Turns out that Governor Jerry Brown and Lew Wolff may agree on something after all.
Too bad it’s not something that can help the A’s anytime soon.
Speaking at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference in SF, Brown addressed the equally touchy subjects of CEQA (EIR process) and redevelopment. About the former:
Brown spoke about his time running Oakland, where he says he received a crash course in local politics.
“Every project was opposed by somebody,” he said. “I never had the experience of so much mindless resistance.”
His principal goal in Oakland was the creation of market-rate housing into the city’s core, which Brown thought would bring more disposable income.
It’s important to note that the opposition hasn’t shown up yet to the Victory Court project because nothing of significant substance has yet been presented. When it does, well, we’ll see how steely the collective resolve is to build a ballpark.
As a developer, Wolff has complained as frequently about CEQA as he has about the Coliseum’s warts. Brown no doubt felt the heat when eminent domain was used under his watch to acquire the Uptown site, not to mention the lawsuits and other challenges the project (built by his friends at Forest City) faced. All of that was done under the CEQA umbrella.
Brown also reaffirmed his position on choosing other budgetary needs over redevelopment. Perhaps some of the reporters in the Capitol were correct in saying that the two “compromise” bills that were passed by he Legislature but not sent to the Governor would be vetoed on the grounds that Brown felt they didn’t go far enough.
And the beat goes on…
newballpark.org 
OT–but interesting article in today’s Philly paper that draws some analogies about the A’s situation of today and what happened that led to their departure from Philly-http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/124476203.html
Thanks GoA’s. Interesting read…
@GoA’s–good read on the A’s of old. Yeah, there’s similarities to today:one team ran things on the cheap and the other one spent money and tired to put a winner on the field, But you can’t blame the ballpark back then, because both the A’s and Phillie’s shared Shibe Park/Connie Mack since 1938 when the Phillies home, Baker Bowl, was falling apart. The Phillies stayed there until 1970 when the Vet was built. So two teams playing in the same park, one spending money and the other one didn’t, and one had to leave. Messed up and so sad, because the A’s had a great, colorful history, winning 5 WS, and the Phillies winning nothing all those years, until 1980.
This line from the article rings so true with the A’s and Giants of today:
“Stories of the A’s troubles became sports-page fixtures in the city’s newspapers. The resulting negativity, coupled with the popularity of the young, promising Phillies, smothered interest in the Athletics.”
And a new ballpark in the Bay Area, complete with new revenue streams and excitement, will help revive interest in the Athletics!
“Stories of the A’s troubles became sports-page fixtures in the city’s newspapers. The resulting negativity, coupled with the popularity of the young, promising Phillies, smothered interest in the Athletics.”
.
Ha! All that “negativity” wasn’t just caused by the media. The A’s finished in the bottom half of the American League 19 of their last 21 seasons in Philadelphia. The other two years they sneaked in to 4th place. There was not a single year when they were in contention or gave the fans even the slightest cause for hope. Even their war time replacement players stunk.
.
Unfortunately, that’s been a tried and true formula in baseball history. Cut expenses to avoid short term losses, destroy your long term business in the process, and then blame it all on the fans’ failure to support the team.
….but the A’s have drawn poorly even when they’ve won. Just four victories short of a World Series berth in 2006, the A’s only ranked 26th out of 30 in attendance.
“the A’s had a great, colorful history, winning 5 WS”
Playing in Oakland is clearly an affront to this legacy, right?
pjk There are plenty of examples where the A’s have drawn well when they won. I love how 2006 is cherry picked.
@Nam Turk – I remember you. You like to bash Oakland. I’ve occasionally seen you on the LGO page stirring things up. Howz it going man?
@eb – I agree. The SJ-only folks will continue to downplay any viability in Oakland. It’s always about no fans in Oakland, Oakland wants a ballpark donated by a mysterious billionaire, Oakland has no corporate base, SJ is the 10th largest city, or my favorite – Oakland has always had bad attendance (period, no explanations, no comparisons to the Giants attendance, no analysis of the market size of the bay area in the 60’s/70’s/80’s, and NEVER any mention of the ownership or the product itself, it’s always the fans, i.e. customers fault, which will magically disappear in SJ). The 95.7 talking heads are all on the same page. They like to talk about attendance often being 4,000 and 7,000, which I personally heard several times last week. Really? Trust me, it’s a losing battle and it’s not worth the effort to argue.
@Columbo You’re probably right. This is a really informative site and Marine Layer deserves a lot of credit for what he has created. The amount of negativity I’ve seen, however, is amazing. It reads like a Oakland A’s vs. SF Giants board. Instead of SF fans, it’s a small group of “A’s fans” who take every opportunity to bash Oakland. Crime, economics, attendance, etc., same stuff I get from Giant fans.
Maybe I’m wrong, but a true A’s fan respects what this franchise was and can be again. Oakland really should be option 1a. and San Jose 1b., if things don’t work out. I really don’t understand this anti-Oakland madness and venom. It’s petty, immature and flies in the face of the franchise they supposedly root for.
@Columbo,
As a SJ partisan, I’ve never been one to harp on attendance in The O. I’m sure a new ballpark at VC world do quite well attendance-wise.
But…how do you get that new ballpark? Answer that question and you’ll surely see for yourself that The O is in fact NOT VIABLE for a new ballpark.
“Got Dinero?”
eb,
Being real about all of this IS NOT ANTI-OAKLAND! If Oakland can acquire all the land, relocate all the businesses, pay for 880. Improvements, and finance a large chunk of the ballpark…more power to them.
tony d. You are going to tell me this: “the A’s had a great, colorful history, winning 5 WS
Playing in Oakland is clearly an affront to this legacy, right?” and this, “….but the A’s have drawn poorly even when they’ve won. Just four victories short of a World Series berth in 2006, the A’s only ranked 26th out of 30 in attendance” is not anti-Oakland?
I didn’t state any of that eb. Those were the opinions of other SJ partisans. I was speaking for myself.
