News for 8/10/12

We’re overdue for a news roundup. Now seems like a good time for one.

From BANG’s Joe Stiglich:

Last week’s visit to Oakland and San Jose by Bud Selig’s three-man panel foreshadowed this.

Update 1:04 PM – Stiglich has a writeup with quotes from Wolff, such as:

“It’s up to the commissioner’s office,” Wolff said. “… This is a process that unfortunately is taking longer than I hoped, but it’s a fair process.” 

Other news:

  • Janet Marie Smith, who oversaw the construction of Camden Yards and the renovation of Fenway Park, is moving out west to Los Angeles to take a similar role with the Dodgers. If her previous work is any indication, she will keep it classy all the way. [Dodgers press release]
  • NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has set a deadline of September 15 to wrap up labor negotiations before the league imposes a lockout. The NHL and NHLPA are always playing catchup with the other leagues in terms of CBAs. They imposed a 57% player share in the last agreement as other leagues were dropping towards the 50% mark. Now the NHL wants to drop it to 46%. It’s going to be a long winter. [AP]
  • A developer is proposing a ballpark for the Tampa Bay Rays in the Gateway area of St. Petersburg, just over the bridge from Tampa. St. Pete’s stance has been to not allow the Rays to get out of their lease at Tropicana Field unless a new stadium were conceived in St. Pete, not Tampa. No financial details were available. [Tampa Tribune/Michael Sasso]
  • The 49ers and the City of Santa Clara settled a lawsuit with a County oversight board. $30 million in redevelopment money was at stake. In order to keep local school budgets balanced, the 49ers won’t get the $30 million for several years. Seems fair. [SJ Mercury News/Mike Rosenberg]
  • Get used to metal detectors at NFL games starting this season. [Oakland Raiders]
  • Speaking of the Raiders, they are using the league’s new 85% measure to determine sellouts this season. The way it works, a team has to sell out 85% of its non-premium seats by the usual deadline (normally Thursday for a Sunday game) in order for a game not to be subject to a blackout. The catch is that any tickets sold between the 85% and 100% marks are subject to higher revenue sharing. Teams like the Raiders and Bucs chose to use the new standard, the Bills and Jags went with the old standard, which required all non-premium seats to be sold by the deadline.
  • The City of Industry approved a deal to buy 600 acres within city limits for up to $26.7 million. The land is where the somewhat-forgotten Ed Roski/Majestic Realty stadium would be located. The parties still have to scramble to find a proper replacement for now-evaporated redevelopment funding. [Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/Ben Baeder]
  • MLB’s postseason schedule has been released (knock on wood). [Biz of Baseball/Maury Brown]

More if it comes.

90 thoughts on “News for 8/10/12

  1. How much longer can Selig wimp out on this? Not on the agenda again? Of course, it wasn’t on the agenda in January and ended up getting discussed anyway.

  2. I kinda had a feeling this was going to happen as well. “And the wait goes on…and the wait goes on…” -me singing it like the song “The Beat Goes On” by Orbit.

  3. …that’s a “Sonny & Cher” song from the 60s. I guess some people here much older than others.

  4. Thats how you do it mlb & oakland what for lew wolff to do a al davis and die then we all win oakland and mlb…he reminds me of that lady in that movie trying move the team

  5. Good for the Lakers. If Smith is able to do half the job she did on Fenway to Dodger Stadium she’s going to give them a palace. And given that she’s being given a lot more to work with at the 50 year newer Dodger Stadium they’re bound to have a park that will rival most of the new ones when they’re done. Shame the A’s don’t have a stadium that would be able to benefit from the kind of work she does like KC and LA have.
    .
    How far apart are the sides in the NHL right now? And what’s the chance of yet another NHL work stoppage? Makes me glad MLB learned their lesson after 1994.
    .
    Already had a chance to see the new “metal detection” at the Chargers v Packers game last night. At Qualcomm Stadium they’re not using full sized systems but rather just wands. But I suspect many stadiums will get the full metal detector treatment eventually like the LA Galaxy have had at the Home Depot Center for years now.

