the end of the day for all I know when you count everything that he put in. These actual numbers are hard to find. What I do know is that, when you put the effort into something, more often than not you receive returns. A business owner knows he has to spend money to make money. Can we truly say that the current ownership has honestly tried to promote the Oakland A’s? Or are they doing the bare bones minimum so that they can get the nod for SJ? My biggest problem with this whole affair is that the fans (or lack thereof) are getting blamed. How can the fanbase be blamed IF it is true that ownership is not giving the effort? Can you honestly blame a fan who chooses to go to AT&T park to watch the world champs rather than the A’s? If you were an honest A’s fan back in the late 80’s / early 90’s you would see that this is the exact opposite. A’s fans were everywhere in those days and I believe that ownership effort is what makes the difference now. I understand that there are die-hard SJ supporters but quit blaming the “east bay” fanbase for the A’s woes. I grew up in the east bay as an A’s fan and I know that the fanbase exists. Ownership has to take some responsibility for this whole mess. Quit putting the blame on east bay fans, businesses, or Bud Selig. If the owners don’t want to spend money to make money in Oakland, I can only conclude that they just don’t want Oakland and never have period. What bothers me the most? The hypocrisy. Case in point — If a pro-Oakland fan posts the good turnout for Warriors games, the SJ crowd dismisses it as nothing, i.e. it’s the only game in town so what do you expect, etc. Yet, somehow, the Sharks (the only game in town also) is used over and over as “proof” that SJ is a better place for the A’s. Really?
I was so, so glad the A’s did not get Adrian Beltre!! The A’s are too cool for him. He wouldn’t of fit in. He is a fool and overated!! Why is he a Marquee player?? because the media tells us he is?? just because he commands a lot of money??
Wolff, Fisher, Beane and Geren have been getting creamed in the media this week. Its about time too!!
Lew said it all … Geren is doing a “fantastic” job managing the A’s.
You mean the “East Bay” media David. Yet after all the bashing, you would still want Wolff to privately finance a yard in Oakland? OK!
@Columbo – I’m not picking on the East Bay. I’m looking at ALL A’s fans in the Bay Area – East Bay, South Bay, North Bay, SF/Peninsula. We’re all not pulling our weight. I go to 30 games a year. I wish I could go to 40-50. I wish I tried harder to pull large groups of friends in but it become defeating after a while, so it’s only 2-3 times a year. They’d much rather go to China Basin. No amount of A’s marketing is going to help that. Winning might. Names on the roster might.
Ownership definitely plays a part. They aren’t blameless. Their nods to history are perfunctory at best. They should staff better. They should never have gotten rid of Fanfest. All of these are valid criticisms and more. My argument has always been that there’s plenty of blame to go around – ownership, city/county, fans, media. If everyone sits around blaming everyone else for what’s ailing the A’s guess what happens? Nothing. Is San Jose the perfect answer? Not in the “homegrown fans are here sense.” Yes in the “it’s the best and perhaps only way to pay for the ballpark” sense. I’m a pragmatist. If it seems like me and others keep belaboring the question of how it gets paid for in Oakland, that’s because there’s something to it. And it hasn’t been addressed in the slightest yet. So pardon me for being skeptical. Just as you can be skeptical of ownership’s motives, I can do the same about Oakland and the East Bay’s ability to pull off a deal. Is that fair or not?
BTW – I’ve said before that an owner like Wally Haas comes along once in a lifetime. Any comparisons to other owners are patently unrealistic. Ask yourself this – why didn’t Wally Haas III take over for his dad?
@ Columbo – You should stop fantasizing the reincarnation of Haas (RIP). He was a known philanthropist willing to lose money on the A’s. Those types of owners don’t exist anymore. Has the present ownership tried to promote the A’s? Well, I’m no Wolff apologist, but i see billboards plastered around where i commute everyday, not to mention big ads online. Did they make a concerted effort on FAs to drum up excitement? Sure, i think so. Could of they done better? Yes, if they had the revenue stream of say the Yankees, Angels, or Giants. They make ado with a specific budget because unfortunatley sports is still a business or are you hoping for a McCourt / Wilpon caretaker and turmoil?
In terms of the fans getting blamed, we’re not saying that all. The city and government of Oakland are the caretaker of the A’s and what have they done with the franchise for the past 15 years? Nada. While they kiss Al Davis’ arse time and time again and have even started negotiating on a new stadium, they have barely even budged on an EIR, one that is apparently in limbo with other sites as well with no money to back it up. Don’t get confused with the blame to a’s fan who are caught up in the crossfire and have become indifferent to the whole affair.
It;s also funny you cite the W’s, who during the Cohan ownership was the epitome of cheapness and stupidity and was chastise constantly by the media as well as the fanbase, yet they constantly sold out even with chokers, thugs, and selfish players. Go figure huh? As far as the Sharks, for a 4th sports tier sunbelt and albeit somewhat unpopular sports, it is a bit surprising the sharks have maintained their attendance momentum. Basketball in general is almost equivalent to Baseball in terms of popularity, so you’re kinda comparing apples to oranges.