Oakland has had 42 years as “option 1” and it hasn’t worked- if you want for the A’s to stay in the Bay Area you pull for bs to show some leadership and allow them to move to SJ- a true A’s fan wants them to stay in the Bay Area and have a new ballpark as soon as possible-
@tony d. – Let me preface my answer by saying I am not an insider. I do not work for the city of Oakland nor do I have any connections with anyone related to the ballpark study. I am a longtime A’s fan who grew up in the east bay and now live on the peninsula amongst irritating Giants fans. I do not have an answer for you on how to fund the building. However, what exactly is the mechanism that will fund the SJ park? I’ve heard that LW has it all wrapped up but I haven’t seen anything in print on the numbers. I’m not doubting he has things lined up I’m just saying that I haven’t seen anything other than a promise from CSCO for naming rights for the Fremont park. That SVLG letter was nice and, maybe I’m wrong, but I understood that to be corporations in SV that will purchase suites and maybe some signage. The park may cost $500 mil or more to build. I’m guessing he has a combination of private investors, bank loans, etc. but I don’t know. I guess what I’m really saying is whatever plan LW has for the financing in SJ just might be able to also work in Oakland. Would not some major corporations or private investors also want to invest in an Oakland park? If not, why not? We’re talking about a location near Jack London which, with the right surrounding development, could be one hell of a place to watch a game, wouldn’t you agree? I still can’t understand why a company even in SV wouldn’t want to advertise their product at a park in Oakland. Why wouldn’t they want to buy a suite? Obviously it’s one long drive but we’re still talking about business here. I totally get that SV corporations would be happier with a closer park but does this necessarily mean they won’t participate at least to some degree with a park in Oakland? If so then I’m of a different mindset in terms of business. I have clients that live all over the country. I have big clients that live close but I also have even bigger clients that live far away. Is it a pain to go meet with them? Yes. Does it stop me? No, because these are clients that can make me money. Putting funding aside just for a brief moment, would you at least concur that some businesses no matter where they’re located will want to partake in a brand-new stadium near JLS? Likewise, wouldn’t there be at least the possibility that some very wealthy group of people might see an opportunity to invest in something like this? Now, back to the funding. I don’t know how Oakland would be funded just like I don’t know exactly how SJ would be funded. From what I understand the city of Oakland is not talking to the press about what’s going on. Many on here take this as a sign that there is nothing in the works. I’m not so sure.
@GoA’s – What hasn’t worked? Seriously. You just made a blanket statement just like CT does on 95.7, kind of like “nobody wants to come here when there are 4,000 fans in the seats.” 4,000??? What in these 42 years hasn’t worked? You are essentially saying these 42 years have been a failure. Tell me exactly how please? Also, let’s be honest, you are saying SJ or bust when you say that a true A’s fan would want them to stay in the bay area. That is a canned response that I hear daily on 95.7 and read on pro-SJ blogs. As far as I’m concerned, and you certainly don’t have to agree with me, a true A’s fan would want the A’s in Oakland 1st and in the bay area 2nd. Meaning they want to be convinced that Oakland will absolutely not work at all. Clue for you – the pro-Oakland crowd is not buying the answer from LW that Oakland will not work at all and they believe this whole thing smells fishy.
@ columbo- you mean besides lack of fan support, lack of corporate support, lack of city support and lack of a viable plan or strategy over the past 15 years to replace the 2nd worst park in all of baseball….you really need more than that? 15 years and counting isn’t enough for Oakland to figure this out? Come on man- trade the emotional argument for a logical one- show me the plan to get a new ballpark built in Oakland with construction starting 2013 or get out of the way-
One last thing. I have nothing against SJ. I actually like it even though it takes me forever to get there but that’s beside the point. SJ has a great f’king hockey team. To me they are the SJ Sharks and always will be. If the roles were reversed and the Sharks ownership wanted to move to the east bay, I can tell you right now that I wouldn’t want it because they wouldn’t be the same Sharks. That’s just my personal opinion. Maybe others in the east bay would welcome it. I wouldn’t. I take my two small boys to a few games a year and to me it’s like an adventure for us to drive so far to watch this crazy game on ice. If their home arena was 10 minutes away I don’t think it would be the same experience for me. Why? Because I respect the history of the SJ Sharks and I don’t have any desire to see them move.
@GoA’s – “or get out of the way-” Really? You’re going to try and bully me into some illogical argument when you can’t even give me any facts. It isn’t going to work partner. You’re hypocritical when you ask me for specifics and you can only give me canned responses as to what has failed. Give me specifics with references on these things you’re saying. And quit using the word viable because it’s getting to be nauseating hearing this same bs being regurgitated over and again. Give me facts on the lack of fan support and why there was a lack. Tie in events leading up to declining attendance. Don’t just use the CT method of making blanket statements without supporting evidence. C’mon man. Give me something.
@columbo- all of the facts have been presented by ML, Jefrey and many others on this blog relative to attendance trends, corporate support in Oakland, and the lack of leadership in Oakland relative to the A’s. Many on this blog have asked the Oakland only crowd to present a viable financing plan for building the ballpark in Oakland- none of you have delivered a damn thing other than to whine that LW doesn’t like Oakland- so when are you going to present the facts on how oalnad gets this done? Time is running short- and I don’t want the giants to be able to force my team out of the bay area- so show ms the financing plan for Oakland columbo- and start construction no later than 2013 and I will continue my season tix investment in the a’s in oakland- otherwise you and your Oakland only buddies are playing right into nuekoms strategy
@GoA’s So by your logic San Jose was the better option for the Giants in the 90’s? I mean SF didn’t have everything put together, right? Give me a break. The A’s run has been VERY successful on and off the field in Oakland, especially when you compare the same time frame to the Giants. More bashing and twisted realities. Look San Jose is a very nice place, but just like true Yankee fans didn’t want their team to leave the Bronx for Manhattan or true Giants fans didn’t want their team in San Jose, A’s fans should grind all they can to push and hope something happens in Oakland.
@GoA’s – I thought I made it clear above that I’m not an insider to any financing plans. Maybe you didn’t read that. How the hell would I know what the financing plan is? From what I understand there is a gag-order of some kind with these negotiations so, unless I have a relative who is an insider, I’m in the dark. Well, I don’t have any relatives on the inside. Do you know the exact plan that LW has for financing SJ? Or are you just taking his word for it that he has it all lined up? Again, I’m not doubting this I’m just wondering if something has been presented to the public in terms of how this thing will be financed that we all can view. It seems like it’s such a slam-dunk I’m guessing there must be something we can look at, correct? BTW, I was asking you personally to present to me the facts for your statements, namely… “lack of fan support, lack of corporate support, lack of city support and lack of a viable plan or strategy over the past 15 years to replace the 2nd worst park in all of baseball.” Your original argument above was that they had 42 years as option 1 and it “hasn’t worked.” In your 2nd post you mentioned the last 15 years. I’m simply asking you to explain what you mean by it has been a failure for 42 years or is it 15 years? Whatever, I’m just asking you to expand on your statements. I can tell you’re getting a bit hot under the collar. Settle down and relax. Life is good.
@ Columbo “what exactly is the mechanism that will fund the SJ park?”
.
Basically, same as the Giants did for AT&T Park. Loan, funded in large part by premium seat revenue and long term charter seat commitments from big corporations.
.
“I’ve heard that LW has it all wrapped up but I haven’t seen anything in print on the numbers.”
.