  6. And by Lakers I meant Dodgers. I was just reading about the Howard trade…

  7. selig=wuss that is all

  8. ^Either that or it’s:
    A’s=not important to MLB

  9. Sigh…A’s just need to build a stadium somewhere. Bud Selig= worse commisioner in all of sports. He and Garry Bettman are almost tied when it comes to incompotant commisioners. Bettman with the Pheonix Coyotes and Selig (All Star Game, Steriodgate, A’s relocation) I could type more about Selig but this is not the time or the place.

  10. It’s just a timing thing now. Bud Selig is going to take the Giants Territorial Rights over Santa Clara County away, allow the A’s to move to San Jose and after all the paperwork and the digging begins, Old Bud is going to retire.

  11. He owes it to his successor to make a decision and not stick the new guy with making an unpopular choice.

  12. Baycommuter,
    Who said allowing Lew Wolff/A’s San Jose would be an “unpopular choice”? I think those who would believe its the right, popular choice outnumber those who wouldn’t like it (ie Giants, traditional Bay Area media, small group of folks who want them to stay in Oakland). The best interest of baseball my friend.

  13. Unpopular is the wrong word. I meant that either way, the commissioner who makes the decision is going to make enemies, so it would be unfair for Selig to leave it to his successor.

  14. Selig has 2 more years to decide/undecide on the A’s future. I think he has two more years left on his contract unless he kicks the bucket before than. If the A’s future is still in limbo after this November the only thing I recommend for the pro San Jose A’s crowd is to have Congress introduce a bill removing baseball’s authority to limit franchise movement.

    What really gets me is that in any other sport you see two teams in the same league/divison playing in the same city or region, and yet you have the Bay Area treated like its the Holy Grail of MLB’s AT laws. Only in the Bay Area you see one team cry “foul” on how the other team is hurting the other teams revenue when that other team plays in a different league. I could understand that reasoning if A’s and the Giants played in the same league or division.

  15. @ Just saying – You sound awfully familiar. Have you posted here before? I just don’t recall the handle for some reason. Serious question BTW. Thanks.

  16. The NHL is about to lose another season. There’s no way Selig is worse than Bettman.

  17. A delay of this length cannot be simply a matter of “being thorough”. So what is the purpose of the delay? Some have said BS doesn’t care……but it is hard to believe that BS wouldn’t desire a bottom feeder team becoming a solid team in a new showcase stadium. I suspect BS would love nothing more than to see all teams in a great stadium doing solid at the gate (probably #1 on his list). So it just doesn’t make sense to believe BS doesn’t care. And while a good argument can be made that BS/MLB are holding the matter in limbo hoping it resolves itself, even naming a BRC leads me to believe that was not their intention.
    Bottom line, this delay has to be because a decision EITHER way makes BS/MLB concerned-worried about the ramifications of the decision. Which means, ultimately, either way the decision goes, the delay is about them having CYA’d themselves. The only other logical explanation is they see better $$$ by delaying it.
    With that said, I believe LW made a tactical error in how he went about this. He never should have spoken the words “I want to move to SJ” (even if that was his real intention). He should have pitched to BS-MLB the bay area should return to being like every other two team territory — without TR. He should have made the argument a cause of fairness to the Lodge — make them decide on that issue alone. By making the city of SJ the argument, it allowed the Giants to frame the argument to the media and fans and to MLB……making it a emotionally charged city vs city argument (and in the process totally diluting the lack of merit argument over TR). And while, obviously, the press would have played up the real motivation as SJ, a TR only tact by LW would have put the TR issue more in the public conversation (the public conversation now is too much a city vs city, emotionally charged one for the merits of TR to get proper vetting).

  18. Has anyone seen Lew Wolfe’s notebook that supposedly goes over all the sites that he has investigated in Oakland?

  19. @Ethan – ML has.

