FanFest makes a comeback

The A’s have announced that there will be a FanFest prior to the 2012 season, and this time it’ll be a real event! FanFest 2012 will be held at Oracle Arena on Sunday, January 29, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. If you’re a season ticket holder or have made a deposit on season tickets for the 2012 season, you can RSVP for free tickets. If not, tickets are $8 for adults, $5 for kids. Parking is free.

In the past the A’s have struggled to get a corporate sponsor for the event, so it’s good to know that CSN California is doing the honors this time around – and hopefully for years to come.

Why Oracle Arena? According to the schedule, a Monster Energy AMA Supercross event is being held on January 28 at Coliseum. Nothing like seeing hills of dirt instead of lush green grass to harsh one’s mellow.

85 thoughts on “FanFest makes a comeback

  1. Hopefully, this will be right after the A’s get the OK to go to San Jose – maybe they can use the event to point out that San Jose is not that far from the existing non-ballpark. Nice to see this event return…

  2. For people who go to church on Sunday, the timing of this event is less than ideal.

  3. Good! This never should have been taken away.

  4. For people who go to church on Sunday, the timing of this event is less than ideal.

    At the Coliseum, the cross is secondary to the Supercross.

  5. Eh go to the Church of baseball for a weekend. God won’t send you to hell for missing Church one weekend.

  6. @pjk – If it is after the SJ announcement, I can imagine that there will be people loudly protesting. That will be interesting.

    As an aside, I was at a local sports bar here in Fremont for last night’s Niners game. When the network put the new stadium graphics up on the screen, there were both boos and cheers. I imagine that the boos were from those who back the history and legacy in SF, because it can’t be the accessibility. Santa Clara is less than half the distance from Fremont than SF. Also, they’re in a sports bar for a home game. It would seem that they don’t make that trek regularly anyway.

  7. There’s other church services that won’t conflict with this event. But still – Sunday morning? Guess that’s all the time they had available. I’ve been wondering if, should San Jose get approved, we’ll see protesting at A’s games. I don’t know but the A’s were en route to Fremont for two or three seasons and nobody made a fuss about it at the games… The NJ Nets have been Brooklyn-bound for several years now while staying in NJ in the meantime. No protests…

  8. LoneStranger: Loud protesting won’t get the job done. Protestors should instead recruit someone willing to charitably spend $1 billion+ to buy the A’s and keep them in Oakland. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it?

  9. Holy Tim Tebow pjk did you even read his post? It was about the 49ers. You never cease to amaze me how you offer the same old repetitive lines about how the public needs to socialize sports owners losses…….

  10. @pjk – Oh, I’m not worried about “getting the job done.” I’m just interested in watching the people who have no other course of action except to be loud and wave flags around as they prepare to show up to Cisco Field in 2015, acting like nothing happened.

  11. Dino: Um, did YOU read his post? “@pjk – If it is after the SJ announcement, I can imagine that there will be people loudly protesting. That will be interesting.”…Um, where did I say the public needs to socialize sports owners losses? What I said was, instead of protesting, protestors should find someone willing to spend $ 1 billion+ to buy the A’s and keep them in Oakland. Shouldn’t be too hard, should it?

  12. LS, was that before or after the blackouts that embarrassed the hell out of SF on national TV?

  13. Ha, it was during the second blackout.

  14. I loved that during the second one they were talking about if it happened again (a third one), that they’d cancel the game and either play it tomorrow (Tuesday) during the day at Candlestick or across the bay in Oakland at the Coliseum. For as dumpy as we all accuse the Coliseum of being (because lets face it, it is a dump), it’s still head and shoulders above Candlestick. That poor stadium hasn’t had any kind of major renovation since 1970 and much of the stadium is still 1960 vintage. And it showed spectacularly last night. The Niners couldn’t have hoped for a better advert to the NFL as they ask them to approve the 200 million in G-4 loans in the coming weeks for the new Santa Clara stadium.