Why would you? No business makes that level of detail public. But when we keep hearing “John Fisher is one of the richest men in the universe” (with the implication that he could fund a park in Oakland with no revenue coming in), why would you doubt it?
.
“I guess what I’m really saying is whatever plan LW has for the financing in SJ just might be able to also work in Oakland.”
.
That’s the point: It can’t. Silicon Valley has an order of magnitude more corporate money than the East Bay, and a Silicon Valley park would compete less directly with the Giants for what’s nearby. No rational person can look at that and not understand why that is critically important.
.
” Would not some major corporations or private investors also want to invest in an Oakland park?”
.
Depending on what type of investment you’re talking about, (a) for equity investors, not if they didn’t think they’d break even, and (b) for premium seat customers, not if it’s not convenient.
“If not, why not? We’re talking about a location near Jack London which, with the right surrounding development, could be one hell of a place to watch a game, wouldn’t you agree?”
.
It could be a great place to watch a game. But so is AT&T Park, and a Silicon Valley corporation has no reason to fight 90 minutes or two hours of traffic to get to a game when they can have a no traffic ride up 280 or an easy Caltrain ride up to AT&T. It’s just common sense.
.
” I still can’t understand why a company even in SV wouldn’t want to advertise their product at a park in Oakland.”
.
Advertise, maybe.
.
“Why wouldn’t they want to buy a suite?”
.
Because of the traffic and distance. Most MLB games are played on weeknights. As I’ve said many times, from someplace like Palo Alto it takes 90 minutes to two hours to get to a game at the Coli. VC would be about 10 or 15 minutes worse.
.
“Obviously it’s one long drive but we’re still talking about business here. I totally get that SV corporations would be happier with a closer park but does this necessarily mean they won’t participate at least to some degree with a park in Oakland?”
.
It does mean they won’t participate, because they have a more convenient option. It doesn’t help that the Giants already have a lead in the fan base, and that San Francisco has a better image than Oakland.
.
“If so then I’m of a different mindset in terms of business. I have clients that live all over the country. I have big clients that live close but I also have even bigger clients that live far away. Is it a pain to go meet with them? Yes. Does it stop me? No, because these are clients that can make me money.”
.
Here’s the rub: You’re traveling, but you’re going WHERE YOUR CLIENTS ARE. Silicon Valley companies and service firms (like law and accounting firms) are in the South Bay, and their clients are largely other Silicon Valley companies who are also in the South Bay. So your premise is, not that these companies will not travel to see clients, but that they will drag their clients through hideous traffic when there is a closer, more convenient, more glamorous alternative in San Francisco. It’s not about whether it’s inconvenient for the vendor, it’s about whether it’s inconvenient for the client. Won’t happen.
.
“Putting funding aside just for a brief moment, would you at least concur that some businesses no matter where they’re located will want to partake in a brand-new stadium near JLS?”
.
Some, but not enough. You only need look at the Raiders experience. Unlike the A’s with the Giant’s, they have little competition for NFL premium seat sales. They also have fewer games to sell, and most of their games are on Sundays when people are willing to travel further than after work. Still, they’ve strugged to sell club seats and suites the entire time they’ve been back in Oakland.
.
” Likewise, wouldn’t there be at least the possibility that some very wealthy group of people might see an opportunity to invest in something like this?”
.
Not if they think it’s a big risk whether they’ll get their money back. AT&T Park was perceived as a big risk, but it was far less risky than building a competing park only eight miles away with little of the demographic you need to survive nearby.
@bartleby You make a compelling argument for San Jose, but more corporate support shouldn’t be the singular reason for a franchise to have its identity ripped away. Should the Packers eventually leave Green Bay for Milwaukee because of its corporate base? The Milwaukee Packers… As I said, I could live with San Jose as a second option. As for the Raider example you gave, you need to throw in hate for Al Davis, many years of losing, and initial bad marketing of tickets. We all know what attendance was like before they left and these issues came into play. Anyway, thanks for at least refraining from some of the Oakland bashing that seems to happen on occasion here. You’ve just shown how to make your point without it.
@bartleby – Thanks for the replies. I’m leaving work now and have to go pick up the kids. I’m going to print out your responses and read them tonight. Thanks again.
…bartleby’s explanations point out how blazingly stupid MLB was to lock itself out of lucrative Silicon Valley forever and instead let the Giants “serve” it from 45 miles away. Then again, most of the owners probably still can’t find San Jose on a map…
pjk,
Just as MLB “locked” itslef out of Silicon Valley, it can easily find the keys and unlock the door ;o). Let’s just wait and see what happens once everything in San Jose is LOCKED up (pun intended brah).
@tony d. I didn’t say you were responsible for those comments. My initial post was about anti-Oakland sentiment on the site and you responded to me with, “Being real about all of this IS NOT ANTI-OAKLAND!” You seemed to equate my perception of ant-Oakland comments with comments that are, in your words, just “real.” A misunderstanding perhaps?
Overall, this a good, informative site, and I tip my A’s cap to Marine Layer for it. But what gets to me on the pro-San Jose side, which is over 80% of you, is that you keep saying us pro-Oakland guys aren’t rational, too emotional, too delusional, aren’t living in the real world, etc..
Okay, I will be 100% real here: VC has many high hurdles and may bow up and fall apart (i hope not, but ???). The Raiders and 9ers will share a stadium and it’s leaning towards Santa Clara, regardless of Al Davis saying he won’t go there. BS denies LW SJ and LW will get frustrated and sell the A’s to a local group. The Coliseum is blown up and a new one is built in it’s place. Added stuff in the Coliseum area for fans to do before and after the game will make it a better venue for all. The real bleachers come back along with the ice plants, and the view of the hills are back . An A’s museum, and a Rickey and Haas statues are put up outside the yard. Life is good.
I may add: Bob Piccinini is the guy to do this. Sorry, bu no Dolich, who said he wants a shared facility.
@jk: if Victory Court falls through, and they really find a way to make the Colisuem area more fan and pedestrian attractive, than I guess we can’t complain. Some people still feel that putting it over I980 should be considered, yet I find that ridiculous. It would be good in the sense that it is only a few blocks from the downtown biz core…what else? I say, scratch that plan, although I know it means losing the team.
@jk “But what gets to me on the pro-San Jose side, which is over 80% of you, is that you keep saying us pro-Oakland guys aren’t rational, too emotional, too delusional, aren’t living in the real world, etc..”
.
80%? That’s just ridiculous. So much for your attempt to convince us you’re a steely-eyed realist. I see about 4 or 5 regular posters who are strong San Jose partisans. I see about 3 or 4 who are “Oakland-only’ers.” And I see the vast majority who might have preference one way or the other, many for Oakland, but who actually who have a grip on reality and perceive that San Jose is the best chance for keeping the team, and consider that the top priority. The fact that you apparently have lumped this third, largest group of rationalists in with the San Jose side undercuts your claim to realism for yourself.