    @TW – Even if you never mention SJ, asking for T-Rights to Santa Clara County would make it obvious as to their intent. It’s not like they give you anything else other than permission to build a stadium. Marketing, promotion, etc… they aren’t limited by T-Rights.

  20. ML share with us ALL the sites Lew has considered in Oakland. Have you posted a story about ALL the sites he has investigated in Oakland? Will you lose access to Lew Wolff if you publish the sites?

  21. @Ethan- read about it in the 5 posts ML did after his interview with LW- in feature posts on this site

  22. Dates or titles on the 5 posts about the sites that Lew Wolff has investigated? Thanks!

  23. I looked at the archives by title only in this blog for August 2011. ML does not have a post about all the Oakland sites that LW has investigated.

  24. @Ethan – Look to the right —–> There is a section just for the posts you want to read. “The Big Lew Wolff Interview (8/1/11)”

  25. I do not think the Lew Wolff interview resolves my question. What are the locations in Oakland that Lew Wolff has seriously vested. Coliseum North? If he wants to be fully transparent about his search in Oakland, he should open up that notebook!

  26. @Ethan- what do you think the BRC has been for nearly 4 years? And the best that Oakland can do is throw out a pipe dream..CC that has already been rejected by MLB and now recycle a site that they themselves had eliminated previously because of costs- LW and MLB are saints for how patient they have been with Oakland- 17 years since the Col was ruined and a new ballpark is needed and what has Oakland accomplished?

  27. can someone enlighten me of which issues in baseball are MORE pressing than the A’s stadium debacle??? im absolutely stumped on trying to figure it out. what the hell are they even going to talk about if theyre not going to talk about the A’s?? the nerve that it wouldnt be on the agenda, especially after the blue ribbon panel meetings last week. doesnt make sense. the ony thing i can think of is that wolff knows san jose isnt going to happen after the blue ribbon visits last week so instead hes going to say the thing isnt going to happen when in reality, the panel could be a top thing on the agenda, and their presentation could finally end the stadium thing and shut the door on san jose

  28. To Ethan re: Lew Wolff’s notebook:

    I have also heard him say numerous times that he willing to show his notebook re: Oakland sites to anybody.

    A’s observer.

  29. @ Go A’s answer my question rather doing the typical “Oakland has done nothing and Lew Wolfe is doing everything” tirade. I will repeat the question. Mr.Wolff often cites a “book” that shows he has made a concentrated effort for a stadium in Oakland. All I am asking is if anyone has seen this “book” that he referred to ML’s interview. So Go A’s have you seen this “book”? This question applies to all who participate on this blog.

  30. Ok I challenge ML and Jeffrey, the sites editors, to ask Lew for the “notebook” and report their findings of it on this blog.

  31. @ethan- I challenge you and any of the other Oakland only crowd to provide evidence of the following: that to show that Oakland can provide a site that meets the requirements of MLB and have that site ready for development within 1 year and 2) that Oakland will assume the financial risk of developing the ballpark. We wouldn’t be debating this now if Oakland had done those 2 things over the past 17 years-

  32. @ethan, Have you tried contacting Lew Wolf’s office? Probably the most direct route. Now, you were going to tell us what GoA’s was asking for. Please proceed.

  33. So really, nothing new in news. A’s still firmly stuck in limbo.

  34. Hey Guys,
    I have never seen the contents of the folder. ML has. I know he has covered a lot of what is in the folder in various posts. I will let him talk about the “challenge,” though I know it contains detailed information on several sites (including correspondence from port officials regarding Howard Terminal). It contains information about Coliseum North (66th Ballpark Village), Coliseum South (the HomeBase site), a few sites along the Estuary and more. At one point, I know Lew Wolff looked into the Army Base and Middle Harbor Park (as reported by Chip Johnson) as well. I am not sure if that information is in the folder.

