Update 4:45 PM – The lawsuit has been filed. Heading the suit are the expected lobbying groups, The League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association, plus the cities of San Jose and Union City. Oakland signed a declaration in support of the lawsuit.
The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports on the redevelopment lawsuits that are set to happen any day now but for whatever reason haven’t happened yet. Perhaps the reasoning for this is a poison pill inserted into the first bill (ABX1 26) that could prevent any cities who successfully sue the state over redevelopment from issuing additional debt. I have to admit that I didn’t notice the poison pill in my readings of the bills over the last month or so, despite the fact that the language is front and center.
(3) The bill would prohibit a redevelopment agency from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations if any legal challenge to invalidate a provision of this act is successful.
The poison pill may be the trump card forcing cities to pay-to-play for future redevelopment, since the cities have little chance of getting their payments back.
(Assembly Speaker Perez’s spokeman John) Vigna said if the agencies win a court challenge, the provision would force them back to the negotiating table and “continue working on something that satisfies the governor’s concerns, and their concerns.” But the negotiations would only involve those agencies that can make the upfront payment.
Wondering where the money for the last two parcels in San Jose is going? My guess is partly to the county for a prior settlement (which has a lien on some city properties), and partly to the state for the budget. It’s your move, Lew.
Funny that redevelopment wasn’t mentioned once in Dave Newhouse’s glowing interview with Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. While I admire Kaplan’s gusto, her continued pushing of the Coliseum is almost inexplicable. It’s not what MLB wants, it conflicts with what the Raiders are trying to do there, and the aforementioned freeze on redevelopment makes it just as complicated to work out a deal there as the downtown sites (if not more complicated). It’s also disingenuous to start making bold claims about which city doesn’t have money when the fact is that no city has money, and neither Oakland nor San Jose have articulated how they’ll get out of the RDA pickle.
Other tidbits:
June radio ratings are out. 95.7 (KBWF) dropped from 0.6 to 0.5 in the San Francisco-Oakland market, and stayed steady at 0.8 in San Jose.
Frank McCourt’s hubris continues, as he refers to Selig as “the devil” with “an eye jaundiced towards irrational animosity” in today’s court filing. Read this Vanity Fair article chronicling the McCourt divorce and you might think his arguments are a bit rich.
Carmen Policy was profiled in Sunday’s Chronicle (no public link yet, subscribers only) continuing to lobby for a 49ers stadium at Hunters Point. Policy is on master developer Lennar’s payroll to advocate for the stadium, which ironically Lennar no longer has to support and would actually would save $100+ million if they abandoned the stadium part of the project. Policy, ever a SF/Wine Country guy, also takes a shot at Oakland in the process:
“If I were part of a group that somehow wound up owning the Raiders, I would be looking to expand my influence throughout the Bay Area as far as possible, and one sure way of doing that is playing outside of Oakland.”
Is Policy not aware of what the Raiders’ identity is? Baffling.
The NFL and NFLPA may finally be wrapping up their negotiations, with the possibility of a “global settlement” covering all outstanding bargaining items and external lawsuits, such as Brady vs. NFL. Then again, we’ve heard the two sides were close to finalizing a CBA for well over a month.
newballpark.org 
Newhouse’s article looks like fantasy. They want to go to either the Coliseum site, which MLB has ruled out and which apparently is reserved for the Raiders, or VC, in which the A’s owners would not only have to build the ballpark but pay for property acquisitions, business relocations and infrastructure improvements, too. Maybe Newhouse and the Oakland City Council can start talking about issuing public bonds to be paid for with general funds, if they are serious about wanting to keep the A’s. Otherwise, it’s like walking into a Mercedes dealer and expecting the dealer to give you a luxury car you can’t afford because, doggone it, you’d really like to have one.
Kaplan likes Wolff and often has beers with him. There’s a story right there!..lol.
If VC or 980 deck job fall apart, I think the two new stadiums at the Coliseum and some enetertainiment options in the area would be pretty cool. I wish all parties involved: MLB, NFL, Davis, LW/JF, the City/County could get something going on this.
I wish all parties involved: MLB, NFL, Davis, LW/JF, the City/County could get something going on this.
.
..it’s last entity that’s the problem. The NFL and MLB would like the city/county to contribute half the cost or preferably a lot more for a venture like this. Unfortunately, the city/county can’t contribute the cost of a hot dog, even. Given the historically disappointing ticket and suite sales for the Raiders and A’s, there is no business case for the teams and leagues to do this on their own. It’s not like the NFL kicking in to the cost of the new Giants stadium – with people fighting over Giants season tickets in divorce battles. Both the A’s and Raiders have had far more tickets than the demand.
When it comes to the A’s, Oakland officials get to have their cake and eat it, too. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost after years of godawful decisions pertaining to the A’s, who is getting the blame? Not the city officials but the team owners, instead. Just check out the “Fischer Billionaire Slumlord” banner at A’s games. People in Baltimore once wanted Colts owner Robert Irsay to get out of town. How’d that work out for them?
RM,
I thought SJ had $27 million in hand for the last two parcels? In conjunction with the “ransom” money for the state.
I remember you posting this a few threads ago (?) in response to another commenter.
@tony d. – I think there’s a reason why you haven’t heard about land acquisitions. The game has changed and they’re figuring out how to adjust. There are consequences if they push ahead with the buys and don’t have the coin for the state payment.
Newhouse’s article was pretty fluffy, but I still find Kaplan’s drive very encouraging. Better a politician who is pro-sports/A’s than not, in my book. It just seems like a cohesive effort needs to be created and a clear plan put in place. Easier said than done, I suppose.
As for Policy, man, I can’t stand that guy. I wonder, did he push for the Browns to play outside of Cleveland? He is that last guy I’d want owning the Raiders or even lending advice. There are problems with attendance at Raider games, but that can be solved with sustained winning. Now, this is my opinion, but of all the teams in the Bay, the Raiders match the best with the identity of their hometown.
@eb – I agree about the Raiders and Oakland. That’s why I wonder about this SCC stadium the 9ers are talking about building. It seems like the NFL would like our teams to share a facility. There’s no friggin’ way the Raider faithful drive to the south bay in droves. I saw where they approved Joe Montana’s hotel. etc.
Is that stadium really going to happen in Santa Clara?
Uh, David…there are A LOT of Raiders faithful living in the South Nay. Where did you get the idea that this wasn’t the case?
Re: football, I’d love to see the Raiders in a new stadium at either the coliseum site OR sharing with Niners in SC. I followed them in LA and would follow them if they moved to Mars.
@RM,
Thanks. I was afraid that was the case. But the good news: there’s only two parcels left.
I’m confident SJ and Wolff will figure this out. Perhaps Wolff should focus solely on Diridon and leave FMC/Airport West for later.
Buc Shaw (and possibly Stanford) could still work in the interim, and the Quakes are already playing here. I guess you could sum this up in one word: priority.
@David,
Meant South Bay, not “nay”.
@ML–Oakland can raise money for 980 Park via a $20M revenue bond secured by $1M/annual rent, or 25% of the rent the Giants pay the Port of San Francisco. Oakland and San Jose do not have enough money for their Victory Court or Diridon Station proposals, respectively, without redevelopment.
—
I also don’t know what Rebecca is thinking. Her Coliseum proposal would require relocating 10 acres of parking in a structure for 1,000 cars at a cost of $20-25K/space or say $25M and there is no solution for replacement parking during the year of construction, unless you acquire more land. Then that begs the question as to where the money for land acquisition will come from. So call it $50M for land and parking. I guess you could try to get part of it out of rent, but it still would cost twice 980 Park with double the rent. But still MLB wants a downtown site.