.
“Okay, I will be 100% real here:”
.
Breathless with anticipation….
.
.” VC has many high hurdles and may bow up and fall apart (i hope not, but ???). The Raiders and 9ers will share a stadium and it’s leaning towards Santa Clara, regardless of Al Davis saying he won’t go there. BS denies LW SJ and LW will get frustrated and sell the A’s to a local group. The Coliseum is blown up and a new one is built in it’s place. Added stuff in the Coliseum area for fans to do before and after the game will make it a better venue for all. The real bleachers come back along with the ice plants, and the view of the hills are back . An A’s museum, and a Rickey and Haas statues are put up outside the yard. Life is good.”
.
So your proof of your own realism is to replace one fantasy with an even wilder and improbable fantasy. First, it’s true VC may blow up over site issues. But the bigger issue, that one that certainly will kill it in the end, are economic fundamentals. A Coli plan has this problem even more than VC, because from a economic perspective it is an inferior site.
.
Further, to turn it into the Shangri-la you’re talking about turns a $500 million project into a $1 billion project.
.
Also, your fantasy is dependent on the Raiders leaving soon, which is a big “if.”
.
Finally, the only reason Oakland is in play right now at all is because of MLB. MLB has already said they’re not interested in a Coliseum park.
.
So much for steely-eyed realism…
@eb “more corporate support shouldn’t be the singular reason for a franchise to have its identity ripped away.”
.
I understand why some fans don’t like this, but the reality is this: Regular fans paying regular ticket prices are sufficent to support a ballpark that’s already built and paid for. Regular fans paying regular ticket prices are not sufficent to pay the mortgage on a new state-of-the-art park. This leaves two possibilities for financing a new ballpark:
(a) public funding
(b) corporate support
.
We all know public funding is a non-starter in the Bay Area, so that leaves corporate support. And this requires acceptance of things like, corporate sponsor names plastered on the ballpark and everything in it, annoying casual fans talking on their cel phones or working on their lap tops during games, all the best seats being designated as “club seats” with three-figure ticket prices, the mix of fans changing from long-term, hard-core fans to casual fans, etc. In other words, a change of identity.
.
Again, I understand why some don’t like this. But to me, the worst of all outcomes would be the team leaving or remaining at the Coli under current circumstances.
.
“Should the Packers eventually leave Green Bay for Milwaukee because of its corporate base?”
.
The Packers are a totally different situation. First, NFL economics, unlike MLB economics, are driven by TV revenue. Because NFL revenue is so big, and because it is shared, NFL franchises can thrive in locations that couldn’t support them otherwise. If MLB shared all TV revenue, I would be much more likely to agree that a new ballpark in Oakland could work.
.
Second, the Packers are publicly owned. I believe that means they are run basically like a non-profit. I’m fine with this as a model for professional sports, it’s just not the world we live in.
.
Finally, if I recall correctly, the renovations to Lambeau Field were paid for with public money.
“As for the Raider example you gave, you need to throw in hate for Al Davis, many years of losing, and initial bad marketing of tickets.”
.
As an original PSL-holder and fifteen-year season ticket holder, I am well aware of these factors. However, they don’t really explain the problems selling club seats and suites. First, the target market for premium seats is far less concerned with these factors than regular fans. Your corporate suite holder is a corporate bigwig himself, he’s not holding a grudge against Al Davis for business moves he made. Second, although the majority of games since the Raiders came back did not sell out, a large number of games still did. In the Jon Gruden years when things were going well, there were a lot of sellouts in the general seating sections – but not in the premium seating sections. I was at most of those games, and you would always look up and see lots of empty seats in the club seats and suites, even though club seats could be purchased on a single-game basis (not true for many NFL teams) and at half the price of many NFL teams. Not a good sign for the prospect of selling premium-seating for an A’s ballpark in Oakland.
.
“Anyway, thanks for at least refraining from some of the Oakland bashing that seems to happen on occasion here. You’ve just shown how to make your point without it.”
.
Thank you for your kind words. As I’ve said before, I have personal connections with Oakland and have affection for the city. I’d be the first to argue that the Warriors and Raiders are economically viable in Oakland. But baseball economics are different are particularly challenging.
“You like to bash Oakland.”
If you seriously got that out of all I’ve written, then I don’t know what to tell you. I speak up on the LGO page when people say ridiculously misinformed and/or hypocritical things (seemingly 90% of the time). Bashing Oakland is hardly my goal, and I cringe when people here do it.
@bartleby–i knew you’d rip everything I had to say, since you’re probably the smartest person on here who’s always right , or claims to be. I knew guys like you back in school–they would remind the teacher that she forgot to give homework out to the class.
@DavidL–i like the 980 decking plan, better than a new Coliseum. It’s way cool, very ambitious, and very unique. but I just don’t think it’s gonna fly.
@ jk “i knew you’d rip everything I had to say, since you’re probably the smartest person on here who’s always right, or claims to be.”
.
You mean because I use unfair tactics like facts and logic? Why don’t you actually engage on the substance of my points, instead of getting all petulant on me. What’s next, “I know you are but what am I?”
.
Seriously, if you’re going to make statements like “80% of the people on here are pro-San Jose,” why don’t you make a list of regular posters, put them in the category you think represents their views, and share the list with us? (Of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with your categories can speak up).
.
Then you can tell us how in the world a ballpark project at the Coliseum that would be twice as expensive as Victory Court, does not have the support of Major League Baseball, and has even less revenue potential than Victory Court does, has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting funded.
.
And aren’t you one of the guys who ripped Victory Court as being “bland” and “in the middle of nowhere?” The Coliseum site is no better in this regard, and has the added “bonus” of being surrounded by ugly industrial sites and crime.
@bartleby–for the last year there it was about an 80-20 ratio, with me and David being the only pro-Oakland guys. Navigator was banned awhile back, so can’t count him.Occasionally, by good friend DavidL pops up, and now I see asch, Columbo and eb post, which has made it a little less pro-SJ.I’d still say it’s at least 60-70% pro-SJ. On AN it’s evenly split, based on the polls and just the feeling I get from reading all the posts.
Anyways, so you feel there’s no chance in hell in Oakland, and that LW will come back to Fremont? So Fremont gets another chance and Oakland gets crapped on again. Wonderful.