    • @Ethan – There was originally a plan to reveal the contents of Wolff’s findings in great detail. Wolff decided that it wasn’t a good idea, so I didn’t pursue it further. Instead we did the interview. I can say that I was convinced. What is the threshold of proof for you to say he “tried” hard enough? I don’t know that such a threshold exists for many of the Oakland crowd.

  35. Lone Stranger writes: “Even if you never mention SJ, asking for T-Rights to Santa Clara County would make it obvious as to their intent. It’s not like they give you anything else other than permission to build a stadium. Marketing, promotion, etc… they aren’t limited by T-Rights.”
    I have no illusions that SJ would have not been mentioned by the Press (Giants). However, the process we have now does not even speak to the issue of TR fairness. IMHO a fight over the fairness of TR — while letting Sj be part of the conversation not put forth by the A’s — would have at least helped make it a conversation about fairness. As it stands now, when does the public conversation ever speak to the fairness (or unfairness depending on one’s POV)? EVERYONE I speak to (including Giants fans) when the discussion is strictly of TR believes TR is wrong. But that is not the public/media discussion at all!
    However, that tact would require LW to be a different kind of guy. An Al Davis lead A’s has a new stadium by now. IMHO the management of the Giants as head of the A’s would have a new stadium by now. LW is very interested in being the good lodge member (too much IMHO). And when I say “new stadium” I am talking in SJ or Oakland or somewhere else. IMHO if LW wants SJ he has got to get tough, otherwise he remains at the whimsical mercy of the slow moving monolith known as MLB. The current behavior/stances by LW is outdated (even if better) and not in the best interest of the A’s…

  36. I contacted Lew Wolff a few times never had a chance to have a conversation with him. (He never returned my attempts) I contacted Oakland city council members and spoke to one of them. This conversation was not earth shattering. I will leave it at that. Jeffrey and ML have not seen the notebook. Sounds like that answers my question. ML is convinced the A’s owner is telling him the truth that they have “turned over every stone” in Oakland. Thus the A’s don’t have a plan B. Fair enough!

    For the record just see my post a few days ago. I am very critical of the city of Oakland’s approach to this process. This Howard Terminal turn of events is baffling. I do want the A’s to stay in Oakland and think it can happen if Lew Wolff and the city seriously sit down and make it happen. We have to admit the A’s staying in Oakland is the path of least resistance considering the territorial rights issue. Who knows they might win the World Series this year and then really screw this situation up.

  37. Ethan, ML has seen the notebook. I have not.

  38. One last thought, I do think that keeping potential sites private is important. Like Wolff said in his interview with ML when property owners “hear” the A’s want to buy land for a stadium the asking price goes way up. I ask if people have seen the “book” because the A’s have dug their heels in pursuit of San Jose and for this reason there is no Plan B.

  39. Ok ML will not go into details about the “book”. I say fair enough again.

    • @Ethan – That’s my assessment. It may be out of date, it may not. That’s for the panel and Selig to decide.

      Let’s keep in mind two very important things. 1) The panel, regardless of public perception, has been looking at Oakland and sites within the A’s current territory without Wolff. 2) Last year, MLB allowed Wolff to sign a land deal with San Jose without batting an eyelash.

      What does that tell you? It tells me that MLB is working both cities, trying to get the best (and perhaps only) deal. Too much is at stake to eliminate either city prematurely. That’s not going to make Wolff or Giants ownership happy, which is probably a good indicator of how everything will follow.

  40. Why isn’t Mr. Wolff STILL working both cities? I think that is the frustration of the Oakland “Stay” crowd. Of course we do not know what is going on behind closed doors but the public perception is that Mr. Lew Wolff will not not talk to Oakland officials. Things change Mr. Wolff. Maybe Oakland will propose a good deal directly to him.