@BG – I’d prefer that 980 Park not be injected into every discussion if it’s all right. This blog has given you considerable publicity for the concept, and I’m concerned that it’s out of scale with what’s really happening in the process. When something substantive regarding 980 Park happens – such as any independent cost estimate or real renderings of a ballpark on the site – then I’ll be happy to analyze it. Beyond that, I’m starting to think you’re taking advantage of this blog’s position and scope. So please: Have something real to discuss, then we can discuss it. And by real, I don’t mean more drawings of which parcels to acquire to make a ballpark fit.
@Tony – Wasn’t saying there weren’t Raider fans in SCC. But from my experience, that’s 9er country. I don’t see Al Davis becoming interested in that location.
@eb Sustained winning may help the Raiders with the blackout problem, but won’t make a big difference to the bottom line. General ticket revenue is shared anyway; it’s the premium seat revenue they get to keep. Sold out or not, the Raiders never sell out the club level – even though they’re charging only a fraction of what other NFL teams charge. The bottom line is: The market for premium seating is very soft in Oakland and there’s no reason to think that will change.
980 Ballpark : with memories of people crushed in the ’89 quake “980” /Cypress expressway – yeah that will fly with locals , no matter the ” over-engineering ” that would be needed.
Before /after game hanging out in the neighborhood to build up our carbon monoxide levels and thrill to the roar of freeway traffic flowing below – beats ATT’s South of market atmosphere anyday.
Bryan , you should call it the ” Cypress Stadium “
@bartleby Hey, you have your mind made up that things won’t/can’t change so I’m not going to get into this old argument again. You’re a smart guy, bartleby, but sometimes you’re a bit of a rain cloud. Realistically, going by current trends, the ocean will be devoid of the majority of its marine life due to pollution and over fishing . Should we not try to change that scenario or should we just accept that there is no current evidence that would suggest the outcome will be any different? Vastly different scenarios, same way of thinking.
@eb Did you just compare trying to protect the environment and save our planet to selling more suites to football games? I believe you did.
.
It’s a ridiculous analogy. Saving the oceans is hard, but possible. It just depends on building the political will to do it. It’s not a matter of selling anything. Selling suites and club seats in Oakland requires a target market which does not currently exist there. Whether or not the political will is there, the economics don’t support it.
.
It’s the same reason why building a Ferrari dealership in Los Banos would be a bad investment.
@bartleby I know it was a ridiculous analogy, hence, “vastly different scenarios.” Also, if you don’t think building political will does not involve any sort of selling of an idea or financial outcomes, well, that’s cute. As for the “target market,” who says you need to be obligated to Oakland. The team doesn’t just market to Oakland. At this point I’ve heard all of your “theories,” I get where you’re coming from and on occasion, I’ve agreed with you. But lighten up. For God’s sake I was just commenting how positive the experience was during the double-header and you had to even put your negative spin on that. Go outside, breath in the air, life is good.
To “PJK”:
is there a way to reach you? I’d like to talk to you about your idea.
Thanks.
A’s observer.
I find it completely baffling the ignorance in the Oakland city government. This is the reason why there has been 15 years of ineptitude from one mayor to another and why it will continue (VC EIR anyone?). This is probably why Russo left parting words of people being morally bankrupt all with their own hidden agendas. Conversely, while SJ may have its own issue, there’s much less bureaucracy and much greater levels of transparency in our civic leaders. I mean, only a year ago when the issue of a remark by Sam Liccardo’s in regards to push-polling was brought up, i was able to page him directly and have him answer my questions openly! Does Oakland even care about the A’s anymore? They commited to helping the W’s rebuild Oracle Arena and are now planning with Al “Mausoleum” Davis on a new facility already. Some may say that is just being so pessimistic. RAther, I would call it being rationale and not sipping the same old Oakland kool-aid.
Great link to the McCourt divorce, shed some great light on the details….Thanks ML.
As for Kaplan, she needs to come to reality here about the Coliseum and VC sites. Baseball wants a downtown location for ballparks. Name one ballpark build since the Rangers that is not in a downtown area?
I cannot think of one, please someone tell me otherwise. The Marlins new ballpark is right in the heart of the Miami metro area and people will be able to see the skyline from behind the plate.
Kaplan does not understand Wolff/Fisher will pay the 27M left if San Jose cannot do it to acquire the last 2 parcels because it is such a small amount of the bigger picture.
If Oakland was that close as San Jose is, I know 100% for sure Wolff/Fisher would step up to get it done. Its the problem of paying for the ballpark itself that Kaplan does not speak about.
At any rate, I am almost 100% certain Selig will move the A’s out of the Bay Area. He stated it was a huge mistake in 1968 when Finley moved them to Oakland and just stated the Bay Area as a 2-team market has always been “controversial”
I am going to be sad once Selig announces the A’s are leaving and this great blog is taken down. I will forever hate my Giants for not allowing my hometown to not have a team….Greedy punks!
“It’s the same reason why building a Ferrari dealership in Los Banos would be a bad investment.” That one line pretty much sums up the ENTIRE DEBATE on where the new A’s ballpark should be located and built.
By the way, what does the “Poison Pill” do to the City of Oaklands chances of building the A’s a ballpark? (not trying to start something; it’s a legitimate question). Heck, we know it’s thrown a kink into SJ acquiring the last two Diridon parcels and completing the Autumn Parkway project. What about The O?
@ Sid,
Have you been reading the blog over the past week? Selig already has stated that contraction and the A’s relocating out of the Bay Area is not an option. Why do you keep harping on that thought? Yeah, like Selig really invited his friend “Lewie” into the lodge just to screw him.
That poison pill is incredibly odd. The pill kicks in if the city successfully sues, but if the city is successful in its suit why would this legislation apply?
To Bartleby:
Are you 100 percent certain that the Raiders have “never sold out the club level.”?
I’ll tell you what, I’ll bet you two club level seats for one game in the upcoming 2011 season that they have indeed sold out the club level.
A’s observer
PS. I’m also an Oakland Raiders fan.
@eb “if you don’t think building political will does not involve any sort of selling of an idea or financial outcomes, well, that’s cute.”
.
Selling an idea just requires a good idea (i.e. product). Selling luxury goods requires a good product AND customers with the wherewithal to purchase it. Big difference.
.
“As for the “target market,” who says you need to be obligated to Oakland. The team doesn’t just market to Oakland.”
.
No, it doesn’t. They’ve had sixteen years to prove that the Silicon Valley corporate base can be tapped from Oakland, with little to show for it. The fact the Raiders’ efforts in this regard have failed so badly are a strong indicator that the target market is not willing to drive to Oakland.
.
“For God’s sake I was just commenting how positive the experience was during the double-header and you had to even put your negative spin on that.”
.
I agreed the doubleheader was great, and pointed out the energy provided by the tarps were one of the things that helped make it great. The fact that you construe that as “negative spin” says more about your biases than it does about me.
“Are you 100 percent certain that the Raiders have “never sold out the club level.”?”
.
If you’re asking me if I’m 100% certain the Raiders have never once in sixteen years sold out the club level, no, I’m not. But I was a season ticket holder for fifteen of those years (including one year in the club itself), and don’t remember any games where there weren’t lots of empty seats up there.
.
Even if they were consistently selling out the club (which they clearly are not), they’re not getting club prices for the seats. Whatever level of sales they have achieved came after they basically started marketing the club as regular seats.
FWIW,
I sat in the Club Level once for a Raiders game. Very nice! But there was hardly anyone around me. Prefer the Black Hole over the Club anyday.
@bartleby I comment about the positive energy level being great at the game, you respond:
“I have to point out, some of the energy and excitement in the ballpark Saturday was due to the tarps. With them, it felt like an event and near-sellout (which it was). Without them, those 27,000 would have been scattered through a cavernous stadium, dissipating the energy.”
If that’s not a “yeah, but” rain cloud moment, color me biased.