@jk- season tix holder for the A’s in oakland for past 5 years- I am A’s fan- not an oakland fan or San Jose fan and have said repeatedly that I would continue to be if a ballpark was viable in Oakland- its not- and Oakland continuing to screw around as if they can realistically put a plan together is only putting the A’s at risk for leaving the area- something you have said you prefer rather than having them in San Jose- so yah- you and your Oakland only buds are in a minority- no different than the AN poll that had more than 65% fine with the A’s in SJ- as an A’s fan I want a new ballpark in the next 5 years- and Oakland cannot do that-
@jk OK, so you think you and David were the only two pro-Oakland guys for the last year. Even if you’re not going to count Navigator (who, I would point out, was a regular poster for a LONG time before he got banned), and you’re not counting anyone who’s only been posting for the last few months (which I question), you have to count “thisplanetsux.” That’s at least three (and I’m sure I could name more if I went back and looked). That means even if NO ONE who posted here was basically neutral, at least twelve die-hard San Jose partisans post here regularly.
.
Name them. I’m betting that you can’t, or that a few of the folks you name will pop up and say something like “I don’t necessarily favor San Jose over Oakland, but I see that as the A’s best chance.” Or, “I prefer Oakland, but I recognize that that’s not realistic.” And once we start counting A’s neutrals, the number of San Jose partisans you need to make “80% of the people who post here are pro-San Jose” an accurate statement is going to go way, way up. Basically, that number is ridiculous.
.
My guesstimate of how regular posters here align: 20% “Oakland-only,” 30% San Jose partisans, 50% “I will be happy with a new ballpark anywhere in the Bay Area.”
“Anyways, so you feel there’s no chance in hell in Oakland, and that LW will come back to Fremont?”
.
I do think there’s no chance in hell a privately-financed ballpark will be built in Oakland. Not because it’s not a terrific city, and not because VC wouldn’t be a good site (considered in isolation), but solely because MLB economics won’t allow it. I’m not certain a park will be built in San Jose, but I am fairly certain that a privately-financed ballpark won’t be built in Oakland. Let’s put it this way: I think you’d see a new ballpark in Montreal before you’d see one in Oakland.
.
If San Jose doesn’t happen, I think either the A’s will revisit Fremont or else Wolff/Fisher will get fed up and sell the team. That will mean the A’s languish in the Coliseum for an extended period, and probably eventually leave the area once some other city gets the political will to build a publicly-financed stadium. Or maybe new owners take another run at Fremont. Or maybe Bud’s successor takes a more sensible view of the T-rights issue. I don’t see another billionaire thinking building a privately-financed yard in Oakland is a golden economic opportunity.
@GoA’s I think what might rub some people the wrong way are phrases like, “I want a new ballpark in the next 5 years- and Oakland cannot do that-” That’s a definitive statement, which in reality, you don’t know for sure what could or will happen. Also, the 5 year time span seems to be a goal your using to further your argument, it really has no true weight behind it. As for being an A’s fan and only and A’s fan, city be damned, that’s just not how most sports fans view their team.
This topic is making me sad…Does anyone have a really big backyard the A’s can use? Something nice, with cowbell wind chimes?
@eb–i love the cowbells the fans would bring to A’s games way back when. They’d be clanking away after an A’s homer. Monte Moore, the A’s radio/tv guy from 68-80, would say bring your ringer dingers to the game and make some noise.
As Christopher Walken would say on SNL, we need more cowbell, especially with this team that’s for sure. Small ball is fun, but an occasional ringer dinger would help in these close excruciating losses.
@eb “That’s a definitive statement, which in reality, you don’t know for sure what could or will happen.”
.
It’s a definitive statement, but a fair one. Corporate base is the key to privately financing a ballpark, and Oakland is badly lacking in that area. Also, they have a much stronger competitor in the are with a stranglehold on what corporate base exists nearby Oakland. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, but it’s a pretty safe bet.
.
“As for being an A’s fan and only and A’s fan, city be damned, that’s just not how most sports fans view their team.”
.
What is your basis for this statement? You may not feel this way, but you shouldn’t project on others. Lots of folks stayed Raiders fans after they left for LA, commuting to games, and lots of fans embraced the Raiders upon their return. And that transition was certainly a lot more wrenching than an A’s move down the road to San Jose.
@bartleby It really isn’t a fair statement. Things don’t look promising right now on the Oakland front, but to simply dismiss any possibility of a stadium being built based on a “safe bet” isn’t very wise, variables change. Would a giant fan in the 90’s have any clue that his/her favorite team would be the most popular in the Bay Area, in a new SF ballpark? Things were looking decidedly bleak. I know the circumstances were different but not decidedly so.
In terms of SF having a stranglehold on corporate support, how do you know for certain which company in the East Bay, Sf , Silicon Valley, etc. would support what? I know I keep going back to the 80’s/90’s, but I believe the A’s got corporate support from all over the bay, even SF for god’s sake. I’m pretty sure the A’s wouldn’t even need a majority of corporate support outside the East Bay to get things in a positive direction. You make the right sort of sales pitch and companies will follow. Although to be fair, the politics of business repulses me and isn’t my forte so I don’t claim to have any specific answers.
As a fellow Raider fan you know that only a fraction of the fan base has come back and only a modest amount followed the team in LA. I love the Raiders, but even still a small part of me still feels wary about the franchise, because of the move. Moving a team from its home city is one of the worst sins in sports. There is a reason that people in Cleveland hate Baltimore, Baltimore hates Indy, old timers in Brooklyn sigh in sadness about the Dodgers. I really don’t feel as if I’m projecting this sentiment. Now Oakland to San Jose is slightly different because of the short distance, but truly, San Jose will erase the Oakland A’s culture that had been built.
Simon94022 put it best when he said, “An A’s move to San Jose will result in “San Jose” being added to the major league map, and Oakland wiped off, forever. THAT, rather than the distance required to travel to the ballpark, is the main reason why a move will make many East Bay fans bitter, and it’s also why many of the most passionate South Bay supporters are so excited about the possibility.
.
If/when the 49ers move to Santa Clara, they will keep the name San Francisco. So, outside of some elected officials in the SC and SF, most fans aren’t too worked up about that one way or another. But with the A’s, the rebranding that will come with a move south really marks a shift away from much of their historic fanbase and a commitment to building a new, somewhat different fanbase.”
@eb–another nice post. I enjoy reading them. Be ready for Bartleby to rip it a part, piece by piece. His condescending posts kind of turn me off.
@jk “Be ready for Bartleby to rip it a part, piece by piece.”
.
I don’t consider my responses to eb’s posts to be “ripping them apart.” From my end, at least, I consider it a reasoned debate. While he and I are not in complete agreement, he seems a reasonable person and I feel there is some common ground.
@jk-usa I don’t consider bartleby condescending, he seems like a knowledgeable guy. Heck, I might have run into him at an A’s or Raiders game over the years. This issue is just very frustrating . Wherever your hopes for the A’s may reside, I think we all can agree that these last 5 or 6 years have been a steaming pile. Compounded by the fact that the Giants won the big one in a new, west coast baseball cathedral. I’m at the point where if I see another person sporting green and gold I feel like I have to let them know they’re not alone.