    • Why isn’t Mr. Wolff STILL working both cities?I think that is the frustration of the Oakland “Stay” crowd.Of course we do not know what is going on behind closed doors but the public perception is that Mr. Lew Wolff will not not talk to Oakland officials. Things change Mr. Wolff. Maybe Oakland will propose a good deal directly to him.

      Maybe you’re asking the wrong question: did Oakland approach the A’s, W,s, or Raiders with CC? Has Oakland presented their “notebook” for EIRs, funding, and corporate support? The “Stay” crowd likes to point fingers at everyone, but themselves.

    • @Ethan – Have you ever thought that MLB prefers things to be done in this manner? Wolff works with San Jose, MLB’s panel works with Oakland. It’s clear they’re comfortable with these methods 40 months in.

  41. And right now they’ve got both cities spitting there like trained circus seals, slapping their flippers together and begging for another fish.

  42. “Last year, MLB allowed Wolff to sign a land deal with San Jose without batting an eyelash.”
    .
    No eyelashes batted, publicly. Who knows, otherwise? mlb hasn’t publicly reproved the SFGiants for funding a writ of mandate lawsuit challenging the sale, either. I realize you’re frustrated, but reading someone else’s tea leaves is a waste of time. Who knows what’s in those dregs?

    • “Last year, MLB allowed Wolff to sign a land deal with San Jose without batting an eyelash.”
      .
      No eyelashes batted, publicly.Who knows, otherwise?mlb hasn’t publicly reproved the SFGiants for funding a writ of mandate lawsuit challenging the sale, either.I realize you’re frustrated, but reading someone else’s tea leaves is a waste of time.Who knows what’s in those dregs?

      Are we talking about the same MLB that had a fit when SJ was going to put the stadium issue on the ballot?! 😡

      • @xootsuit – MLB is leaky enough that we would’ve heard something about disapproval of the deal by now. And as Anon points out, MLB knows how to put its foot down when it wants to. In this case, it didn’t. If people are going to say that the A’s haven’t been allowed to move to San Jose by Selig’s inaction, it’s perfectly fine to conclude tacit approval about the land deal.

  43. “MLB is leaky enough . . . .”
    .
    ML: oh come on. Now you’re moving from interpreting tea leaves to interpreting teapot squeals (or the lack of them). mlb has not done anything tending to approve or reprove any of the transaction or litigation moves either franchise has made. Certainly, an A’s move to San Jose is not impossible. That’s the only card mlb has tipped.

  44. It amazes me that Lew Wolff has been a successful businessman given the passive, milquetoast approach he’s had so far with MLB, Selig and the Giants.
    .
    If Larry Ellison were the owner, we’d have a stadium in San Jose by now.

  45. Yes, what has waiting patiently gotten Wolff in this process? Years and years of absolutely nothing from a cowardly commissioner who’s supposed to be his best friend.

  46. The waiting doesn’t make sense to me, unless he already knows he’s going to get SJ regardless.

  47. I had heard way back in 2009 that bs wanted to wait until 2017 to open up SJ if the gints wouldn’t agree to a negotiated settlement–coincided with gints mortgage payment ending–not sure if that was accurate or not but the longer this thing goes on the more I think it was the plan. If this is true then I would expect before opening day in 2013 bs balances the bay area territories by “sharing” the area. He doesn’t pick SJ over Oakland he just rights a wrong from the past. It is up to LW to choose where he wants to invest in a park. Ballot measure in SJ in June/November of 2013. Gives you 3 years to build the park and take care of any of the lawsuits that always follow any development of this size (regardless of where it is built). Opening day 2017—

  48. @GoA’s- The argument you propose does have some logic but you are missing the key point on the delay….Selig’s prayer of a Oakland miracle.

    Selig when he appointed the BRC thought something could have been done in the East Bay. He foolishly thought Wolff had missed something and that his BRC would find it and convince Wolff to stay away from San Jose.

    Turns out the worst possible scenario came true….Wolff missed ZERO and the BRC has been going in circles on Selig’s orders praying for something or anything….All because Selig is too cowardly to confront the Giants.