  15. Hey even San Jose got a plug when they showed the new stadium…when describing it’s location as 40 miles south of SF they noted it is right next to San Jose, the largest city in northern california-

  16. That’s right – they acknowledged it’s more populated than Frisco, didn’t they? So why not – San Jose 49ers? San Jose is a half mile from the Santa Clara site and Frisco is 40 miles away. Niners have been stuck between a rock and a hard place in Frisco – the most-expensive area to build in + a city that does not really care much about sports. (I agree with Gavin Newsom, though, about an NFL football stadium being an unwise investment. Places such as Indianapolis and Cincinnati are struggling to pay for their football palaces. I think Indianapolis or maybe the state just cut $47 million from an arts budget to pay for the Dolts stadium. Nice move.)

  17. Because San Jose had nothing to do with the gold rush. And the region is still the San Francisco Bay Area. Cut the SF out of the name and you risk alienating a large part of the region unnecessarily.

  18. There is a body of water known as San Francisco Bay, which doesn’t evoke parochial concerns. We have only one historic sports franchise that uses Bay in its name, unfortunately, it’s in roller derby.
    Why can’t we call them the San Francisco Bay 49ers, something like the Tampa Bay Bucs?

  19. I think the Bay Area A’s or the Bay Area Warriors would be a smart change if both teams moved. Of course Oakland A’s is where my heart will always be.

  20. Keep it the San Francisco 49ers. Why? Football is only 8-10 games a year and the novelty means more in football than in baseball, basketball, or hockey where there are more games and the hosting city needs the plug.

    Same with the Raiders if they move to SC. Oakland Raiders sounds fine to me.

    A’s are baseball and San Jose will be there name starting a new era. The Warriors will be San Francisco Warriors once they move as well.

  21. The Niners have already said they will remain the San Francisco 49ers. The A’s will not keep Oakland in their name in San Jose – I believe they will be the San Jose A’s.
    The Raiders are an interesting case. Like the Niners, they have a lot of brand equity in the name “Oakland Raiders.” Also, Oakland’s gritty, blue-collar image is more marketable for a football team than a baseball team.
    At the same time, “Oakland Raiders” carries with it some negative associations, particularly as perceived by corporate customers. If they moved to Santa Clara, the Raiders might want to change their name with the idea it will help them market to Silicon Valley corporate sponsors and premium seat customers.
    Ultimately, my guess is the Raiders would remain the “Oakland Raiders.” But I could see it going the other way, too.

  22. @bartleby What is it about the “Oakland Raiders” that would scare off the wealthy Silicon Valley folk? Maybe I could see their hesitation to visit Oakland, if they were making decisions based on media driven fear, but why the hesitation if they were playing in SC?

  23. @ML I love fan fest, but to be honest, I’m really burned out on the team’s chances this year. We are going to be seeing a mostly triple A squad with little hope of success. I’m tired of waiting for winning baseball.
    Although, it will be interesting seeing if the “stay in Oakland” crowd voices their displeasure at A’s management during fan fest. Does anyone know if Beane or Wolff will be there or if they’ll field any questions?

  24. @Dan, actually San Jose did have a significant contribution to the gold rush. The New Almaden mines provided much of the mercury used to extract the mined gold. This mine is where the San Jose Mercury News derives its name.

  25. Wow. Monta Ellis is allowing the new ownership an opportunity to do some damage control before they play their first game. Hope they are good at this.

  26. I am cautious about Fan Fest… what if it’s just a dastardly ploy to lure the A’s existing fan base into the Arena, where they can then be gassed and buried underneath the little “A’s memorial park” between Oracle and the Coliseum? Then ownership will really have Selig by the balls… “Look, Bud! Our East Bay fans are now all deceased and you HAVE to approve our move to San Jose!!! Dead people can’t buy season ticket packages!!!!” Of course I am snarking… we all know that the A’s as a business have been cadaverous in the East Bay since the Raiders returned.

  27. bartleby, the A’s will be contractually obligated to be the “San Jose A’s” after the move. You are correct that the Niners are planning, at least publicly, to remain the “San Francisco 49ers”. And the Raiders if they moved would probably remain the “Oakland Raiders” for the same reason the Niners wouldn’t change. Identity, legacy and immediate city location not being as big of a deal in football.