@eb – thanks for getting to the heart of matter from an east bay perspective. It sounds fairly reasonable why such vague and Emotional arguments are made for keeping the A’s in Oakland: they fear losing the image of a major league city that is being eclipsed by another just down south. I can somewhat understand that sentiment. I applaud you for actual recognizing this and segregating it from the real dilemma of how (and where) to get the A’s a new home. As you stated, whether we are for SJ or the O, we’re still all rabid fans period. It’s just sad some people cannot recognize this and turn it into something it isn’t.
@eb–i agree, our in-house lawyer, Mr. Bartleby, is quite knowledgeable on much of this stuff, but comes across a tad too strong IMO. I just think Oakland still can pull this off, where he vehemently disagrees.
@bartleby, IYHO, when and what do you think BS will do regarding this whole mess?
IMO, it won’t be until the off season, until the EIR is done for Oakland. If all checks out okay, he’ll give Oakland the nod. I’m hoping for new owners, but LW says he doesn’t want to sell, but i just don’t think he’ll revisit Fremont again. Has he hinted going back there?
Not bartelby but there will be a ruling after the CBA is hammered out and the owners pull contraction (unlikely to happen anyway) off the table in exchange for some minor consideration from the MLBPA. I’ve been saying this for over a year and have seen no evidence to indicate that this is false.
@ Anon Hmmm, I think you have my thoughts slightly confused. Labeling the perspectives of Oakland first fans as “vague and Emotional arguments” comes across more than a little condescending. So we are the weak minded children as opposed to rational and stoic San Jose first fans? Maybe I’m being thin skinned but that seems inappropriate. Also, saying Oakland will be “eclipsed” if the A’s go to San Jose is strong and competitive rhetoric. It’s not the image I personally fear losing, heck Oakland has NEVER gotten a good image in the bay, it’s the history, local pride and culture the A’s in Oakland has developed. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, so forgive me if I come across that way, but the uniqueness that came with Oakland teams, the rebel Raiders, the swinging mustachioed fighting A’s, would probably not have developed that way in a suburb-like atmosphere like San Jose. There is something special, kinda off, un-mainstream about Oakland teams. Sports teams tend to reflect their city and in Oakland’s case incredibly so. I am biased, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that the urban core of the East Bay adds something special to its teams.
Wait wait wait….
In response to: “I’ve heard that LW has it all wrapped up but I haven’t seen anything in print on the numbers.”
.
Bartleby says:
“Why would you? No business makes that level of detail public. But when we keep hearing “John Fisher is one of the richest men in the universe” (with the implication that he could fund a park in Oakland with no revenue coming in), why would you doubt it?”
—-
Hmmmm, so you are slamming Oakland for having no plan, but by LW saying this project is “shovel ready”, that’s enough for you even though no plan has been put into place and publicized? Hilarious. How is that different from Oakland keeping quiet on their plans? Seems like it’s okay for many on this board to rip Oakland for having “ideas w/ no plans” but for some reason, LW saying, “We are good to go” w/o showing how that’s working, is okay.
I have a no doubt LW has a “plan”in place for SJ. Why wouldn’t he? He’s spent 98% of the time he should have working with Oakland on a ballpark, actually working with Fremont and SJ. That is why many fans who would like to see the team in Oakland, are so upset. His JOB was to find a ballpark in Oakland. He instead, did a once over, bypassed some terrific options that he could have worked on, picked an impossible spot as the “only option” (one he knew wouldn’t work), and then has clearly stated there are no options in the East Bay / Alameda County.
Sorry, that smells of BS and if you were objective on this situation (even if you personally want a park in SJ or Fremont) you would absolutely agree with that statement.
So lets be clear, according to the posters on this site:
1. SJ is shovel ready according to LW, but nobody has any idea how that will be funded because it hasn’t been publicized.
2. Oakland is not an option because no plan have been publicized.
3. Oakland has had severe attendance issues, even when winning.
And so on and so forth. Seems like a bunch of conjecture and BS to me. If I remember correctly, the year the A’s were in the playoffs vs. the Twins, a lot of talk was how the A’s couldn’t sellout their stadium for a playoff game. I believe that a. their park holds what, 60k+ at full capacity, b. didn’t they have multiple weekday games so that the other more high profile teams could have night games? and c. I believe I read somewhere that tix to A’s playoff games, on average, were more expensive than Yankees playoff tix.
If any of that is incorrect, I apologize – they are things I remember hearing / reading – don’t want to call it out as fact. That said, if correct, it again shows how silly our organization actually is.
Lastly, I would again like to point out: LW has consistently cried to the press how horrible the stadium is. I get it. That said: when the owner of a company discusses just how terrible of a product he has to offer, how terrible the fan experience is, do you think that makes people run to purchase tix for it? Is it not fair to ask that LW actually try to improve the situation as much as he can, within his control, to attract fans and increase attendance at home games? If you agree (as I do) then you can also agree that the A’s have NOT done that. Instead, they do what they can to keep fans away. If you are in a bad stadium, deal with it until it’s fixed (whether that’s SJ or Oakland or Timbuktu). Many incredible teams have gone through horrible patches of crappy teams and crappy attendance, and then have turned it around. I don’t understand why the A’s can’t do that. It starts with winning first: this team has been absolutely pathetic for several years now – the small amount of fans that do show up are hardcore fans that love the team, that will go to the games regardless of their situation. The key is to get the fringe fans – w/o a new park, that is much harder. W/o a new park and with a boring, bland and not-so-hot team makes that very difficult. W/o a new park and with a boring, bland and not-so-hot team makes, and with an ownership group who tells you not to waste your time by coming — that makes it nearly impossible.
Asch,
More apt to believe Wolff vs. Oakland because he’s the actual owner of the A’s, a member of the MLB “Lodge,” and he has the money/monetary means.
Again, when (or if) Oakland acquires ALL the VC parcels, relocates all the businesses, pays for ALL the surrounding infrastructure improvements, and promises a sizable chunk of public funding for the actual ballpark, then and only then will you have a good argument against Wolff.
Until then…
@asch “Hmmmm, so you are slamming Oakland for having no plan, but by LW saying this project is “shovel ready”, that’s enough for you even though no plan has been put into place and publicized?”
.
First, I think you’re confusing me with others. I haven’t been posting about plan/no plan, public/not public. To me, that’s mostly irrelevant. I have been posting about having a source of funding/revenue. That’s different.
.