It’s funny how Oakland supports continually try to bash SJ proponents and make feeble arguments without an actual business plan (with $$$) to support a new facility. Sorry, but the world we live in has restricted budgets and cities can’t afford to give charity to these franchises anymore. Would you support a oakland specific tax on its citizens just to ensure the A’s stay? If you know a solution to this, please let us hear instead of continually trying to “study”.
Maybe Wolff and Fischer can sell to someone else who also would not be willing to donate a $500 mill ballpark to Oakland. so the East Bay media can bash them, next. Still waiting to hear about well-to-do Bay Area folks who see a privately financed Oakland ballpark as a profitable idea and want to buy the A’s. The silence is deafening. Anybody ready to do this project? Anybody? Bueller?…
@Raider Tony – Ann Killion ripped them in Sports Illustrated. Last time i checked, SI wasn’t an East Bay corporation.
Since when is Ann Killion ALL THE MEDIA!? Ken Rosenthal anyone?
…Eventually, we could get a situation where no one is willing to own an MLB team in Oakland. The NHL recently had this situation with no one willing to own the NHL franchise in Atlanta. The NHL has found a solution, though: The franchise is being sold and relocated to Winnipeg, Canada. No more need to bash the meanie owners in Atlanta.
Maybe Sports Illustrated, the Examiner and Oakland Tribune should get together and buy the A’s and finance a ballpark in Oakland. Put their money where their mouths are.
Hey Columbo: ” He might have broken even at the end of the day for all I know when you count everything that he put in.”
.
If you look at the Blue Ribbon report that eld to the establishment of revenue sharing you will find that overall, Haas lost money on the A’s. It is one of the key findings of that report.
ST, ” they have barely even budged on an EIR.”
.
The problem in oakland isn’t that the City Government of today is not doing anything. They are, in fact, doing things to try and keep the team. They are paying for the EIR without any guarantee that it will result in a stadium. That is something.
.
A lot of the debate on here is awesome, on point and constructive. A couple of things that keep coming up that are completely irrelevant… the “success” of the Haas years, what Oakland did 15 years ago, what Lew Wolff did in 2004, etc.
.
In short, we are where we are. What is important is moving forward. I reference things like attendance in the context of building a new stadium. As ML’s latest piece points out, that is some looking back that is entirely relevant. Let’s stop with the looking back that isn’t.
…in case anyone was still wondering whether Oakland could help pay for a ballpark for the A’s, check this news blurb out from today:
(KGO) – Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has proposed cutting 14 of the city’s 18 branch libraries to help balance the city’s budget. If the proposal is approved, the group says as many as 192 jobs will be cut.
Could we have a moratorium on the budget stuff? The only thing that matters for Oakland is whether or not redevelopment continues to exist. General finances are immaterial.
I agree with you somewhat R.M. But how much redevelopment money is it going to take to acquire properties/relocate businesses, make the necessary infrastructure improvements and (most importantly) finance a large portion of the ballpark? Redevelopment money isn’t free and still needs to be payed back. Would Oakland (or any municipality for that matter) be willing to issue around $1 billion in redevelopment bonds just for an A’s ballpark when the rest of the city is imploding around them? Talk about political suicide.
@ML–Agreed. General finances are immaterial, it’s the RDA and I hope they exist to some extent for Oakland and SJ. I can pull stories all day, all night on SJ’s budget woes too, but I haven’t. All cities are in deep doodoo financially, from affluent towns, poor towns and all in between.
@TonyD-reading your posts is pure entertainment and mostly, as you like to say, a lot of Bull Sh*t. You are on the edge of “imploding” I think if SJ isn’t awarded the A’s.
@ jk—and you are the voice of reason as well as the face of fact based wisdom who will accept the A’s relocation to San Jose as in the best interests of the team….and I haven’t even had a drink yet—
I’ll take the above nonsense as a compliment. 😉
To Marine Layer: (a belated response from A’s observer):
Marine Layer: you’re obviously an intelligent guy.
You know perfectly well that the factors that have been cited by many people many times have had an impact on attendance. Can I quantify down to a range of say a 1,000? No. No one can.
But clearly, you know that the spectre of the team moving for years now has had an impact on attendance.
@A’s observer – You’re right. That doesn’t make it any less of an excuse, just like weather, the condition of the stadium, all that stuff. It’s one more reason not to go and as much as it reflects poorly upon ownership, it reflects just as badly on the fanbase. Do you think MLB really cares why fans don’t go? They only care that they don’t go, that’s it. If you’re looking for some arbiter to give A’s fans a break because of ownership you’re not going to find much.