I state casually that winning would do nothing but to help Raider attendance and you respond, unsolicited with another “oh, yeah, well it’ll never happen in Oakland moment.” Face it, you like to argue and have some weird chip on your shoulder when it comes to anyone saying anything positive about sports in Oakland. You’ve been called out by posters on this site before about this same issue. In the end, I just get tired of the same shtick.
ML, this is the last I’ll talk about this issue, sorry.
@bartleby–your one of the few individuals on here who states facts rather than just opinions—I respect and appreciate that—and btw–couldnt agree more with you on the positive aspects of what the tarps do to create some energy in Oakland—27k spread throughout a 50k ballpark feels alot different than 27k in a 36k ballpark–
re”: To “PJK”:
is there a way to reach you? I’d like to talk to you about your idea.
Thanks.
A’s observer.
…what Idea? I have no idea…
Re: Downtown ballpark sites. When MLB defines a downtown ballpark, is it more about placement in a walk-able, urban environment with bars and restaurants nearby (AT&T, Petco, Coors, Wrigley, Fenway)? Or is it more about having a ballpark location near an urban core of a city or metropolitan area (Dodger, Citizens Bank, Turner, US Cellular)? It actually is not always the same thing.
.
Dodger Stadium is the perfect example. It has always been considered part of greater downtown LA, showing up in most downtown maps. No one would ever call it a downtown ballpark though.
.
I think most would agree that other than the Coliseum, only Rangers Ballpark, Angel Stadium, and maybe Kaufmann Stadium are in locations not considered to be downtown. I’m not exactly sure how Miller Park would be classified based on its location.
Just saw on KTVU’s 10pm news that a group is trying to get a deal with San Rafael to bring a ‘minor league team’ to the city. The team would be in the North American League, but when I looked at their site, they aren’t really minor league, they’re independent. KTVU claimed it would be the Bay Area’s second minor league team, after the SJ Giants. It was created in 2010 out of three former leagues: Golden, Northern, United.
.
Anyway, they’re pleading their case as we speak to the city council/parks organization. People are worried that it would ‘commercialize’ the park and create traffic problems.
.
The article on their website doesn’t seem to make the ‘minor league’ blunder, and has more info about bringing the team to the city: http://www.ktvu.com/news/27710555/detail.html
@eb “If that’s not a “yeah, but” rain cloud moment, color me biased.”
.
OK, I’m coloring you biased. Honestly, how do you construe that as a negative comment?
.
I was at the game(s), the energy was great. It would have been less great if the same number of people were scattered among 63,000 seats. Sorry you don’t like my opinion, but it’s rational. I think most objective people would agree with this very straightforward observation, regardless of how they feel about the tarps overall.
.
“I state casually that winning would do nothing but to help Raider attendance and you respond, unsolicited with another “oh, yeah, well it’ll never happen in Oakland moment.”
.
I never said the Raiders couldn’t or wouldn’t increase attendance. I just pointed out, for the Raiders as for the A’s, the problem in Oakland is it can’t support premium seat sales. (A much bigger problem for the A’s, for various reasons).
.
“Face it, you like to argue and have some weird chip on your shoulder when it comes to anyone saying anything positive about sports in Oakland.”
.
I don’t think you actually read what I write, or you have some problem appreciating nuance. (I must point out also, you’ve already attributed other posters’ comments to me twice in the short time you’ve been posting).
.
I’ve written many positive things about the City of Oakland and it’s sports teams. I’ve argued both the Raiders and Warriors could and should stay in Oakland. But you just keep on hearing what you want to hear, believing what you want to believe, and slandering Lew Wolff for living in the real world.
Miller Park and Kauffman are definitely not downtown. Nor are Citizens Bank, US Cellular, Wrigley, Yankee, CitiField, or Tropicana.
@GoAs, Tony, Sid, PJK and others – Thank you for your kind words.
@LS – Centerfield has been working this out for several months.
@ML -HA! I’m not sure how I missed your article on it. Just as long as they don’t ruin the neighboring bocce ball park, I’d be ok with it. 🙂
@bartleby – FWIW, I did some digging around and found the below info from a 2007 Forbes article:
“Despite finishing with the league’s worst record last year (2 wins, 14 losses), things are starting to look up for the Silver and Black. The Raiders took control of ticket sales for the first time since returning to Oakland from Los Angeles in 1995 last year (a county-run organization previously held the job). The result was a 12% attendance boost fueled largely by season ticket sales of 37,000, up from 29,000 the prior year. The team also collected their full share of club seat revenues for the first time adding $2 million to the bottom line. One more plus under the Raiders new agreement with Alameda County is that the team will collect some advertising revenue within McAfee Coliseum. Previously, baseball’s Oakland A’s, also a McAfee tenant, collected the lion’s share of ad signage revenue.”
I realize this is from 2007 but it does say that they increased ticket sales substantially in one year while also mentioning that they received their full share of club seat revenues for the first time. It also says the Raiders took control of their own ticket sales for the first time and a county organization ran it prior since 1995.
Also I looked up the Raiders attendance since moving back from LA and, relative to capacity, it has been 84%, 84%, 74%, 77%, 79%, 92%, 94%, 96%, 87%, 81%, 83%, 93%, 94%, 92%, 70%, and 74% for a total average of 85% from 1995-2010. The last 2 years were quite dismal. On the other hand the Raiders have gone 37-91 (.289) since being in the super bowl with a 2-14 season in there. I’m actually amazed at the relatively high capacity given the team’s poor performance. I’m not convinced this is an Oakland thing or a corporate thing that has been suggested many times. I think people will show up to see a good product in a good atmosphere. More people will show up to see a great product in a great atmosphere. I’m not saying SJ is not a corporate powerhouse because that would be ridiculous. I am saying that presuppositions are continually made about “Oakland” when, in fact, we are talking about a region of people totaling nearly 2.6 million in their defined territory alone. When someone says the Raiders “never” sell out their games the presupposition is that Oakland can’t support the team when, in fact, the capacity %’s say otherwise. There are both Raiders and A’s fans in all of the counties surrounding the bay area. I have a close relative who is a manager of a major fortune 500 company headquartered back east but has a branch in the east bay (as well as all 50 states). Since the Raiders came back this company and the team have had annual softball and golf tournaments together as a fundraiser for various causes. I know personally because I played in 5 golf tournaments during this time period. I’m not at all doubting SJ can support a team but I’m hearing the same stuff over and again about “Oakland” when it is so much more than that. Lastly, I apologize if this comes out all jumbled as I have tried before to create paragraphs to no avail.
@Columbo You’re getting a little carried away here.
– I’m not impressed with the percentage of capacity figures. The Raiders play in one of the smallest venues in the league. Most NFL teams sell out all their games in much larger stadia. Those numbers are dismal for an NFL team.
– The Raiders did get a short term boost from taking over their own ticket sales from OFMA. But unless you were also a long term season ticket holder, you have no idea how dismal the situation was before that; a boost was inevitable.
– I’m not letting them off with the excuse that OFMA was running things. That was their choice, and what business outsources their marketing, for chrissakes? They could have taken back marketing and ticket sales at any time; the City and County would have jumped at the 2006 deal years earlier. The only reason they didn’t is because it would have reduced their damages claim in the lawsuit. Basically, they threw their fans under the bus because they’d rather bankrupt Oakland schools through litigation than compromise and renegotiate the business deal.
– You’re missing my basic point. Despite the sad history described above, I believe the Raiders could sell out regular seats in Oakland, with a winning team and a new stadium. I also believe they can survive there because of NFL revenue sharing. What they can’t do is sell premium seating. They have a dismal record, and only sell as much as they do sell because they price it like other teams price regular seating. An NFL team can get away with this, the A’s cannot.