    Victory Court, Coliseum City, and now once again, Howard Terminal proves this point. While San Jose has stood by its site for years and needs only to move 2 businesses and clear the site which is minimal in cost compared to the other sites….BRC and Selig know this full well.

    They pray and cling to hope Oakland or the East Bay can prove themselves. But in the end there is no public $$ available for such a miracle. If Oakland was wiling to pay the land, infrastructure, transportation costs and 50% of the ballpark then you would see Oakland in the game with Wolff all about it.

    It costs far $$ to build at any of the 3 sites above compared to Diridon. It would take a massive public subsidy to keep the A’s in Oakland but the recession and RDA being killed has destroyed any chance of that.

    In the end a privately financed ballpark is the only hope of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. Unless the BRC can go to Wolff with a plan for an Oakland miracle with public $$ and a huge MLB loan the only way is San Jose…

  49. @ Anon. Has Oakland presented their “notebook” for EIRs, funding, and corporate support?

    The short answer: Yes

    • @ Anon. Has Oakland presented their “notebook” for EIRs, funding, and corporate support?
      The short answer: Yes

      Please show it so I can see the details of funding and corporate supporting and that elusive EIR…

  50. @SS-doesn’t an EIR take 12-18 months to complete? to my knowledge Oakland hasn’t done an EIR for any of their sites–

    Relative to corporate support–you cant force a private investor to build something in an area where they dont belive they can get their return on investment. Because of this Oakland has got to show public dollars that they are willing to invest in the construction of a ballpark in order to manage the investors risk. No different than they did when the Raiders returned and they invested $200M I believe or with Oracle Arena where they invested another $120M–both of which have outstanding debt remaining–

  51. I’ll get right on that Anon since you are the guy Oakland needs to convince…

    By the way, what do you think Oakland has been doing with Selig’s Committee for three years? Sitting around drinking Blue Bottle coffee?

    • I’ll get right on that Anon since you are the guy Oakland needs to convince…
      By the way, what do you think Oakland has been doing with Selig’s Committee for three years? Sitting around drinking Blue Bottle coffee?

      So in other words, you’re talking out of your arse….nicely aligned with Jean Quan and the Oakland polis…

  52. From what I understand, Oakland is sticking to its no-public-$-for-a-ballpark stance. Not seeing how that’s not a deal-killer, even if Oakland had a viable site, which it doesn’t appear to have. Three+ years of MLB talking to Oakland and no plan announced?

  53. Think whatever you’d like, Anon. But in the same way as some posters here draw conclusions of why SJ is the preferred option (i.e. MLB didn’t bat an eye at wolff’s land transaction), I would counter by saying, after 3 1/2 years, if Oakland, as you suggest, has nothing or has provided nothing, then why wouldn’t Selig just make the call for SJ. Maybe the SJ transaction has issues? Maybe what Oakland has provided looks better (waterfront), easier (no public vote) and cheaper (no territorial rights to pay for) than SJ? Ever think of that? I doubt it.

    @pjk, Oakland is sticking to what MLB has required of it — not what you are striving to require. Oakland didn’t come up with the transaction construct (city provides land, infrastructure and some parking, team finances stadium), MLB did. Take it up with them.

    • Think whatever you’d like, Anon. But in the same way as some posters here draw conclusions of why SJ is the preferred option (i.e. MLB didn’t bat an eye at wolff’s land transaction), I would counter by saying, after 3 1/2 years, if Oakland, as you suggest, has nothing or has provided nothing, then why wouldn’t Selig just make the call for SJ. Maybe the SJ transaction has issues? Maybe what Oakland has provided looks better (waterfront), easier (no public vote) and cheaper (no territorial rights to pay for) than SJ? Ever think of that? I doubt it.