JK – you so selectively forget one important detail. Wolff will privately finance the stadium in SJ, whereas Oakland will have to publicly fund it and the land for it. So it does make sense about questioning RDA as well as the General Fund. Yes, SJ has budget woes, but SJ has almost all the land in place regardless of the RDA in the form of Diridon JPA and Wolf has already said he would be willing to buy the remaining parcels if need be. What is the plan for Oakland?
A’s Observer,
Since the A’s will be moving 30 miles within the same metro, I disagree that this has had any affect on attendance.
Compare AT&T Park and its surroundings to the Coliseum: that’s what really has hurt attendance.
BTW – I’ll be going going with one of my colleagues who was a previous season ticket holder and just disgusted with the a’s situation being in such turmoil (not related the ownership) to the upcoming KC games. We figure we can get seats just about anywhere….so where’s the best place to buy Diamond/club seats? The scalpers?
got this from CBS Sports via Baseball Oakland:
“Sources inside the Athletics clubhouse say the lack of communication is endemic, with few players understanding moves or their roles. Outfielders Josh Willingham and David DeJesus were supposed to comprise a consistent middle of the order, yet two people pointed to Willingham and DeJesus each sitting for two games in a three-game stretch since May 20. Another person noted that Willingham sat Monday in Anaheim after homering Sunday in San Francisco.
“Guys start to hit, and it’s almost like, we’ll put him into a slump,” one player said.”
A Player thinks that the management doesn’t want guys to start hitting?
…Sounds like a conspiracy! So what would you like to see happen? The A”s get sold and the new owners don’t want to donate a ballpark to Oakland either?
Another blown lead against Boston, this is getting ridiculous. Watching this team is painful; i don’t enjoy it. Give me the pathetic 1979 team over these guys. Bigger and better things were about to come up like Billy Ball and Finley selling to Haas. We haven’t hit rock bottom yet with this group.
@pjk–who says a new ownership group won’t want to build and pay for a new ballpark? Put them up for sale asap and lets see what happens. You will get a lot of interest. BB can cash out his share and watch soccer full time. SAnd btw, the Dodgers need that great baseball guy LW to save their sorry asses.
@jk-usa – There’s a major problem with that line of thinking. Buying the A’s plus footing the bill for Victory Court will cost over $800 million. Both the Mets and Dodgers will cost slightly more with much better revenue potential and lower risk. Why would any investor bid on the such a risky venture as the A’s/VC when a better deal is available elsewhere and sooner?
re: who says a new ownership group won’t want to build and pay for a new ballpark?
…Oakland’s expectation that the A’s owners would donate a $500 mill ballpark, and the fact that Wolff and Fischer don’t want to do that, have been known for quite some time. Who has come forward willing to meet Oakland’s terms? Nobody. Zilch. Any well-to-do folks can come forward and make an offer for the team. (Remember when Steve Young and co tried buy the 49ers when they weren’t for sale?) Don’t hold your breath waiting for a Knight in Shining Armor to rescue the A’s for Oakland.
@ML The only way the A’s are for sale is that if San Jose is 100% dead.
.
Then that paves the way for new ownership to buy. This would big time help the VC cause, despite what the San Jose pundits say. Any other market outside the Bay Area would be significantly more risky with less possible revenue streams that even Oakland has.
OT, but all Oakland sports fans will just love this video: Rebels of Oakland. Great memories of those glorious 70’s A’s and Raiders championship teams.
@Dinosaur Jr. – Other markets are only riskier (arguable) if they, like California, have to rely on private financing for a ballpark. If even half can be publicly financed it could wipe away whatever economic advantages Oakland has as part of the Bay Area.
and jk fails to answer ML’s question–what a suprise
But where is that? What city has steppend up and offered pubic money in this economy? and would mlb approve a move to a smaller market than KC OR TB? Its been we’ll documented how much lew cannot use the “give us what we want or else” ploy for leverage.
…We can expect places such as San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas to express an interest in the A’s, especially if all they have to do is put up $200 mill in public funds (which is $200 mill more than Oakland is willing to spend). If MLB tries to impose VC on Wolff, he’ll probably put the team up for sale and after no local buyers emerge, he’ll then be free to shop the team to investors who would move the team. The A’s meet all the same relocation requirements as the Expos: Inadequate stadium; no commitment for public funds for a new ballpark, weak fan support. San Antonio is an even bigger city than San Jose. Once again, San Jose losing does not = Oakland winning.
Portland is NOT putting public money into the park. Its just as anti as california. San antonio? Maybe, but doubful. Las vegas? Get real dude. MLB is never going there, but is a nice empty talking point like contraction. The only public money deal that got apporved since 2008 was miami and that took some serious deception. Ask zigi wilf how well getting public funds is going.
.
Plus there is 2 things these places lack, a willing local buyer from these other markets and a workable temp facility. And all of these markets are smaller with less corprate support than what exists in a shared bay area.
.
Pjk you keep waying there is no “white knight” for oakland. And I say there is no where for the a’s to go. Who is right? Only time will tell……
Portland/Oregon had a public financing plan ready in 2004. It would have covered $115M, not exactly half of $450M, but still a chunk of change. I believe that bill passed and that $115M is still technically available for a number of years, but I don’t feel like researching it right now.