@bartleby. Thanks for the response. In the case of Wrigley I guess I was trying to say that it was in a vibrant neighborhood. I acknowledge it is not really a downtown location.
.
What I’m really trying to get at is a discussion about what MLB really values when it comes to a ballpark location since they state that downtown or urban locations are preferred. Is the ballpark experience at a place like Citizen Bank any worse because it is not pedestrian friendly and is surrounded by parking lots? That seems to be the primary argument when talk of a new Coliseum development is so quickly ruled out.
ML, at the risk of repetition, what are the businesses that make up the two parcels that are left? I was driving around what I believe was the site after buying some tickets at HP this afternoon. It looked like a security company, and workers were clearing brush or something. It’s ironically next door to “Cahill” park.
There’s no Ferrari dealership in Los Banos? Damn, there goes my weekend plans. 😦
@daveybaby – AT&T is the big one. Matheson Gas (Aeris/Arc Gas) is the other.
@ bartleby I’m recanting on my “last post” comment here, so I apologize if others here are annoyed by this back and forth with bartleby.
The issue I have, bartleby, is in fact the nuance of our conversations. The tarp comment for instance; why would you respond to positive feedback about an Oakland A’s game with this, “Without them, those 27,000 would have been scattered through a cavernous stadium, dissipating the energy.” The subject of the tarps, as you know, is a politicized thing among Wolff supporters/detractors and it had almost no bearing upon the issue being discussed. It appeared as if you were just throwing out the issue to cast a shadow upon a successful day in Oakland and start an argument about tarps/Wolff/etc.
As to the Raider comment, “Sold out or not, the Raiders never sell out the club level – even though they’re charging only a fraction of what other NFL teams charge. The bottom line is: The market for premium seating is very soft in Oakland and there’s no reason to think that will change.” Why say the Raiders NEVER sell out the club level( a statement you don’t even know is true, by your own admittance) and that things are likely never going to change in response to my original comment? I was not arguing about corporate support or even going into detail, specifying that winning is a total fix all. It seemed to me you were, again, just trying to start a debate for whatever reason.
As for attributing incorrect statements to you, I did do that once and I apologize, arguments tend to blend on this site. If you think I am just blinded by my Oakland-centric persona, well, it may be, but it just seems strange to me that you tend to argue or start arguments mainly with those who speak out on Oakland’s behalf. Surely we all can’t be blind to reason and evidence.
@Columbo Interesting numbers, thank you for that.
@b-man “What I’m really trying to get at is a discussion about what MLB really values when it comes to a ballpark location since they state that downtown or urban locations are preferred.”
.
I believe it’s primarily the “walk-able, urban environment with bars and restaurants nearby” that you mentioned. If the ballpark is going to be surrounded by a giant parking lot, what difference does it make if it’s urban or not? The Coli site is no better than Fremont; in many ways it’s worse. CitiField does not give you that “Wow, I’m in New York” excitement.
.
“Is the ballpark experience at a place like Citizen Bank any worse because it is not pedestrian friendly and is surrounded by parking lots?”
.
Citizen’s Bank is a great ballpark. But yes, the giant parking lot detracts from the experience, and prevents it from making my top 5.
@bartleby – “What they can’t do is sell premium seating. They have a dismal record, and only sell as much as they do sell because they price it like other teams price regular seating.”
I can’t believe I’m actually awake still doing this but please see below. This is from USA Today 2010:
Arizona 65,000 25.00 112.50
Atlanta 71,228 55.00 125.00
Baltimore 71,008 55.00 135.00
Buffalo 73,967 40.00 80.00
Carolina 73,504 32.00 97.00
Chicago 61,500 68.00 125.00
Cincinnati 65,515 60.00 85.00
Cleveland 73,300 32.00 85.00
Dallas 95,000 75.00 239.00
Denver 76,125 45.00 125.00
Detroit 64,500 30.00 140.00
Green Bay 72,928 67.00 83.00
Houston 71,054 30.00 120.00
Indianapol. 63,000 38.00 126.00
Jacksonv.l 67,164 30.00 98.00
Kan. City 76,416 30.00 145.00
Miami 75,192 34.00 120.00
Minnesota 64,121 15.00 143.00
New Eng. 68,756 65.00 169.00
New Orl. 68,000 25.00 190.00
NY Giants 82,500 85.00 160.00
NY Jets 82,500 95.00 150.00
Oakland 63,132 26.00 151.00
Philad. 69,144 70.00 95.00
Pittsburgh 65,050 64.00 98.00
St. Louis 66,000 25.00 140.00
San Diego 70,000 54.00 98.00
San Fr. 69,732 29.00 149.00
Seattle 67,000 52.00 110.00
Tampa Bay 65,908 25.00 115.00
Tennessee 69,143 45.00 85.00
Washington 91,704 29.00 99.00
Median: 69,438 39.00 122.50
In order: Team; Capacity; Low Price; High Price. As you can see above Oakland’s premium seating is definitely not priced like other teams price their regular seating as you say. Also, you didn’t even comment on the fact that my earlier post showed that they had collected their full share of club seat revenue. You have a right to your opinion and so do I. My opinion is that your opinion is just that…an opinion that I take with a grain of salt regarding many of your statements. I’m certain you feel the same. BTW – I don’t believe I’m missing your basic point at all. No offense intended by the way. Just friendly discussion.
@eb – Thanks.
@eb “The subject of the tarps, as you know, is a politicized thing among Wolff supporters/detractors and it had almost no bearing upon the issue being discussed.”
.
The tarps had everything to do with what we were discussing, which was the energy and vibe in the ballpark on Saturday. The tarps were a significant contributing factor. Totally on point. And, since the tarps get thrown out there whenever the Oakland-only’ers want to demonize Wolff, totally fair comment – pointing out a clear example of when they are a positive.
.
“It appeared as if you were just throwing out the issue to cast a shadow upon a successful day in Oakland and start an argument about tarps/Wolff/etc.”
.
Wow, that is just wild, bizarre, projection. Just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean their mere mention casts “a shadow on a successful day.” You make it sound like I randomly brought up Philip Garrido or something, chill out. IMHO, the tarps were part of the reason the day was successful. You don’t agree? Either debate the point or else move on, your choice.
BTW, you do realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of people in the Bay Area don’t give a shit about the tarps one way or the other, right?
“Why say the Raiders NEVER sell out the club level( a statement you don’t even know is true, by your own admittance) and that things are likely never going to change in response to my original comment?”
.
Now you’re doing what my kids did when they were about 7, getting all hyper-literal on me about something which doesn’t change the basic point. Can I say definitively the Raiders have never once sold out the club in 16 years? No, because I don’t have all the data. But unless you work for the Raiders or NFL, neither do you, and neither does A’s observer, because the Raiders and NFL don’t release that data. Nor do club seats count when determining blackouts.
But I can say, I personally attended most Raiders games between 1995 and 2009, and an especially high percentage of the “sold out” games. There were always lots of empty seats in the club. If I was buying tickets for friends on TM, the club was typically last to sell out. So I have good basis for what I’m saying.
It also is indisputable that Raiders club seats are dirt cheap compared to most other NFL teams. So even if they had managed to sell out a few games, it’s irrelevant because they aren’t really “premium seating” in the sense that we’re talking about. The pricing alone proves my point.
@bartleby – One more thing (not intending to mimic the actual Columbo – RIP), you said you were not impressed with the capacity percentages. That’s fine. However, you should be even less impressed with the Raiders winning percentage for the past 8 years that I pointed out above. If you want to say dismal then I would first point to that. I’m just curious if you think that the Raiders should have sold out those years, including premium seating, when they couldn’t win 30% of their games? Do you see any correlation at all or are you saying that it’s an East Bay thing period, i.e. the region will never ever be able to sell out premium seating (in contrast to 2006 when they were 2-14) even if they were winning because of few corporations and law firms? Note the attendance rose the year after that 2-14 season when they “improved” to 4-12.