  28. Cadaverous… I like that. Also your suspicions are enough that I will not go to FanFest now. I don’t want to die. Unless of course as you walk in they promise to note where you’re from (I’m from the south bay), and they direct us into a special skybox with a buffet waiting while they gas the rest of you 😉

  29. I usually like the jokes in here, but the Nazi comparisons are a little too much. Plus guillotines are funnier.

  30. Who made a Nazi comparison?

  31. The cynic in me thinks the Niners fudged with the transformers as to deliberately cause the blackouts. As was pointed out, what better way to advertise the fact that they need a new stadium? Monday night, for the whole nation and league to see.

    Wolff might want to take a page from that book. Flood the visiting dugouts with sewage when the Angels are in town or something.

  32. @Al – But why would they bother when their stadium plans are moving along quite nicely?

    I like FanFest at the end of January, because it’s when I can start getting excited about the upcoming season. Only a month more of the offseason, then Spring Training. Honestly, other than tickets going on sale, the fan tailgates right before the season were not much different.

  33. @ Dan Someone on here earlier posted that although the A’s would be contractually obligated to use “San Jose” in their name, the contract was not specific that it had to be the “San Jose A’s.” In other words, they could potentially punk San Jose like the Angels did Anaheim and go with “_____ A’s of San Jose.” I wasn’t motivated enough to go look at the relevant documents to see if this was accurate or not. Either way, I believe they will be the San Jose A’s.
    @eb When the Raiders were in LA, Raider crowds had a reputation for being “thug life.” This was a serious impediment to getting people in LA to go to games.
    When the Raiders returned to Oakland this reputation followed to a certain extent, fairly or unfairly (I would argue unfairly), . The colorful dress-up crowd (Skull Man, Darth Raider, etc.) somewhat reinforced public perception on this. Again, I am not arguing this was justified. You and I know that the dress-up folks are colorful, impassioned, and friendly fans, and not troublemakers. They are the last people on earth who would act up and risk getting their tickets revoked. I’m just saying their intimidating appearance and apparent fervor reinforced the public perception of Raiders crowds as crazy and out of control.
    I was a Raider season ticket holder for fifteen years. For most of this time, I would argue vehemently to whoever would listen that the reputation of Raiders crowds was inaccurate and unfair. Having spent a lot of time on the East Coast, I would argue that the amount of fights and drunken bad behavior at a Raiders game was actually less than in New York (especially for a Jets game), Foxboro, Philly, or most East Coast NFL cities.
    However, in recent years, I found that fan behavior at Raider games got a whole lot worse. As the losing dragged on and on, season ticket holders couldn’t get face value for their tickets any more and would dump them for cheap. Suddenly, even though my seats were prime lower level sideline, I would see new faces around me every game, including a lot of young punks. A lot of these folks were there primarily to drink heavily. Fights started to break out in my section. Grown men or women vomited in their seats, more than once.
    (As an aside, if you’re over 20 and know your limits so poorly that you not only exceed them, but to an extent you can’t even make it to the bathroom, that’s just pathetic. There’s a time and a place where such behavior might be excusable – once – and that place is college. If you’re in your thirties and vomiting in public, you need to get to AA.)
    All of this played a big role in my eventual decision to give up my tickets. I understand that in a new stadium the situation would immediately improve. But in marketing, perception is everything. The reason the Raiders might consider changing their name in Santa Clara would be to disassociate themselves from past public perception of what Raider crowds are like, to send a message, “This is going to be a safe and upscale place to take your kids.”
    I’m not saying this is what will happen. The Raiders situation is much more complex than the Niners. They have a strong established brand in “Oakland Raiders.” The dilemma is that that brand carries both positive and negative associations, especially where corporate customers are concerned. I think ultimately they would probably stick with “Oakland,” I’m just saying it’s not a no-brainer the same way it is for the Niners.

  34. @ML As far as Fanfest goes, once you’ve said “Wow, I’m glad Fanfest is back,” what else is there really to say?