.
San Antonio was working on a plan more recently than that, to lure the Marlins, and it included public financing.
.
Really, it seems to me the goal of Bud Selig is not really to go after any of these other markets, but to have either Oakland or San Jose fall by the wayside so that he can say to either Lew Wolff or Bill Neukom “This is the only option. Make it work.”
.
At that point, Wolff and FIsher could choose to sell (assuming it is Oakland or bust) and it could get interesting with out of state competition.
MLB teams don’t become available very often. And Selig already told Wolff to start looking at other places when the Fremont foot-dragging began. Don’t think for a minute there will be no place for the A’s to go if Oakland doesn’t work and San Jose continues to be banned from hosting Major League Baseball.
@pjk – Here we go again with the weak fan support argument as if that is really the crux of the issue. I am hearing over and again how “today’s MLB” does not depend on attendance, it depends on sales of the premium luxury suites to corporations. If that’s true why keep bringing up weak fan support? You’re trying to paint this picture that the east bay doesn’t have fan support but somehow SJ does. If anything I would agree that SJ has more corporate support for the luxury boxes because it is closer to all those corporations in Santa Clara. You simply dismiss the facts about how fan support has actually dwindled. You chalk up opinions about this as conspiracy theories. This is a serious question. Are you actually telling me that, in the late 80’s / early 90’s when the A’s had a good turnout, that this didn’t have something to do with winning, big names, ownership, marketing, etc.? Are you actually saying that LW/JF have tried to win fan support in the east bay? Even in the Schottmann winning years the turnout wasn’t horrible, despite the fact that the A’s were competing with a newly built AT&T park and Barry Bonds in an otherwise smallish population base. C’mon dude. I would have more respect for people who said that LW/JF is just not interested in Oakland because they believe they will make way more money in SJ because of the R/E development that will be included with it. I have a very good friend who is totally pro-SJ. He attended SJSU and played ball there. He doesn’t try to blame anything, least of all the east bay fans, for this predicament. He is forthright and admits that this whole thing was planned long ago and it’s all about profits. Personally, I have nothing against SJ. I have a problem with what appears to me to be a slimy way to move from Oakland. Blame, blame, blame the area for lack of support. Publically declare over and again that you want to move to SJ, remove the most inexpensive seats available for families on a budget, make the fan experience the worst in MLB with shitty concessions, stop fanfest, have your players sign autographs in Silicon Valley. When the turnout is terrible then blame the lack of support in the east bay. The truth for me is that I have no problem if they move to an awesome stadium anywhere in the bay area. I could care less because I would still attend games. The thing for me is the propaganda about the east bay that just keeps getting spewed over and over. This whole thing is akin to political bs. I, along with thousands of others, don’t believe one lie about this whole argument. There are two sides to this story. It’s not all about the east bay here. Ownership has a huge responsibility in this mess. Could the east bay fans have come out in droves despite being treated like shit? Sure. But why would they? You’re barking up the wrong tree pal. This is the same ownership that is saying it will be business as usual at a new SJ park. If you had an affair with a cheating married woman, what makes you think she won’t ultimately do the same thing to you when she loses interest? Take the blinders off and realize this whole thing has been planned for a very long time. Hell, dare I say even Haas considered the south bay when he first bought the team but ultimately declined. For once I would just love for the SJ folks to simply say that ownership believes they will make a better profit in SJ because of real estate, i.e. condos and retail outlets surrounding the stadium and that is the main issue. Quit f’king blaming the east bay for this mess because it is not their fault. As I’ve said numerous times, if there is an attractive product on the field the fans will come. Who wouldn’t? Let me end by asking a ridiculous and extreme question. Let’s assume that the Giants, with their new park, never won more than 50 games a year since the park opened. Last place each and every year, no Lincecum, Posey, Huff. Meanwhile, the A’s in their “mausoleum” have eked out 100 or more wins each of those years with appearances in the playoffs, etc. They have a few big hitters, base stealers, excellent pitching, and a great farm system. Let’s further assume that ownership didn’t publicize any desire to move anywhere else and continued with the embracement of the city and aggressive marketing. Are you going to tell me that the attendance figures wouldn’t be reversed in this scenario? In other words, is ownership completely innocent? Are they the victims of this whole mess? I’m just wondering.
Columbo, what Real Estate development is included in San Jose?
.
I keep hearing this from Oakland boosters and am wondering where it is coming from.
@Jeffrey – While I haven’t seen Lew’s final paperwork I will admit I am loosely making an assumption based on two things:
1) Lew is a real estate guy, i.e. that is his business.
2) Quote: “Lew says that, if he cannot build adjacent condos, he sees no point in building a stadium in Alameda County.”