I think we all know roughly what the A’s funding plan is, and it looks a lot like the Giants. That is to say, it entirely depends on long term commitments from corporate premium and charter seat holders. I don’t particularly care what the micro details are. The reason I believe it works in San Jose and not in Oakland is because that revenue source exists in San Jose and not in Oakland. Without that leg of the tripod, the stool falls over.
.
“if you were objective on this situation (even if you personally want a park in SJ or Fremont) you would absolutely agree with that statement.”
.
Actually, if you’ve been reading my posts for any length of time, I haven’t argued that the A’s invested a huge amount of effort in trying to build a ballpark in Oakland. On the contrary, I’ve said I don’t believe they did. But I also don’t think they had some kind of moral obligation to waste time on this when it’s pretty obvious that the economic fundamentals aren’t there. If you know that a key revenue source you need to finance the project isn’t available in a certain location, why would you waste your time? No amount of site evaluation will give Oakland a corporate base. Whatever LGO is doing will not give Oakland a corporate base. No phone calls to Jean Quan will give Oakland a corporate base. Lew Wolff didn’t waste time in Oakland for the same reason he didn’t waste time in Omaha; because it was pretty obvious it wasn’t going to work.
.
“So lets be clear, according to the posters on this site:
1. SJ is shovel ready according to LW, but nobody has any idea how that will be funded because it hasn’t been publicized.”
.
SJ is shovel ready because we have a pretty good idea how it will be funded and the necessary revenue source exists there.
.
“2. Oakland is not an option because no plan have been publicized.”
.
Not because a plan hasn’t been publicized. Because a revenue source necessary to support a valid plan doesn’t exist there.
.
“3. Oakland has had severe attendance issues, even when winning. And so on and so forth. Seems like a bunch of conjecture and BS to me.”
.
You’re relatively new to the blog so maybe you haven’t read them, but ML, Jeffrey and others have done a lot of nifty statistical analysis over the years which shows A’s attendance correlates strongly with winning and little with any of the factors you mention. But even when winning, the A’s attendance has consistently been in the bottom half of the AL. And this is not just in the Wolff years, it’s through their entire history in Oakland.
.
“It starts with winning first: this team has been absolutely pathetic for several years now – the small amount of fans that do show up are hardcore fans that love the team, that will go to the games regardless of their situation.”
.
Every fan wants their team to win, obviously. But there’s only a set number of wins to go around in MLB each year, and there is an equal number of losses. It’s a zero sum game. So even if every MLB team hires the best and brightest minds and tries its best within its means, there’s going to be roughly as many teams with losing records as winning records. It’s basic math. And if you’re playing on an unlevel playing field (as exists in MLB) and you’re one of the “have not” teams, you’re going to come out on the short end more often.
.
I think the A’s have been trying to win the past years. They’ve increased payroll to $80 million when they felt they were in a position to make a run. They’ve signed some big name free agents, and tried to sign some others. I haven’t really disagreed with most of the baseball moves they’ve made. But they’ve had a freakish number of injuries, and things just haven’t worked out. That’s baseball..
.
Still, at the end of the day and has been posted here previously, A’s attendance has consistently underperformed expectations relative to their performance on the field throughout their history. When they win attendance goes up, but not as much as one would expect. When they lose attendance goes down more than one would expect. It’s not a promising dynamic.
The real question is how will San Jose fix this? Or be any better. I have yet to see arguments supporting this.
@bartleby: Sorry – my post was only to you at the beginning (regarding exactly what you mentioned – funding in SJ vs. funding in Oakland). The rest of the post was more of just a general post to all. I didn’t intend to direct that entire post to you and sorry if it came off that way.
However, the intent was on your quote regarding why would we hear a huge level of detail regarding plans/funding etc – but then questioning where the funding/plan is coming from in regards to Oakland. I believe I read that above/earlier and that portion of the post was directed to you. Sorry if the rest got tied into it. 🙂
That said, again and in general to all: Saying that SJ has more revenue opportunity and that SJ is shovel ready, is a bit misleading from where I stand. It’s really just a matter of LW saying that that is the case. I don’t believe any of us have seen where that revenue is physically coming from (or anything else) past naming rights.
If I remember correctly too (and I could be wrong) SJ is not fully buttoned up as LW presents it to be.
Asch,
Being blunt, you need to stop worrying about San Jose and what Wolff says about San Jose.
What you really need to do is start asking serious questions about Oakland and demanding answers from The O.
If you don’t do that then you’re in classic denial over this entire situation. Enough from me on this thread.
@asch “However, the intent was on your quote regarding why would we hear a huge level of detail regarding plans/funding etc – but then questioning where the funding/plan is coming from in regards to Oakland.”
.
I don’t think I did question where a funding plan in coming from in regards to Oakland, at least not in this thread, nor did I raise the question “show me the financing plan.” My comment was a response to a debate between GoAs and Columbo over financing plans. Columbo had asked why we hadn’t seen a detailed financing plan for San Jose. My point was I wouldn’t expect a private business to share this, and it isn’t terribly important to me believing the deal can be done in San Jose because I know Silicon Valley to be one of the richest corporate markets in the country. On the other hand, I questioned why Oakland-only fans would even question whether such a plan exists for San Jose (which has those revenue streams) when they are prepared to believe such a plan even could exist for Oakland (which does not). Basically, the expectation on the Oakland-only side seems to be that John Fisher will dig deep even without those revenue streams, which is not a reasonable or realistic expectation.
.
“That said, again and in general to all: Saying that SJ has more revenue opportunity and that SJ is shovel ready, is a bit misleading from where I stand. It’s really just a matter of LW saying that that is the case. I don’t believe any of us have seen where that revenue is physically coming from (or anything else) past naming rights.”
.
That’s not entirely true. We don’t have access to the same data that Wolff, Schott, Neukom and Macgowan, but we can note that they all drew the same conclusions from it. Also, we can make some educated guesses based on public information.
.
First, we can make a rough guesstimate how important premium seat revenue is to the financing by looking at the Giants’ seating and pricing map. My back-of-the-envelope guesstimate is that premium and charter seating revenue accounts for something like 50% of the Giants’ gate. This may be off a bit in either direction, but I think it’s fair to say the magnitude of this revenue stream falls into the “financing doesn’t work without it.”
.
Then, we can consider who’s buying this product. Overwhelmingly, it’s large corporations, law firms, VC firms, consulting firms and the like. The Giants sold a lot of these products only on a FULL season basis, often with a multi-year commitment. Even very rich people aren’t likely to make this kind of commitments for 81 games per year over a span of multiple years.
.
Then, we could look at where the target market for this product is located in the Bay Area. By far the largest concentration is in Silicon Valley, next largest in San Francisco. My educated guess would run something like 50% Silicon Valley, 30% San Francisco, 20% “rest of the Bay Area (including the East Bay).