@bartleby – Raiders club seats last season were $151. I have 3 gameday ticket stubs that I took my 5-year old to. I’m not sure how much you think their club seats cost but whatever. The other thing I keep hearing is how many empty club seats there are. Have you ever been to the west side club during a game? I don’t know about you but I have mostly seen that place packed with people who might otherwise be sitting in their seats. WTF are we even debating this for?
@Columbo “As you can see above Oakland’s premium seating is definitely not priced like other teams price their regular seating as you say.”
.
Um, wrong. The USA data is wrong, or at least it doesn’t reflect premium seating. It looks like, except for the Raiders, those are all regular seat prices (which completely proves my point, as the Raiders club seat prices are comparable to other teams’ top regular seat prices).
.
To provide just a few examples:
.
-Bengals club seats are sold on a full season basis only, and top out at $270 per game. http://www.bengals.com/tickets/stadium-map-and-ticket-pricing.html
.
– Chargers club seats top out at $315 per game. http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/0A004694E3FA2E80?artistid=806013&majorcatid=10004&minorcatid=8
.
– The Patriots don’t publish their club seat prices on the web, but I was there a few years ago and it was well over $300. The $169 price you published is for a regular lower level seat (and is the discounted season ticket holder price, to boot), proving my point that Raiders club seats cost less than other teams’ regular seats. http://prod.static.patriots.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/GS_SeatingMap.pdf
– Jacksonville Jaguars: $260 per game. http://www.jaguars.com/tickets/images/maps/2011/pricingmap.gif
.
For the above examples, I made a point of picking mostly small market teams. The Chargers’ stadium situation is very similar to the Raiders. I could keep going, but it’s late and I’m tired.
.
“Also, you didn’t even comment on the fact that my earlier post showed that they had collected their full share of club seat revenue.”
.
That doesn’t mean they sold out the club. If they did, it would’ve been worth WAY more than $2 million.
.
“You have a right to your opinion and so do I. My opinion is that your opinion is just that…an opinion that I take with a grain of salt regarding many of your statements.”
.
OK, but you are actually, factually, demonstrably, wrong. Look, it’s not always easy to immediately access all of this data, but I’ve been to almost all of the MLB parks and most of the NFL stadia. I price these things out when I go. I know what I’m talking about.
“Now you’re doing what my kids did when they were about 7” *sigh* Back to this. Stay angry, my friend.
@bartleby – “That doesn’t mean they sold out the club. If they did, it would’ve been worth WAY more than $2 million.”
The article said they added $2m to their bottom-line. Bottom-line = Net earnings; Top-Line = Revenues. Bottom-line is after everything is taken out and represents the last line on the income statement, hence “Bottom-line.”
There are 9,000 club seats. Although I don’t even think the price for these seats in ’06 was $140 I’m simply using that because I factored in inflation from the starting point of $151. This would come to $1.26m per home game. For 10 games (including 2 preseason games) would make this figure $12.6m. If they added $2m to their bottom-line like the article suggests, this would be a 15.9% margin. How much more are you calculating sold out club seats would have been worth to them?
Re: ticket comparisons, I’m too tired to look around but I will do so tomorrow and post something.
@bartleby Ok, against my better judgement, but I’ll respond. (Quote)
.
“The tarps had everything to do with what we were discussing, which was the energy and vibe in the ballpark on Saturday. The tarps were a significant contributing factor. Totally on point. And, since the tarps get thrown out there whenever the Oakland-only’ers want to demonize Wolff, totally fair comment – pointing out a clear example of when they are a positive.”
Now, if you think the tarps were a helpful factor in fan response, go for it. My attendance at high energy games, pre-tarp would seem to go against that theory, but, hey, that’s your opinion. My issue comes with that fact that you are implying that without the tarps, Sat. would have been nothing special or “littered with scattered fans lacking energy.” You made it into a San Jose/Wolff vs. Oakland affair, when in reality I was praising A’s management and noting how it was a great day for ALL A’s fans. So we have, “Hey great day for the A’s!” vs. “Yeah, but it was Wolff’s tarps that really made it special!” YOU put the negative, antagonistic spin on the affair and you have admitted to linking the tarps with Wolff in your following comments. As you notice, I didn’t comment, just shrugged my shoulders. BTW, who on here is Oakland-only? Just curious.
Then I comment about the Raiders improving attendance by winning on a regular basis and you respond by saying that (paraphrasing) winning won’t help, because they are in Oakland they will suffer.” I wasn’t even debating the issue and you throw that out for no obvious reason. As I am not an “Oakland-only” chap, surely you weren’t using the opportunity to signal a correlation with the A’s? Even if you were, that seems spiteful and unnecessary. Then you say this,”Now you’re doing what my kids did when they were about 7, getting all hyper-literal on me about something which doesn’t change the basic point. Can I say definitively the Raiders have never once sold out the club in 16 years? No, because I don’t have all the data. But unless you work for the Raiders or NFL, neither do you, and neither does A’s observer, because the Raiders and NFL don’t release that data. Nor do club seats count when determining blackouts.
But I can say, I personally attended most Raiders games between 1995 and 2009, and an especially high percentage of the “sold out” games. There were always lots of empty seats in the club. If I was buying tickets for friends on TM, the club was typically last to sell out. So I have good basis for what I’m saying.
It also is indisputable that Raiders club seats are dirt cheap compared to most other NFL teams. So even if they had managed to sell out a few games, it’s irrelevant because they aren’t really “premium seating” in the sense that we’re talking about. The pricing alone proves my point.”
All of which is very nice, but completely irrelevant to my point as I WAS NOT ARGUING ANY OF THIS. You responded to my post with more “Oakland has problems facts” while ignoring what I had issues with in the first place, namely, your repeated negativity and need to argue. So, you’ve compared me to your 7 year old children and ignored my actual issue which is the way you communicate with me and others on this board. I’m repeating myself, but you seem to try and argue with people on this site who have anything positive at all to say about Oakland and I just don’t understand it.
@bartleby–your tarp comment has be scratching my head. You keep saying that the 3rd deck is hardly used and that it makes total sense to tarp it to save on security and ushers. Okay,so how can the energy from the 27k on Saturday dissipate if the 3rd deck is not tarped and hardly used?. It’s the same thing!! Worst case scenario is 2-3k of the 27k spreads out to the 3rd deck, only cutting 10% off the 1st and 2nd deck crowds. Not that much energy lost there I”d think. I would like sound and energy meters measuring this in several areas to prove this point though. Okay, and best case scenario is that they may of sold 2-3k more seats, which would all be in the 3rd deck because of the low prices. This would have the same amount of fans in the 1st two decks and a few thousand more in the upper deck, actually adding a little more noise and energy.
I can’t believe you guys are railing against bartleby here. I was there for the double-header on Saturday and the bobblehead on Sunday. Sure, there would have been a vibe even with the tarps gone, but it would have been not nearly as great an experience as it was with the tarps up. It’s quite simply a matter of density. People feed off of other people in high-intensity situations. Spread them out, and they don’t.
.
You guys can argue until you’re blue in the face, but those tarps helped create a better fan experience this past weekend.
@ Columbo “The article said they added $2m to their bottom-line. Bottom-line = Net earnings; Top-Line = Revenues. Bottom-line is after everything is taken out and represents the last line on the income statement, hence “Bottom-line.”
.
I well understand the difference between top line and bottom line. But the Raiders keep 100% of their club seat revenue, and selling more club seats adds virtually nothing to their costs. Every incremental club seat sold (which is what we’re talking about) goes pretty much straight to the bottom line.
.