Maybe I’m wrong and am making a bad assumption and, if so, I do apologize. I do somewhat confidently assume, though, that a real estate mogul would look beyond a stadium in SJ and believe that there is some potential in building condos, hotels, restaurants, etc. around the stadium.
If I’m wrong, I apologize to the SJ crowd. However, I do think that there is some motive above and beyond simply building a stadium in SJ for a man who is entrenched in the real estate business.
@Columbo – You’re not entirely wrong. It’s not realistic for Wolff to pursue ancillary development in the near future. With BART and HSR planned for the area around the ballpark both projects will push out any kind of nearby construction (other than the ballpark) by a decade or more. Wolff based Coliseum North and Pacific Commons on real estate funding the ballpark construction. He didn’t explain it well back then for some reason and it’s bitten him in the ass. Now that real estate is in the tank there’s no way to use that model, yet Wolff’s detractors (including the media) keep citing it. The simple truth of it is that adding that other stuff onto the ballpark will only make getting the ballpark built that much more complicated from a planning and approval standpoint. I’m worried that all the talk of revitalizing Oakland via Victory Court is code for using the same model, which is years late and hundreds of millions short.
@ML – agreed. That model won’t work in a VC scenario today. I will not deny that. Just so we’re clear where I stand. I love the A’s. I will watch them if they are playing in a stadium in Lodi for all I care. I only have a problem with the east bay being a sort of scapegoat and, in particular the fans, for a move to SJ. I don’t have the energy to regurgitate all of the points in this regard but I think most people can recognize the usual statements, i.e. no corporate support, no fanbase, shitty stadium, lower income area, etc. While many of these things may be true to an extent, I believe the true role of ownership in this whole thing has not been well publicized.
Thanks for the reply.
Columbo: I look at all that massive amount of text and can’t bear to read it. Maybe shorter posts, with paragraph breaks?
@Columbo:
Paragraphs and breaks between said paragraphs are your friend. 🙂
If anyone wants to use a line break you can use the br tag between paragraphs. For those who don’t know HTML, that’s br with pointy brackets around it (above the comma and period keys on your keyboard).
well said Columbo!
There are tons of condos in the Victory Court area already. I haven’t heard anyone talking about more housing over there. What i have heard is more businesses and restaurants in JLS.
@Columbo – Wait a minute. The local media has been savaging Wolff/Fisher for at least two years now, and you’re saying that ownership’s role isn’t well-publicized? Puh-leeze.
@ML – True role to me means the real motive. From the SJ standpoint, OAK sucks, they have no fans to speak of, the stadium sucks, there are zero companies who support the team, the city gov’t sucks. That’s what we read from their perspective. I’m simply saying that there might be a reason fans are not showing up and it may not be as simple as “zero fan support in the east bay.” Maybe it has something to do with the product, i.e. ownership influence, a good product, or lack thereof. I have been saying all along that, if ownership just came out and said, “Hey, we are convinced that we will not make the kind of money we would like in Oakland so we are looking to SJ.” Instead of this, “Oh, I tried so hard in Oakland and Alameda County but it didn’t pan out.” I believe that ownership had motives from day one. Let me be clear. Like I have always maintained, I have no problem with SJ. My two sons LOVE the Sharks and we go to plenty of games each season. That is not the issue for me. The issue is the fact that I feel like I am being lied to. Go ahead and say that LW spent $100m in Fremont to no avail. Really? I don’t believe that for a second. This guy wanted SJ from the beginning. As I mentioned before, I tried to get the wife to move to SJ so I have no issue with the city. This whole thing just seems seedy and dishonest. BTW, I realize my posts are long with no breaks but I format it accordingly before I hit Submit and it doesn’t seem to take. I’m obviously doing something wrong.
@Columbo – I’ve written frequently here that I’ve felt Wolff has run out the clock in Oakland and hasn’t tried that hard there. This whole debate about how much Wolff has tried in Oakland is kind of pointless. Let’s say that a year ago Wolff came out and said Oakland’s not fit enough politically and fiscally to handle a ballpark project. Would that really have convinced people to move to his side? Would it have stopped a grassroots group like Let’s Go Oakland from growing? Would it have curtailed columns by Dave Newhouse and Ann Killion? I doubt it. There may have been some so-called “reasonable” types who may have better understood, but most of the pro-Oakland side is driven by emotion and nostalgia that they would’ve been drowned out. Frankly, I think the “If he admitted it” argument is nothing but a strawman.
@Columbo–cant understand why you continue to maintain that LW lied…his position has been that he cannot build a privately financed ballpark in Oakland. The whole intent of the BRC is to decide once and for all if Oakland could pull off a privately financed ballpark and now more than 2 years has gone by and still no answer….which pretty much leads one to believe that they cant figure out how to do it either…add to this that none of you Oakland-only guys can lay out a plan as to how one could build a privately financed ballpark in Oakland. Logical minds would conclude that LW didn’t lie—he has been telling the truth all along….you just don’t like the answer—
@GoA’s–amazing, the LW apologists on here. The AN interview with the Wolff were sprinkled with so many LW lies and half-truths, it was emabarassing. He had his mind on bringing the A’s to SJ back in 1998 but he now says it was about luring the Giant’s back then. Huh? Pacbell broke ground in 1997.Oh, and btw, he says the A’s broke even last year or maybe made a slight profit. Forbes had them at a $22.1 million dollar profit. I long for the days of Charley O compared to this guy.