      You’re forgetting, wait….IGNORING the fact that MLB cannot force JW/LW to build anywhere, only can say where he can and cannot build. I find it ironic that you tray to challenge LW on opening up his private notebook (it is his “company” after all), yet you would not even dare ask your own government to open up a “public” plan. It’s this closed minded, we deserve shit even though we don’t do shit mentality that is going to doom you while you continuing closer your ears, talk out of your ass, pretend you’re SF/SJ, and point fingers to everyone else. Sounds like the “Oakland” way…..

  54. So if Wolff won’t finance the stadium in Oakland, we need new owners who will. Names and balance sheets, please. And have them sign on the dotted line with a solid date for groundbreaking. No spending five years to find out Wolff was right all along and we still have no new ballpark…

  55. pjk, on the point about new owners we agree. But I can’t imagine any group who would want to buy the A’s coming out publicly to announce that. Rather, any ownership change would occur via the opaque handiwork of the commissioner. He will determine who’s balance sheet is the strongest. Not you, me or ML. And I would agree with you that whatever ownership group is selected, they would clearly sign on the dotted line to say we’ll get a stadium built on Howard Terminal by a date certain.

    • pjk, on the point about new owners we agree. But I can’t imagine any group who would want to buy the A’s coming out publicly to announce that. Rather, any ownership change would occur via the opaque handiwork of the commissioner. He will determine who’s balance sheet is the strongest. Not you, me or ML. And I would agree with you that whatever ownership group is selected, they would clearly sign on the dotted line to say we’ll get a stadium built on Howard Terminal by a date certain.

      You Oakland only folks are so myopic in your views. You’d think LW/JF would sell the A’s when they can continually rake in millions from MLB in revenue sharing and upcoming broadcast money? MLB can’t force ownership change, so might as well add that pipedream scenario along with VC, CC, and now HT. You speak of the A’s as if it was a tourist attraction (waterfronts, hip culture, etc.) when you haven’t even broached the subject of a self-sustaining business. Again, if you are so sure of the viability of the A’s in Oakland, would you condone public subsidies ensuring the A’s meet attendance / STH goals every year?

  56. The A’s can build anywhere in Alameda or Contra Costa Counties. Wolff can buy land anywhere he wants to (this is still a free country). What he can’t do is move the A’s out of his two county territory, without MLB approval. He bought land in Fremont. Why not San Jose?

  57. Anon, thanks for pointing my myopia. Funny thing about these situations — you can view them many ways. The way I look at it, with a sale of the A’s, Fisher/Woff can cash out at approximately 2.5x their initial investment in six years (that’s without counting their free cash flow over those years — what you would call “raking in millions”). Seems like a darn good IRR, especially while our country enduring one of the worst recessions ever during that time. Who’s myopic?

    By the way, it’s not my job, or your job, to make such determinations about the A’s potential for success in a new Oakland ballpark. MLB’s committee is doing it’s own research about the A’s financial viability in Oakland and they’ll make their own conclusions regardless of what you think.

    • Anon, thanks for pointing my myopia.Funny thing about these situations —you can view them many ways. The way I look at it, with a sale of the A’s, Fisher/Woff can cash out at approximately 2.5x their initial investment in six years (that’s without counting their free cash flow over those years — what you would call “raking in millions”). Seems like a darn good IRR, especially while our country enduring one of the worst recessions ever during that time. Who’s myopic?

      By the way, it’s not my job, or your job, to make such determinations about the A’s potential for success in a new Oakland ballpark. MLB’s committee is doing it’s own research about the A’s financial viability in Oakland and they’ll make their own conclusions regardless of what you think.

      Have you ever taken math in your life? You’re going to take forgoe $60-70 million a year in revenue sharing so that that you can get a one time lump sum of $300 million? Really? Are you a mortgage broker from 2007 also? And you think billionaires/millionaires like JF/LW are worries about that paltry sum?! That’s your position and Oakland’s?! WTF?! /facepalm

      “It’ not my job or your job”…WTF?! No shit Sherlock, but you’re still spewing the same tired Oakland pipedream crap. If you can’t even answer the most basic questions on your position, then you might be at the wrong place, buddy. So, I take it that you are not as confident in on the A’s after all, since you didn’t reply to my inquiry about public assurances for the A’s (a la the Raiders)….figures.