“There are 9,000 club seats. Although I don’t even think the price for these seats in ’06 was $140 I’m simply using that because I factored in inflation from the starting point of $151.”
.
Because of weak demand, the Raiders have only raised ticket prices 2 or 3 times in 16 years. I’d have to double check, but I believe club seats were the same in 2006 as they are today.
.
“This would come to $1.26m per home game. For 10 games (including 2 preseason games) would make this figure $12.6m. If they added $2m to their bottom-line like the article suggests, this would be a 15.9% margin. How much more are you calculating sold out club seats would have been worth to them?”
.
Using your numbers and assumptions, about $10 million, because as noted above incremental club seat sales are almost 100% margin.
Sometimes, I get the feeling people just believe what they want to believe. There is simply no need to have 50,000+ seats for a team that usually only draws about 15,000 a night. Covering up 10,000 of those seats makes perfect sense, rather than having even more acreage of empty seats and spreading a depressing, “I don’t want to be here since no one else is” vibe.. Did the 27,000 and 26,000 tickets sold this weekend represent sellouts in the tarped stadium. No. So there is no argument at all that the tarps “suppress attendance.”
Tell me the logic of offering obstructed view seats vs covering up un obstructed view seats.
.
The ownership kool-aide drinking around here makes me sick.
.
The tarps are ugly. I was there both days too. I would have much rather had the 27k in the upper deck than pushed to the Mt Davis expanse. Would have added much more atmosphere. Don’t try and justify every move that Wolff makes. Expain to me why it was better to have the crowd in the outer rim then right above home plate.
Man I wish we could have a new stadium so we could stop talking about tarps!
@maineA’sguy,
Totally agree!
@Tony- Selig did say contraction was off the table but never mentioned relocation…..Check those statements again.
He mentioned a 2-team Bay Area has always been “controversial” and said years ago it “was a colossal mistake” when the A’s moved to Oakland in 1968.
San Jose is not happening as much as I want to believe it will. Selig has no excuse not to proceed now…..
@bartleby – “But the Raiders keep 100% of their club seat revenue, and selling more club seats adds virtually nothing to their costs. Every incremental club seat sold (which is what we’re talking about) goes pretty much straight to the bottom line.”
Look, I don’t want to keep arguing about this but I think we’re talking two different languages. From what I’m reading you’re saying NFL club seats are like gravy and are somehow not affected by costs. I say this because you are saying the Forbes article is wrong and that the Raiders would have had more than $2m added to their bottom-line. I believe you’re really saying that NFL teams keep all of their club seat revenue, which I agree with as it is not part of shared revenue. O.k., for the sake of arguments let’s assume you’re right about the costs. If they generated $2m for their club seats at 100% margin, at $151 per seat, that means roughly 1,325 club seats were sold on average during the entire season out of a total of 9,000. That year they drew nearly 468k fans during the regular season out of about 505k, which is a capacity in the lower 90% range. Using Forbes figures (with your assumptions) they sold less than 15% of available club seats. Assuming all of the unsold seats were club seats, that means about 37k club seats were left unsold. Since these are regular season numbers that means, at the minimum, 35k club seats were sold during the season. At $151 per ticket that’s nearly $5.3m that should have been added to their bottom-line assuming your 100% margin versus Forbes $2m mentioned in the article. Something is not adding up, would you agree? I think you might be confusing bottom-line (after expenses) with revenues (before expenses) because I don’t think it would have been possible for the Raiders to have sold less than 15% of their club seats during that season. On other thing is regarding your statement that the Raiders club seats are priced like most other teams price their regular seats. I think we agree that their club seats sell for $151 (going to $161 this season by the way). Are you saying that teams in lower cost-of-living areas where a good salary might be $30k are having to pay this amount per ticket for regular seats? I’m simply wondering if your statements about the Raiders are speculation, opinion, or if you believe they are facts? To tell you the truth I’m kind of done with this conversation because we are getting way off topic from the A’s. I’ll just end this by saying that you are obviously a very intelligent guy and you are probably right. I’m moving onto the A’s. Let’s go A’s! That was my favorite chant in the 80’s.
“It’s a tarp!” -Admiral Ackbar.
Man I wish we could have a new stadium so we could stop talking about tarps!
…the A’s someday will get a new stadium. Whether it’s in the Bay Area is looking doubtful at this point.
Could someone please reference Sid to John Shea’s exchange with Selig during the AS break?
I’m not currently at my PC and my Crapberry sucks (I need a new phone like the A’s need a ballpark). Thanks.
re: The tarps are ugly.
…and tens of thousands of empty seats is embarassing. I’ll take the tarps.
I’m beginning to think some of you keep harping on the “A’s forced out of the Bay Area” and “Giants are in control” stuff (despite evidence, facts to the contrary) just to stir stuff up and out of complete boredom for lack of news re: A’s ballpark.
Anyhow, enough from me on constantly addressing the doom and gloom scenarios; its your world. I’ll deal in reality and the news at hand.
By the way, how long ago was 1968? (hint…I wasn’t even born yet).
Lack of evidence? The A’s want to go to San Jose but can’t, and a privately built ballpark (the only option available in the Bay Area) is not a possibility in Oakland. So where does that leave us? Either they’re stuck in the Coliseum forever or the team relocates.
@Jeffrey “The tarp is not the issue, man!” – The Dude
I don’t think the tarps are ugly at all. They don’t look like a body bag or weed cover. Yes, it would be better to have people in those seats, but that’s not happening. Six games over the span of a year that -might- sell out aren’t excuse to remove them for the other 75 games. Another thing the tarps accomplish is help CELEBRATE THE TEAM’S HISTORY, something that many (including myself) say doesn’t happen enough with this team.
Typical: The new RDA post has zero comments, while you guys drag the tarp debate into this one.
@Columbo “From what I’m reading you’re saying NFL club seats are like gravy and are somehow not affected by costs.”
.
No, I’m saying because the costs are sunk costs that INCREMENTAL club seat sales are 100% margin. Unlike the A’s and the upper deck, the clubs are already fully staffed. So, if the Raiders sell an extra 1000 club seats for any particular game, they don’t incur any significant incremental cost and that revenue all adds to their margin by a corresponding amount.
.
” so I say this because you are saying the Forbes article is wrong and that the Raiders would have had more than $2m added to their bottom-line.”
.
I’m saying I think you are interpreting that (admittedly vague) statement from the article wrong. I think it just means the Raiders got a $2 million bump in club seat sales in 2006. Nice, but small potatoes in the big picture.
.
“If they generated $2m for their club seats at 100% margin, at $151 per seat, that means roughly 1,325 club seats were sold on average during the entire season out of a total of 9,000.”
.
As noted above, I think it is an incorrect interpretation of the quote that $2 million was the sum of premium seat sales. That number is too low, even for the Raiders. Nor do I think that quote means they suddenly started selling out the club.
.
Also, I would point out $151 is the top club season ticket holder price; club seats start at $126.
.
“On other thing is regarding your statement that the Raiders club seats are priced like most other teams price their regular seats. I think we agree that their club seats sell for $151 (going to $161 this season by the way). Are you saying that teams in lower cost-of-living areas where a good salary might be $30k are having to pay this amount per ticket for regular seats?”
.
Not necessarily. I’m saying Raiders club seats are priced way lower than other NFL teams’ club seats almost across the board, even in small/struggling markets like J-ville and Cinci. And I’m saying Raiders club seats are actually comparable or lower than some regular seats in many markets, like New England.
.
“simply wondering if your statements about the Raiders are speculation, opinion, or if you believe they are facts?”
.
I beleive they are facts, although I have not double checked every team in th NFL due to time constraints. I cross checked using a sample of teams you might expect would be comparable or lower than the Raiders. If you checked them all, I think you might find a few exceptions but overall my thesis would prove out. As I said, I have spent a lot of time price shopping NFL tikcets in many different NFL markets over the years, and feel I have a good sense of this.