Forbes writes up these profit-loss sheets for all major sports teams every year without so much as a glimpse at the official books. Not reliable stuff. The anti-Wolff crowd is holding out for somebody who doesn’t exist – an ownership group ready to donate a $500 mill ballpark to Oakland.
@jk–show all of us on here how Oakland can build a privately financed ballpark and then you call call LW what you want–the fact that he realized way before you and the other pro-oakland folks that it just doesn’t pencil out in oakland shows why he is where he is today financially—bottom line—it has nothing to do with LW not liking oakland like you try to paint and everything to do with being able to keep the team in the bay area and build a privately financed ballpark-even your boy Dolich admits it doesn’t work in oakland and is now advocating another shared stadium with the Raiders—so what’s that make Dolich in your book….a liar also?
revenue my ASS. is that why the A’s have traded away a TON of prospects that could be helping this team right now. Why dont you take the hot dog out of your mouth and stop drooling over Lew wolff.
@Jesse – Sure, don’t trade those guys (Haren, CarGo, Swisher, Ethier) and they have a $90 million payroll, unsustainable by the revenues they bring in. They tried to bring in Beltre and were rebuffed twice. Berkman wasn’t interested. Or they could’ve wasted money on Adam Dunn or traded for Dan Uggla, both of whom have been failures so far. They had no shot at either Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth. Deny the money problem all you want, it’s real. My problem (and everyone else’s) is the slavish devotion to Bob Geren, who continues to amaze with his ineptitude. It’s clear he’s lost the clubhouse, and the team could use a 2010 Showalter-like asskicking.
@ML – Respectfully, isn’t what you’re saying a bit like putting the cart before the horse? When you say a $90 million payroll is unsustainable by the incoming revenue, I don’t argue that right now. However, I know not one business owner who hasn’t taken the “risk” of investing his capital for future revenues. It’s almost as if the argument is that the revenues need to be shown first and then the product will get better. In that situation the customer is in a way accepting the risk, correct? “Just buy season tickets and I promise you, one day, we will have a contending team.” Maybe comparing a business to the A’s situation is futile but I can’t help but believe that it should be the other way around. Take some risk now, i.e. put capital to work now = better and more creative/innovative marketing = obtaining better players/coaches = winning = contention = bigger attendance = higher revenues = everybody’s happy. I will ask once again. If the A’s had a few big names like Pujols, Halladay, or A-Rod, do you not think that, in and of itself, would create higher attendance? Let’s say a La Russa-type came back and the team started winning. Do you not think there would be higher attendance? My personal opinion is that the product is completely stale and has been for some time. Fans are not showing up in droves, not because there isn’t a fanbase. The attendance sucks because the product sucks. I’m not even counting the public relations part of the equation between the A’s and the fans. I’m just talking about demand dwindling due to a poor product. If a pizza restaurant fails to attract customers there must be a reason, i.e. shitty atmosphere, shitty food, bad customer service, whatever. Does the business owner blame the customer base for this or does he put some capital to work now to improve the business for revenues down the line? Maybe I’m wrong.
@Columbo – There are cases of teams bumping up payroll as they get a stadium deal lined up, before the revenue is realized The Twins are a prime example. Only one team has ever taken that risk as you say without the revenue streams to back it up: Wayne Huizenga’s ’97 Marlins. It never happened again, Selig looked at Huizenga askance, Huizenga no longer owns any sports franchises, and the Marlins never got the big permanent attendance boost because Huizenga sold off players the following year.
The brutal truth of this is that Wolff and Beane are under a directive from Selig not to live beyond their means. Their revenue sharing check is so high that even if the A’s brought in 30,000 a game they would see no bump in revenue unless they seriously raised ticket prices. Because of this the A’s have an effective payroll range of $40-75 million depending on if Beane feels they’re in contention going into each season. Players and their agents know this, and they know that the A’s aren’t in the position to get multiple big bats every offseason. Who wants to be the sole slugger in the A’s lineup? It takes someone who’s on the margins a bit to make Oakland attractive over other teams.
Whoa, Haren and Swisher were’nt prospects when they were traded and Ethier was for upgrading a contending team.
I’m talking about Cargo for Holliday.
Wallece for Taylor (injured when we got him, same wrist as this year)
Mortensen for Howllingsworth, then sign Rich Harden and Brandon McCarthy
Rajai Davais essentially for Scott Sizemore and Magnuson
None of these trades make any sense and have hurt the team RIGHT NOW along with the insistence on keeping Geren around.