  35. @bartleby I get the negative image Raider fans developed in LA and have had a hard time getting rid of. But if the image has stuck with the “LA Raiders” and “Oakland Raiders” it seems as though “Raiders”/the silver and black colors are the overwhelming reason for a possible negative perception, not “Oakland” alone. I would assume the same people who have some preconceived notion of Raider games would feel more or less the same no matter what city was in the name. At least “Oakland Raiders” still carries some imagery of better times, albeit it is slipping away fast with all of this losing.

  36. bartleby, incorrect. San Jose learned from Anaheim’s mistake. It has to be “San Jose “insert team name here””. No punking will be occuring. Which is fine because San Jose A’s is what they want the name to be anyway.

  37. As for the Raiders rep, from what I’ve seen over the years it’s well earned. Never been to a Raider game where there wasn’t at least one fight in my section. Though to be fair all the games I’ve been to I’ve sat somewhere on the third deck or Mt Davis. And it also led to one of the funnier things I’ve ever seen.

    Was at a Raider v Charger game a few years ago with my old man and brother and early in the first quarter a fight started a few rows behind me between two groups of Raider fans. No one came to stop it so I got bored watching them and went to turn back to watch the game. However when I turned around there were these two very big, very angry looking, latino guys climbing up the section literally scrambling up row after row screaming, “gotta help our BOYZ man!!!!” When they got to the row in front of mine the first guy actually knocked this little old lady who was sitting in front of us down before moving on and crashing between my brother and I and moving on toward the fight still screaming about his BOYZ!!! The second guy though actually stopped in the row in front of us, helped the little old lady up, and in a very calm and contrite voice said, “sorry about that ma’am.” Before resuming his climb and screaming, “GOTTA HELP OUR BOYZ!!!” I didn’t see what happened after that because I was too busy laughing about the absurdity of the whole incident and asking the little old lady if she was ok which she was…

  38. the only teams that will be changing their names with any moves within the next decade are the a’s and w’s. sj a’s and sf warriors. the niners and raiders aren’t or any other team aren’t gonna roll out some lousy name like bay area/california stuff like the w’s have had over the past 3 decades with gs.

    nice to hear fanfest back. had hoped they could return move it back to jls or downtown oakland. i’m guessing future fanfest in sj could involve the area beteween the shark tank and cisco field although at cisco field is more likely.

  39. My favorite Raider game moment was when the two guys finished fighting, one was telling the other which way to go to get away from the cops.

  40. …Raider game fight moment…

  41. I am a life long 49ers fan and I went to the Lions-Raiders game this past weekend for the first time. The only other time I went was a 49ers-Raiders pre-season game and I was sitting in the suites so I do not count that.

    My buddy who is Lions fans bet me the loser had to buy the winner a ticket to this game. The bet was the 49ers-Lions (straight up, no spread) two months ago….Needless to say thank you “Alex Smith and Delani Walker”!!

    I was sitting below the Mt. Davis suites in the lower reserve Section 138 about 25 rows back. Being a 49ers fan I did not know what to expect…..I was a 49ers fan “undercover”.

    Let me say Raiders fans are not as bad as people make them out to be. I was walking up the aluminum stairs and slipped on the caution tape where there should be a sign and ate it. All the Raiders fans started to cheer for me in the section.

    One guy yelled “you saved your beer!” and everyone cheered…..I was so mad about slipping on the caution tape and banging up my shin I did not realize I did not drop my 3/4 full beer in my left hand. Pretty funny stuff, as I saw two more people “eat it” and lose their beers right in front of me later in the game… a few fist bumps on the way back from Raiders fans who told “that happens all the time”.

    The fans stand the whole game in the lower reserve on the visitors sideline and the atmosphere was “electric” to say the least. When the “bell rings” the fans stand and cheer loudly. Much more electric than a 49ers game for sure……This coming from a life long 49ers fan too.

    The fans were great and very friendly, of course these were considered “nicer seats” but at the same time the rap the Raiders fans get is not deserved.