.
@bartelby – This is the last thing I will post on this and I’m only doing it because I just want to point something out. You said I’m interpreting the Forbes article incorrectly. That is highly possible. However, it says the Raiders “collected their FULL share of club seat revenues for the first time.” To me “full share” means that they couldn’t have received anymore. In other words they sold all their club seats. If I am misinterpreting that then it is what it is. Also, you refer to the club area being fully staffed as a sunk cost. I’m assuming that you are implying that this cannot be recovered. From what you’re saying the Raiders would have 500 staffers whether there are 1,000 or 9,000 club seats sold. Do you think the Raiders would know ahead of time how many club seats were sold for a given game and would plan staffing accordingly? You also said something interesting in your last post. You said that you thought the quote was incorrect regarding $2m as the sum of premium seat sales. Again, I can’t help but think you are using revenue when, in fact, the $2m is the bottom-line figure. I don’t want to get all into the accounting here but there are expenses above and beyond staffing that gets factored into this. Look, we obviously will not agree on this so let’s waive the white flag and agree to disagree. I respect your opinions and I think we should focus on the A’s.
@bartleby – I just realized that I’m appearing like someone who likes to have the last word, which I’m not. So even though I’m waiving my white flag by all means feel free to give your last word if you wish. Either way I’m moving onto to the A’s.
@ Columbo Interpreting “full share” as “we sold out the club” is a reach. For one thing, that’s just not what the words mean. “Full share” doesn’t imply an increase in sales. It implies that the city/county was getting some cut of the revenue, and then stopped.
.
For another thing, I was there in 2006 and the club was nowhere near sold out.
.
For another thing, the numbers don’t support that interpretation. There’s no way the Raiders incremental margin on incremental club seat sales is as low as 15%. Most of the Raiders game day costs are sunk costs. There’s nowhere near 500 people staffing the club, and most of the people who are there just scale up the work. I’ve been in the club for many lightly attended games, and all the bars are still open. If they had to add on a handful of minimum wage vendors to service an extra 1000 people, the incremental cost would be noise level.
.
Finally, there is just no way, no how, any NFL team’s margin for a club level sold out on a season long basis is as low as $2 million. That statement just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NFL economics. If it took a season of sellouts just to get to $2 million, clubs would be money losers for a lot of teams.
For clarity, a “share” is a fraction of something which exists. It does not necessarily imply an increase in whatever is being divided.
@ ML – lol……/popcorn….sorry but when i see anything Raiders related, my eyes just roll…i might be the minority here, but go 9ers! :p
@bartleby – I’m such a sucker. I’m going against what I said by posting again. FYI, the Packers are the only team that releases their numbers so it’s all I have to go on here. In 2010 the team earned a total of $258m in revenues, a record for them at that time. However their operating profit was only $9.8m. Notice I said operating profit, i.e. EBIT. Their net profit or net earnings (bottom-line) was about $5m. Their operating profit the previous year was $20m, or maybe just north of $10m bottom-line. A professor of economics named Kevin Murphy did a study that showed between 2003-2008 the average NFL team’s operating profit was about $25m (mostly in much better economic times). I am going back to the Forbes article yet again to say that the $2m “added to the bottom-line” from club seats is not revenue and not operating profit. The $2m is the takeaway that is part of the entire bottom-line, whatever total number that was. This is, in effect, saying that their net earnings had increased by $2m that year, suggesting that they did, in fact, sell out their club seats. I’m not sure what you mean by there is no way a team’s margin on club level could be $2m. That figure is one piece of the entire net earnings. How much of the Packers $5m bottom-line was from premium seating? I don’t know myself as I’d have to look into it. We are not talking about owner’s wealth increasing from franchise value increasing. I’m strictly talking about the bottom-line figures. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to conclude that Forbes is correct when they say that the full share of club seat revenues were collected, which then added $2m directly to the bottom-line does mean that the club seats were sold out. You say you were there in 2006 and it was nowhere near sold out. First of all that is hearsay. Second of all that statement is purely relative. Nowhere near sold out could mean 50%, 20%, 10%, etc. Thirdly, I mentioned earlier how many folks hang out in the west side club during the game, which could account for the empty seats. Lastly, you said that the city/county took a cut from the club seat revenues prior to that season and I’m wondering again if this is speculation or do you know this to be a fact? I personally do not know but I could easily find out.
@ Columbo First of all, I place no weight whatosever in teams public statements of profits and losses. As has been documented here very recently, those numbers are completely cooked. If you really believe the Packers are only making $5 million, I’ve got a privately financed ballpark in Oakland I’d like to sell you.
.
“This is, in effect, saying that their net earnings had increased by $2m that year, suggesting that they did, in fact, sell out their club seats.”
.
No, it doesn’t. The one does not follow logically from the other. They could very easily improve the bottom line by $2 million without selling out the club.
.
“I’m not sure what you mean by there is no way a team’s margin on club level could be $2m.”
.
I mean, there is no way the NFL and NFL teams are investing hundreds of millions of their own money to obtain revenue generators whose payoff is about the same as the salary of a backup middle linebacker. Defies common sense.
.
“You say you were there in 2006 and it was nowhere near sold out. First of all that is hearsay.”
.
No, it isn’t. If I told you a friend of mine was someplace and witnessed something, that is hearsay. If I tell you i was someplace and witnessed something, that is not hearsay.
“Thirdly, I mentioned earlier how many folks hang out in the west side club during the game, which could account for the empty seats.”
.
Sorry, no. The number of people hanging out in the Westside Club doesn’t approach the number of empty seats. Also, very few people hang out all game and never return to their seats. I think I can tell the difference.
@Columbo See attached article. As you can see, the difference between the haves and have nots in the NFL is on the order of $100 million. The main differentiator is stadium revenue, since all other revenue streams are shared. The biggest component of stadium revenue is premium seating.
.
The “have nots” still mostly generate substantial amounts of premium seat revenue, so it is not far fetched to believe sucessful teams wring anywhere from $50 – 100 million out of their premium seating. With this in mind, perhaps you can see why I find it absurd to cite a $2 million increase in profit as evidenc that the Raiders are selling out the club.
.
Nevermind the fact you can go online gameday and buy tickets in the club. Go ahead and try it this season.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2007/02/Issue-109/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/Analysis-Details-Revenue-Disparity-Among-NFL-Teams.aspx
I know FLA tarped their upper deck this year and Minn did it a few years ago at the Humpty Dumpty dome, both in lousy facilities kind of like ours. Okay, Cleveland, Baltimore and few others are barely drawing over 20k, leaving 25k+ empty seats. Will they tarp their upper sections too to have a more intimate atmosphere? Even though they have cool and newer parks? I think that would be pretty embarassing. The newer parks are built smaller at around 39-40k, cuz of lack of demand.
I’ll meet you guys halfway on this tarp issue. Mt. Davis is way too high, lousy views, leave it tarped. The 3rd deck, leave the ends tarped that have the WS years highlighted. Looks okay. But leave the rest untarped, or at least on Sat. and Sundays, or at minimum against good draws like opening night, G’s, Yanks, Sox, and PLAYOFFS!!!
@bartleby – 1) That’s just it. The Packers are the only team that does release numbers. I would say that saying they’re cooking the books is speculation. 2) Yes, they could improve their bottom-line without selling out the club but that’s not the point. The point is that the Forbes article attributes the $2m bottom-line increase directly to the club seats. 3) Define payoff. Again, this number is after everyone is paid including the head honchos, the debt service, the kickbacks, whatever. This is the gravy, the icing, the money that goes into savings or investments for future usage. By the way, the Packers have about $175m in this type of account built up over the years. 4) Re: hearsay – You’re right. I’m no lawyer. I have a lot of attorney clients. But you are correct. You are giving direct eyewitness testimony so to speak. Still I have gone to lots of games and I only sit in the club and I have seen a lot of people in the club seats with some empty seats. Likewise I’ve seen lots of people in the west side club (mostly toward the end of the 2nd quarter and remaining so for the remainder of the game). Without an accurate head count I don’t think I can comfortably give a number or percentage as to how full it actually was. I do know that I have never been to a game where I would actually make a statement that says the club is “nearly” empty or something to that effect. 5) See #4.