But finally even if we did Keep Swisher, and Haren and Blanton etc, etc, etc, we couldve been more competitive over the past couple years and whats wrong with that?
Are you actually a fan or do you want to be Lew Wolff’s accountant?
@Jesse – No, I’m not a fan. I’m obviously a robot.
CarGo is a product of Coors. Splits are ridiculous and he would’ve failed trying to carry the offense in Oakland, just as Holliday failed in his brief stint here. Wallace I’ll give you because Taylor has been so fragile. But Wallace hasn’t exactly been very good until this year. Mortensen? Meh. Davis? Good not great, he was the odd man out. We keep focusing on hitting and Geren, but let’s get something straight. The staff’s ERA this month is over 6. We’ve lost the heart and soul of the team in Braden and the new court jester in McCarthy. The New Big 3 are being tested and Anderson’s elbow situation aside, I’m good with them seeing this kind of adversity. It’ll toughen them up for the future. It’s a long season and our assets, such as they are, are under control for several years.
@Columbo Haas tried exactly what you’re advocating. He did get a significant attendance boost, but lost money hand over fist (and these were days when he had a then state-of-the-art-ballpark and corporate/premium seat money didn’t drive revenue). It wasn’t sustainable, which makes the ’89 through 92 attendance figures outliers. And when the team’s fortunes turned he hemorraged attendance much faster than Wolff has.
Orioles draw 10,000 or so last night. Should they move?
After all, every time the A’s draw less than 15k or so, there are the myriad posts on this board calling for the A’s to move to San Jose.
A’s observer.
@bartleby – “but lost money hand or fist”
Can you back that up with actual evidence? Link? I know they sold the franchise for a handsome profit, above the original cost.
…The proposed A’s move to San Jose, while some of it is about the dismal attendance, is mostly due to the lack of public funds available anywhere in California for a ballpark and the reality that the corporate backing in San Jose is enough to get a ballpark built there. Not so in Oakland. If Oakland came up with $200 mill in public funds, they’d keep the A’s. But both Oakland and San Jose expect ownership to build their own stadium.
A’s observer… Have you been to Camden Yards? Of course they shouldn’t move.
David, it is not true that the Haas family sold at a handsome profit. All things considered they sold at a loss of 4%. You can read this in the Blue Ribbon report on Competitive Balance.
So Jeffro Low attendance is OK as long as its in a nice yard?
.
Your argument is inconsistent….
BTW Haas Sold the team at a “hometown discount” its been well documented.
D Jr. What are the historical figures for Baltimore?
Haas lost money, regardless of how you wish to spin it. And, he sold it at a hometown discount to keep the team in the Bay Area… Other interested parties wished to move the team out of state.
D Jr, one last thing… You can try and paint the consistency of my argument however you want, but I have never said the A’s need to leave Oakland. What I have said, and this is based on actual numbers, is that attendance in Oakland has been bad, historically. This presents trouble when trying to privately finance a stadium. How you going to slant that?
@Jeffrey – “…sold at a loss of 4%.” I’m aware of that report. I’m assuming you are referring to section V.3., pg 51, Table 15? Oakland is showing a rate of return of -4.2%. It also shows the years 1980 to 1999 for Oakland. Does that loss include 1980 (Finley) and 1996-1999 (Schottmann)? Haas owned the team from 81-95. Could this have been a misprint in the report? In other words, if this includes those years that Haas was not the owner, the figure may be wrong for the Haas years specifically. It could actually better or worse from 81-95. Who knows? Maybe Haas’ IRR was -10% annualized. Then again, he might have broken even or made money. I have been looking but have been unsuccessful. Short of contacting Dolich, Alderson, Eisenhardt, or Haas, Jr., does anyone know if there are any factual reports of the P&L for the A’s during the Haas years besides this Blue Ribbon report showing the -4.2% loss from 1980-1999? I have found that Haas put a ton of money into stadium improvements, beefing up the farm system, and improving the creative marketing side of the business during the early years of his ownership. It is on record that he didn’t turn a profit until 7 years into his ownership thanks to all of these expenditures. Without raw numbers to work with, I have also read that the glory years (88-92) were pretty darn good financially for the organization. The team then began a rapid descent and the money woes surfaced again toward the end of his ownership. Again, without raw numbers, it appears Haas sold the team for a substantial discount. So, in the interest of having a factual discussion on this, some questions come to mind for me? Aside from this Blue Ribbon report showing 20 seasons of losses (Haas owned for 15), what was the actual Haas P&L? What was the actual market value of the franchise at the time of the sale to Schottman who bought it for $85 million? Ex: If the franchise was worth $125 million, what kind of difference would this have made to the overall numbers had Haas sold at this price? Most importantly, from a business perspective, what were the benefits (if any) from Haas’ early capital investments without generating a profit? In other words, did Haas see a longer-term benefit of the earlier cash infusions and how did that translate to the actual financials later on in his ownership? I would absolutely love to see actual figures but this will never happen. If this MLB report is the only thing we have to go on combined with the fact that we know Haas paid $12.7 mil and sold for $85 mil, we can make some educated guesses but I’m not sure how reliable they would be.