    One Lions fan in a Suh jersey and visor had a sign that had a Lions and Raiders logo on it and read “the only place where you find more penalties and fines than your bank”…..Classic!

    I even asked a few Raiders fans in my section would you mind Santa Clara? They were like “yes, we don’t want to play there”….then when I re-phrased saying “LA or Santa Clara”? They all said vehemently “Santa Clara!”…….tells you something right there.

  42. FWIW, I’m a Raiders fan who works for the government trying to keep folks out of jail. We’re not all that bad Dan ;).

  43. @Dan The pre-Gillette crowds in Foxboro were way worse than Raider crowds in Oakland (at least until a few years ago). Boston is a hard-drinking city. In fact, they used to load up a paddy wagon or two full of obnoxious drunks just about every game. I know this because one of my buddies got a ride in it.
    The Raiders crowd in Oakland got a bad rap for a number of reasons. In addition to those already discussed, one reason was the contrast with the tame/lame Niners crowds next door. But those Niner crowds are not typical of NFL crowds in general.
    @Sid I think your experience is representative of Raider crowds since they’ve been back in Oakland, until the last few years. I also think this year got a bit better, as the team being in contention brought more actual fans back to the stadium and fewer punks/drunks looking for trouble.

  44. @ eb. “But if the image has stuck with the “LA Raiders” and “Oakland Raiders” it seems as though “Raiders”/the silver and black colors are the overwhelming reason for a possible negative perception, not “Oakland” alone.”
    It’s a fair point. However, if you’re trying to change your image/rebrand, a name change is often part of it. Tampa went from “Devil Rays” to just “Rays” in part to dissociate themselves from their past losing ways, signal a break from the past. Also, for better or worse, part of Oakland’s image is as a blue-collar, rough-and-tumble city. Not necessarily a selling point to corporate suite holders.
    The Raiders dilemma is different than the A’s. The Raiders have had decent fan support, especially considering how poorly they treated their fan base. NFL games are overwhelmingly on Sundays and fans are willing to travel to games, so they can reasonably expect the East Bay fanbase to be a big part of their ticket sales in Santa Clara in a way the A’s can’t in San Jose. They have reason not to alienate their existing fan base.
    However, premium seating is about the only non-shared revenue stream an NFL team has, and therefore the path to getting a leg up on the competition. Rebranding as “Silicon Valley’s Team” rather than an East Bay team could help capture these customers.
    It’s a delicate balancing act. Ultimately, I think they’ll keep “Oakland,” but especially with Al gone, I don’t think it’s a sure thing.

  45. I know I’ll probably get blasted based on my Oakland leanings, but I really feel like the San Jose plans look uninspired. Wherever the new park gets built, I’m hoping for a design and features that will be beautiful both in aesthetics and function. The fountains in KC, the bridge/water in PNC, SF’s bay views, the ivy at Wrigley, the steel at Citi Field, etc. are all unique and cool. The whole brick motif is cool, I just think it needs something more.

  46. Gio just got traded.

  47. But I guess that was old.

  48. Done deal. The A’s are tearing the team down so they can rebuild for San Jose…

  49. Gio to Nats = A’s to SJ! Its going to be a long year for the A’s, but in the end it’ll be well worth it.

  50. Great, more prospects. *sigh*

  51. i’d rather go in a FULL REBUILD and build towards a new park rather than trying to fool ourselves that we can honestly compete in the next 2-3 years with tex or laa who are basically becoming the al west version of the nyy and bos with those two billion dollar tv deals they’ve just signed.

    load up your farm system as tor is doing and tam has done over the past decade and try to compete when cisco field opens.

  52. Billy just pulled a haul for a guy who led MlB in walks over the past two seasons. I will miss Ojos Locos, he was an easy guy to root for. Hopefully two of these pitchers perform and Andrew Bailey brings back a couple of bats…

  53. There are no guarantees. The A’s have decided to pack it in for the next three years,and the thing is that come 2015 and beyond they may have a bad team anyway.Nobody knows.. I don’t know why some are so sure that this will not backfire.If it does then the next three years were all for nothing.The other plan was to sign a few second tier Veteran free agents, along with strong pitching and the young players and remain somewhat competitive as they usually are.This is all out the door now. I don’t understand why they can’t plan for the future and try to remain competitive at the same time.Why is it one or the other?
    This will test my patience, but will hope for a good team next year despite Wolff and Beane, both of which I am beginning to dislike immensley for this attitude!!