Or how about the unthinkable: Tarp Dodger Stadium. That place is just plain huge, and the 4th deck is cavernous and way up there. They’re drawing 35k this year which is still great for most teams , but not for them, and there’s a ton of no-shows, so it’s more like 30k. You still got 20k empty seats or more most nights. You know if they do this, things have hit rock bottom, just like in our situation. I still think it’s quite embarassing putting the tarps up and have to explain to my friends why Wolff chose to do this–a more intimate feeling, creating a demand for tix…lol.
@jk–when the Dodgers have 40+ years of lackluster attendance than I agree with you–anyone sitting in a ballpark with 20k empty seats on most nights shouldn’t need an explanation as to why there are 14k tarped off
@bartleby – About 2/3 of NFL revenue comes from tv contracts. So, let’s use the Green Bay example. They earn $258m in total revenues and $172m came from tv contracts. All of the teams equally split the tv revenues. Player salaries are roughly 2/3 of overall team revenue so we can say that the tv contracts pay for the players. Going back to the packers, the remainder of their revenue (roughly $86m) is a combination of things like sales of licensed products, jerseys, etc, which is also equally shared. Then there is the “gate” revenue, which is roughly a 60/40 split (except for premium seating) with 40% going to the visiting team. In 2005 the NFL average earned at the gate was about $2.5m per game ($1.5m for the home team / $1.0m for the visiting team). That’s about $12m per year in revenues assuming no premium seating. Obviously it would be higher when you factor in premium seating. Let’s for a moment assume the Raiders in 2005, with a capacity of 63,000, sold out all 8 regular season home games. Let’s further assume that in 2005 the average club seat was $80 and the average other ticket was $25. Remember I’m just trying to make this example simple. So a typical sold out game would generate $2.07m in “gate” revenue. Of this the Raiders would have kept $1.53m. Over an 8-game season this amounts to $12.24m in “gate” revenue. This is revenue. There are operating costs. Their bottom-line might be in the neighborhood of $1.8m-$2.0m assuming a 15% or so margin. Remember, this is just the gate revenue, part of which is shared. The Raiders also receive revenues when playing away games. The $2m that I am focusing on from selling out club seats is strictly a bottom-line figure for home games, which is one of many parts of the bottom-line.
@bartleby – Note the above example is extremely simplified, especially using the Packers example. A better way to look at it is that the NFL made a total of $8.88b in 2009 in revenues. Of that about $5.92b came from tv contracts. While we know the NFL takes a little off the top for expenditures let’s assume they split $5b equally between all 30 teams for tv revenue, or about $167m. Again, using these simple numbers that means the Raiders, Packers, Niners, etc. all made $167m in tv revenues. Then it goes from there….merchandise sales, concessions, parking, gate revenue, gate revenue sharing, premium seating, and on and on. It so happens that player salaries alone that year were about $4.5b, over 1/2 the total revenues. Then you have coaches salaries, stadium workers, cost of goods sold, debt service (if applicable), taxes, blah, blah, blah.
@bartleby – One last thing and I promise this is it for the Raiders conversation for me. You said:
“The “have nots” still mostly generate substantial amounts of premium seat revenue, so it is not far fetched to believe sucessful teams wring anywhere from $50 – 100 million out of their premium seating. With this in mind, perhaps you can see why I find it absurd to cite a $2 million increase in profit as evidenc that the Raiders are selling out the club.”
I’m going to go a bit outlandish here and use Dallas as an example. They have 15,000 club seats and 300 suites. Let’s say the average club seat is $250 and the average suite is $10,000 per game. That would be $30m and $24m respectively during the regular season, which would amount to $54m in premium seating revenue. Again, this is assuming there are 15,000 people paying an average of $250 for all 8 home games and each and every suite is rented out at $10,000 per game. Note that I am just making up those prices for the purposes of this illustration. Let’s assume a further 65,000 tickets are sold at an average of $80 bringing another $5.2m per game or an additional $24.96m for the season factoring in the home/visitor split. Their “home” gate revenue for that year would be just under $79m. You are correct that premium seating represents a huge portion of home gate revenue, in this case over 68%. But, once again, I’m talking about revenue before expenditures. If they are at a 15% margin they would earn about $11.8m for their bottom-line ($8.1m from premium; $3.7m from regular). What I am trying to say is that the $2m figure cited by Forbes is not absurd. Consider too that they were talking only about club seating and didn’t mention anything about revenues from luxury suites. O.k. I’m done. It’s been fun.
So like, WTF was the point of the whole Raiders back and forth?
There was no point, as usual.
The point was: If the Raiders have struggled mightily to sell premium seating in Oakland (which they have), it does not bode well for the A’s chances to do so in a new Oakland ballpark. It is much more feasible to lure Silicon Valley customers for once per week NFL event games on a Sunday than repeated weeknight games through rush hour traffic.
FWIW, I love DA RAAAAAAIDUZ!
No point as usual? Really? So none of my points had any merit? So it’s o.k. for blanket statements to be made, in some cases outlandish statements, by SJ-people that always seem to be about Oakland’s lack of a fanbase, corporate base, whatever. O.k. Sorry that I tried to articulate the positives and the facts about the premium seating. I mean who else but someone who is pro-SJ would actually say that a Forbes article is wrong, USA Today is wrong, the Packers are cooking their books, the Raiders can’t possibly sell out the club sections? I think eb is right. The minute something even remotely positive is mentioned about Oakland it is ridiculed, countered, put-down, etc. I simply took a comment from bartleby that I didn’t agree with and tried to debate the facts with him. I thought I was being diplomatic in my postings and even flattering to bartelby by acknowledging his intelligence while, at the same time, attempting to point out facts and not opinions. Oh well, no biggie. I now see how it is here.
@bartleby/Columbo – It was completely off-topic and you couldn’t restrain yourselves! My god, you guys are like children. Thread closed.
@ Columbo Please. Don’t go overboard with this wounded dignity, supposed SJ bias crap. ML’s “there was no point” comment was directed to me just as much as to you.
.
As for the rest, the USA Today article was wrong on it’s face, or at least not as represented. It included club seat prices for the Raiders and not for other teams. The Forbes article included a vague quote about getting a full share of premium seat revenue which you have gone to great lengths to argue means “sold out club section since 2006,” despite the very small margin bump cited. And as for the Packers, we all just read a Deadspin article posted here showing how not just some, but all pro sports teams depreciate players and use other gimmicks to generate millions in bogus “costs” and writeoffs.
.
In other words, the Forbes article is wrong, USA Today is wrong, and the Packers are cooking their books.
.
As for the Raiders, I agree that your one quote suggests the Raiders got a modest bump in club seat sales in 2006. Not terribly surprising, considering the poor service and lack of marketing under OFMA. But all the rest of it still does not establish a $2 million bump represents “selling out the club.” By my back of the envelope calculations, about 1000 extra tickets per game would do it.
.
Just for giggles, let’s assume the Raiders did sell out the club in 2006. You still haven’t addressed the fact that if you have to charge only a bit more than half what the Bengals, Chargers and Jaguars charge for similar seats in order to do it, that doesn’t exactly scream “rich corporate market.”
.
FWIW, I do appreciate your civility through our debate. The flattery is not necessary, buy civility is always nice.