@Jeffrey – On other thing I forgot to mention. An article written by Money Magazine in the summer of 1990 details how Haas turned the franchise around on the field and in the accounting ledgers. Quote: “Sports economists appraise the team at close to $100 million, and increase in value that more than offsets the losses of past years.” Another quote: “The profit figure may look slim, but it’s one of the best in major league baseball — and, of course, cash flow is even better because depreciation is not a cash charge. Finances this healthy make the A’s, which Walter Haas reluctantly bought for $12.75 million in 1980, worth about $100 million.” I realize that this was the summer of 1990, right in the midst of the season that would prove to be the highest attendance at 2.9 million, however, a couple of things stand out to me. If this article is accurate, by the 1990 season the previous losses were offset by the increase in overall valuation. The 91-92 seasons saw an average of 33.5k and 30.8k per game respectively. 93-94 dipped precipitously with 25k and 22k and then 95 was rock bottom at 16.3k. 93-95 showed a .443 winning percentage and 95 was the season immediately after the strike and cancelled WS. Revenues obviously went down after 1990 but by how much? That’s what I’d love to know. If Haas stood at an overall investment gain as of the middle of 1990 (when the article was written), did the money woes over the next 5 seasons create an annualized -4.2% loss overall since 81? If so, that would be one hell of a loss considering a couple of those later seasons still had +30k per game. Did Haas infuse more capital during this time, thus narrowing this spread from 1990? These are all things I’d love to look at. No, I’m not an accountant (although that was my major for 2 years before switching to Bus/Econ) but my occupation is in financial services and these kinds of details interest me greatly.
@Columbo – What’s not widely reported is the actual price Schott and Hofmann paid to buy the A’s: around $69 million in 1995. Years removed from contention and in a transitional stadium situation with the Raiders coming back, Haas had no choice but to sell at a substantial hometown discount. The “handshake” deal took less than a week, the final terms took months. It was a simple realization of the poor revenue model the A’s were dealing with.
@ML – Thanks. I was not aware of that. Everything I have read said that Haas got $85 mil. So, in your opinion, based on my earlier question, if the team was sold for what it was actually worth, how would that have affected the overall investment gain/loss of Haas?
In case you’re wondering, the reason I am interested in this is that there has been much talk of Haas losing money as justification for no fanbase in the east bay despite the higher than usual attendance during a portion of those years. If we find, for instance, that Haas sold for a ridiculously lower amount relative to actual MV, I would think that the overall monetary loss of the Haas years was not simply due to zero east bay fanbase.
@ML – Also, I forgot to ask, what of the 1980-1999 dates listed in that report. Is that -4.2% including one of Finley’s years as well as the first 4 years of Schottmann? Based on everything I’ve read on here and other sites, the argument has always been that Haas lost money “hand over fist” as justification for a relocation to the south bay. I’m not disputing this I’m just asking if this MLB report is including those years. Do you happen to know? Thanks.
@Columbo – It seems like you’re searching for numbers to support a conclusion. What are you trying to say?
Added: Okay, I think I get what you’re trying to accomplish. The Blue Ribbon report was always flawed in that it never went into significant detail on P/L. Its task was to analyze competitiveness first, fiscal management of particular clubs second. It also only covers a fairly brief period: 1995 to 1999. However, Forbes (and previously Financial World) compiled P/L which paints a better picture. You’ve seen the Blue Ribbon report, but if anyone hasn’t it’s available here. Forbes’ numbers dating back to 1990 are here. The A’s lost $25 million combined from 1993 to 1995, prompting Haas to sell.
Columbo, the $85M figure includes assumed debt over and above the purchase price. A long time ago, I emailed someone at MLB about the “1999” and was told that was a typo and the actual period was “1995.” That negative 4 IRR represents the period of time that the Haas family owned the team and if your read the context (that table is about the price of the franchises when they were sold, the A’s weren’t sold in 1999) it makes sense.
.
The email exchange is from 2005ish, when I was researching the team’s value in the wake of the Wolff Fisher purchase and from an email account I don’t have access to anymore. If you email the MLB offices, they would probably confirm that. If I still had access to my old email account, I would post the email here for you.
.
For the record, “hand over fist” is a bit of an overstatement and “sold at a profit” is just plain wrong. They about broke even, all things considered.
@ML – Thanks for that 2nd link. I love a good excel sheet. I’m going to crunch some numbers on this one. At a first and very quick glance it appears the A’s had an operating income of -16.5 mil from 1990-1995 thanks to rising expenditures and flat to lower revenues. Player salaries jumped a whopping 76% from 1990 to 1991 and a further 36% from 1991 to 1992 while revenues rose that first year and then became flat in 1992. Thanks again for this.