  54. Robo, quite simply because ey don’t care all that much about the present. If these two moves have shown us anything it is that the FO doesn’t give a rats ass about the next 3 seasons. They are throw away lame duck years at this point. they fully expect attendance to plummet after Jan when the move is announced so why bother fielding a competative team that maybe 5,000 people a night will come see? They’re all in on the San Jose A’s at this point and have given up any real concern about the final 3 years of the Oakland A’s.

  55. When you start talking about “the grand scheme of things,” a whole lot of things end up not making a difference.
    With respect to the idea of trading players, the fact that they can’t build a core of players isn’t solely on the ballpark and revenue yet that’s the only factor you ever hear about. It’s past time for mea culpas that aren’t full of caveats.

  56. I’ll definitely be going to A’s games post January 2012 😉 Heck, might even buy season tickets!

  57. Since the A’s can’t draw in Oakland whether they win or lose (2006 – AL runners up, #26 in attendance), they might as well stock up for the new ballpark in San Jose…

  58. I for one think that aiming to be ‘somewhat competitive’ has been a terrible strategy that has backfired and resulted in our current situation. An injury here, a down year there, these things quickly turn a ‘somewhat conpetitive’ team into a .500 team.

    We need to SUCK for a while like the Rays did all those years in order to get the types of players the Rays got and the Royals got too… Longorias, Prices, Hosmers, etc. High draft picks that can become bona fide stars. For all of our non-competitiveness, the highest we’ve picked in a decade is 10th. That is a big part of why we don’t have any big bats on this team.

    Even a well-run farm system like the twins’ has run dry thanks to their relative competitiveness and subsequent low drafting position.

  59. Off topic, but there’s a lot of upheaval going on with 4 AM talk stations right now. (The firings at KGO, 960 and 910 shuffling shows, and now Rush Limbaugh leaving KSFO for 910 in January) Could there possibly be an opportunity for the A’s in all this? I still say the A’s are better off on a strong AM signal even if it’s not an all sports format (Like 97.5 is tearing up the ratings, anyway) KGO and KSFO also cover the South Bay pretty well too. As for the A’s existing contracts? They can be broken, just like all the other “long term” deals over the past 5 years Thoughts???

  60. To PJK:

    What baseball team drew 2.9 million in Oakland?

    A’s observer.

  61. A’s Observer… who cares? it’s almost 2012… 1 season in 43 years at 2.9M doesn’t really tell a very good story for Oakland, now does it?

  62. Notwithstanding the seconding guessing of the recent moves and the moves to come, 2012 will be a standout year for the Athletics franchise in numerous respects. When the Tank was being built, I used to driveby the big hole in ground and watched the arena grow out of the ground – it was awesome to watch the progress. Now I drive by Diridon everyday – somedays I park and sit in my car on Montgomery Street where right center field will be and dream of the day (real soon) when I will be able to go see the Athletics play in a new ballpark. I image what the area will look like during construction and development – it will be buzzing with activity and energy. This dream will soon be reality thank god.

  63. A’s observer: What baseball team finished last in attendance this past season? What baseball team finished 26th in attendance in 2006 despite being AL runners up? What’s the analogy you’re trying to make? The Warriors attendance is good therefore we should overlook the A’s abysmal attendance in a building 50 feet from where the Warriors play? What’s the future look like for the Warriors? A move to Frisco, no?

  64. Looks like I read the previous post too fast and saw basketball instead of baseball. Anyway, the A’s 44-year attendance history in Oakland is an abysmal one. How many times have the A’s finished in the top half of attendance league-wide since ATT Park opened? The answer is 0. The A’s drew OK for a short time when Haas ran the team as a money-losing charity and the Giants were stuck at Candlestick.