.
It is far easier to get to AT&T Park than Oakland from virtually all the Peninsula and South Bay. Also, the Giants begin with a head-start in terms of fan base in this area. It is just inconceivable to me that large numbers of this demographic will make long term commitments, not to visit their clients, but to drag their clients through 90 minutes to 2 hours of traffic to see a game in Oakland when there’s a far more convenient option in San Francisco.
.
Fundamentally, what I’m saying is that I believe building a new ballpark in Oakland is tantamount to ceding something like 80% of the target market needed to support it to the Giants. My numbers may be off somewhat, but not enough to affect my underlying point.
“Being blunt, you need to stop worrying about San Jose and what Wolff says about San Jose.
What you really need to do is start asking serious questions about Oakland and demanding answers from The O. If you don’t do that then you’re in classic denial over this entire situation.”
@Tony
Being blunt, what really needs to happen is Lew needs to actually start communicating with Oakland so that a deal can be completed. His refusal to do so (for years I might add, years) has put any possible progress on a new ballpark in Oakland in serious delay – and that overall means a new ballpark in general in serious jeopardy. It’s exactly why the city of Oakland is moving forward WITHOUT Lew – because Lew and ownership have removed themselves from the conversation for years. Saying “it can’t work” without working on it means he’s continuing to blame others for his unwillingness to work out a park in Oakland. He and others saying “we tried and it can’t work” is absolutely not true. So IF the A’s can’t get a new park in Oakland done, and the giants rights are upheld, and LW moves the team outside of the bay, the cause of that will NOT be Oakland’s fault, but rather LW himself (though i am sure most people on this site will not blame him. It’s certainly easier for many of you to blame a series of events that happened 15-20 years ago).
I have absolutely NOTHING to do with MLB’s position on territorial rights. Also, it’s not my job to ask questions from The O. it’s actually LW and ownership’s job to work on a deal to build a new park in Oakland. I don’t own the team, they do. And their insistence on dismissing a new park in Oakland may be extremely hazardous to this organization and it’s ability to keep the team in the bay area.
See how I did that? I said Bay Area. That’s right – because if the Giants rights ARE sacred as Selig says, then should we assume Selig/MLB will not allow the A’s to move there? Then what? Then LW will move the team to where? Portland? Omaha? Columbus? If Lew is so against Oakland, and working with the city to build a park, he shouldn’t have bought the team. Because frankly, if the team is forced out of the bay area, it will be on ownership’s shoulders, not asch’s shoulders (or other pro-Oakland fans). Does that make sense? Does it? Because cutting off the organizations best (and possibly most feasible) option to keep the team in the bay area, means….well….. do you see what that means?
re: Being blunt, what really needs to happen is Lew needs to actually start communicating with Oakland so that a deal can be completed.
…but the deal Oakland wants is a free ballpark – one built with no public assistance. Wolff already knows that can’t happen in Oakland unless the owners volunteer to become paupers. Already in debt on the Oakland Coliseum and laying off police officers and shutting libraries, Oakland has no money tp spend on a new ballpark. What’s Wolff supposed to do? Tell Oakland he can’t build a viable ballpark without public assistance so the next day;s headllines can read: “Billionaires Wolff, Fischer Demand Big $$$ from poor Oakland.”….If the A’s leave the Bay Area, it will be primarily the fault of the Giants and Oakland politicians.
and LW moves the team outside of the bay, the cause of that will NOT be Oakland’s fault
…Um, Schott had a deal on baseball-only improvements to the Coliseum. Oakland broke that deal. City Manager Robert Bobb fashioned a way to get a new ballpark. Mayor Jerry Brown fired him for devising that proposal. Asch, it seems like you’ve got your story and you’re sticking to it and no amount of facts is going to change your beliefs.
@asch All of your arguments seem to assume, without any meaningful scrutiny, that the Oakland/San Francisco area has the economic fundamentals necessary to support not one, but two MLB teams within eight miles of each other, each carrying a massive mortgage on a new ballpark. Nevermind that MLB economics are the most challenging in professional sports and that the vast majority of metro areas would be hard pressed to support one team, let alone two teams that close together. Nevermind the extreme imbalance in access to corporate money of those two teams.
.
Please assume, for the sake of this discussion, that both teams’ ownership groups have data which shows them they simply cannot service a mortgage that size without large amounts of premium seat revenue. Assume also that both teams have market survey data which show, due to travel time and other factors, the Giants are going to absolutely dominate this market segment if a new ballpark is built in Oakland.
.
Assuming all this to be the case, can you really blame the A’s for not spending a lot of time on Oakland? All these other considerations of site, etc. are moot if the revenue is not there to support the financing.
.
I believe all of these things to be true just based on publicly-available data. I also believe the A’s and Giants have much more detailed data which lays all this out even more dramatically. They know much more precisely how much of the Giants revenue is dependent on the Silicon Valley corporate market. They also know much more precisely where there specific target customers are. The A’s also know that the charter seat financing mechanism used so successfully by the Giants in San Francisco is a non-starter in Oakland because of the Raiders PSL debacle.
.
Doesn’t it tell you something that the Giants would rather have that A’s ballpark only eight miles away than forty miles away? There’s no question that a VC ballpark would hurt Giants overall attendance more than a Diridon ballpark. Doesn’t that tell you something pretty dramatic about the importance of that corporate revenue?
.
As a rational person, I think you would have to concede that if all the facts I have posited are in fact true Lew Wolff has behaved reasonably. Really, there is no point discussing whether VC can work as a site unless someone on the Oakland side steps up and says “here is a creative revenue source which makes up for the lack of corporate money.” If you assume public funds are out of bounds, I cannot for the life of me imagine what that funding source could be and really don’t think it exists.
re: f you assume public funds are out of bounds, I cannot for the life of me imagine what that funding source could be and really don’t think it exists.
…Oakland’s only hope is for MLB to charitably pay for the ballpark, something it’s never done. MLB wants taxpayers to foot the bill for these things. For the latest reference, see: Nationals ballpark
Selig has until the end of this year to make a decision….Or its lawsuit time!
Vicent Piazza challenged MLBs Anti-Trust exemption and won in the Florida Supreme Court for being denied moving the Giants. He won and was going to sue MLB directly but……..Selig, who is a coward, paid Piazza 20M to shut up and gave him an expansion franchise that turned out to be a real thorn at his side…The Rays.
Selig will cut deals with his back to the ball, you have to force him to do so or he does nothing as we all can clearly see.
San Jose needs to use this to their advantage and make him look foolish to the whole country.
Imagine if the Giants left to Tampa Bay? The A’s would be in San Francisco while San Jose would have gotten an expansion franchise.
What a twist of fate…