  65. Good. Just wanted to establish that there is emperical evidence that the A’s have drawn early 3 million people at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.

    Hmmm. Besides the East Side addition. I wonder what”s changed since then?

    Happy Holidays.

    A’s observer.

  66. “We need to SUCK for a while like the Rays did all those years in order to get the types of players the Rays got and the Royals got too” We’ve sucked for 5 years and the potential to suck for 3 to 4 more is certainly now here. Now I don’t know about most here, but I don’t think 8 – 9 years of losing is a “good game plan.”

  67. As long as Oakland insists on a free ballpark, which would bankrupt the A’s owners due to the lack of corporate support there, then there will be no new Oakland ballpark..Two or three years of good attendance in 44 years doesn’t change that. What were the figures? 15 times in the playoffs and 7 times in the top half of attendance. Doesn’t sound like a very good attendance history.

  68. There is empirical evidence that the A’s have never drawn 3 million in Oakland And that they have been in top half of league wide attendance just 7 times in 44 years despite 15 playoff appearances… But go ahead and continue to talk about the outlier as if it tells the whole story.

  69. Ignoring pre-At&t Bay Area baseball attendance as a whole leaves out a major piece of the story. Bottom line is neither teams drew well and this was never a truly great baseball market.

  70. @A’s observer What baseball team drew 306,763 in Oakland? What baseball team only topped 1 million in attendance twice (and then only barely) in its first thirteen years in Oakland, despite not one, not two, but three World Championships in that timeframe?
    Those statistics are every bit as relevant as the one year outlier you keep spitting out (while ignoring the fact the A’s hemorraged money in that one year and therefore that it is in no way a sustainable model).
    But go ahead, keep your fingers in your ears and keep repeating “1989” over and over, if it makes you feel better.

  71. @eb Giants drew poorly with poor teams, inaccessible location, and crappy ballpark, but maintained solid TV ratings. A’s drew poorly despite four world titles, the “central location” we keep hearing about, and what was the considered a very nice ballpark, while maintaining poor TV ratings. The two teams attendance during this period does not tell the same story.

  72. Anyway, pre-1990 attendance is only secondarily relevant, since premium seat revenue barely existed before then. Today, premium seat revenue is a gigantic percentage of revenue, and the difference between breaking even or not, being competitive or not. Even if 1989 were representative of Oakland’s general attendance potential (which is certainly is not, especially post AT&T Park), it wouldn’t matter.

  73. @bartleby So low television ratings are Oakland’s fault? There are tvs throughout the bay that A’s fans had access to. I’m just saying that the Bay Area wasn’t a great baseball market and to point out Oakland as being the only party responsible for the lack of enthusiasm is disingenuous.

  74. @eb It’s not a question of fault. The “A’s and Giant’s had similar attendance pre-AT&T” and “Bay Area was two small for two teams” arguments are part of a narrative that typically goes on to conclude that since AT&T solved all the Giants problems, a new ballpark in Oakland will solve all the A’s problems.
    I’m just pointing out that although the team attendance numbers considered out of context may look similar during this period, that doesn’t mean the teams’ performance was equivalent relative to their circumstance. Even back in the day, the Giants got all the love. That, plus the TV ratings, plus the fact stadium revenue is now as much or more dependent on premium seat revenue as overall attendance suggest there are good reasons to believe Oakland is not a good location for a second MLB team in 2012.
    Of course, that won’t stop A’s observer, Dave Newhouse and others from trotting out that 1989 attendance figure in isolation like it meant something a few hundred more times before this is all done.

  75. Way, I mean WAY off topic: just read over at the San Jose Blog that AT&T has added three new cell phone towers in San Jose. I wonder if this development has any relation, or bearing, on a possible land sale of their Diridon parcel. Anyone know or have thoughts?

  76. No they were desperately needed(and they need even more). Despite being in the heart of e tech capital of the world ATT has some of the crappiest reception in the south bay.

  77. It would be nice if they have a Cisco Field booth at FanFest. Hope they do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.