  58. @david- not sure of your point- the A’s bought the ballpark land in downtown SJ also-

  59. @SS- regarding ownership change- when else has MLB operated secretly by not announcing which groups were contenders and who isn’t- surely not with the Dodgers, Astro’s or Padres- nor the Cubs– what makes a small market club like the A’s require secrecy? And btw- I agree LW isn’t selling anytime soon or building a ballpark in Oakland without a sizable public investment- wasn’t too long ago when he said that while bs can tell him where he cant build he can’t tell him where to build

  60. @GoA’s – the SJ parcel is not owned by Wolff or Fisher as of today. Nothing stopping them from bidding higher than anyone else, if the option is deemed illegal by the State. My point was – buying land doesn’t mean a stadium is going to get built on it. What’s on the Fremont land, Wolff bought?

    • @GoA’s – the SJ parcel is not owned by Wolff or Fisher as of today. Nothing stopping them from bidding higher than anyone else, if the option is deemed illegal by the State. My point was – buying land doesn’t mean a stadium is going to get built on it. What’s on the Fremont land, Wolff bought?

      The SJ land option is contingent on the TR, since it is single purpose use only: a ballpark. But, since you are so concerned about LW/JF buying the parcel, please read on:

      “Wolff said the possibility that the team might have to pay for the land in San Jose if the city can’t, “is not relevant to us. It’s insignificant to the cost of the ballpark.”

      While buying land certainly doesn’t mean a stadium is going to get build, i think it has much more credibility then say a press conference or a fake EIR or a proposal where other businesses are at. WOuldn’t you agree?

  61. @david- doesn’t mean one will get built but it does show some level of risk that LW is willing to consider- and btw- until a ballpark is built I wouldn’t count out Fremont-

  62. @all – Selig has said for years now that one of his charges is to ensure that owners get the max return on their investment when they sell. There is no reason to believe he’d ask Wolff/Fisher to sell at anything below market value, which will only rise in the coming years. Besides, if he can’t grant them the South Bay, a $500-600 million sale price is at least a good consolation. The idea of a hometown discount is from a bygone era.

    That puts any incoming ownership group at a huge disadvantage. Unless they come in with huge amounts of cash, the debt rule will force them to come up with cash (instead of additional debt) for a new ballpark. Add to that the fact that revenue sharing will sunset in 2016 and the criteria to keep a team in Oakland is higher than it is in other markets. Judging from Selig’s oversight of recent sales, he’s not going to allow any new group to slide financially.

    • Add to that the fact that revenue sharing will sunset in 2016 and the criteria to keep a team in Oakland is higher than it is in other markets.

      @ ML – a little confused by your statement. In the new CBA, the teams in the largest 15 markets will eventually all their revenue sharing by 2016, except for the A’s…..IF they don’t build a new ballpark. So they should still be subsidized by the league if they’re in the Mausoleum.

  63. Regarding team value. If A’s don’t have an adequate stadium and they can’t move to San Jose does not help the market value. ML you are telling us that someone would pay $500M for the A’s today. I doubt it.

  64. @Anon – No ownership group will be allowed in without a plan to succeed the Coliseum. Irony there is that debt rule works against incoming owners.

    @Ethan – New national TV money should increase A’s revenue to nearly $200 million annually in 2014. That makes a $500 million valuation entirely reasonable. San Jose would be the bonus on top of that.

  65. Ok Mr. Wolff buys the team for $175M in 2006. The team is is now worth $500M. Next year the revenue is going up for the A’s by $200M. Staying in the Coliseum is not that bad of a business model for the A’s ownership. Like SS stated not too bad considering what most fans have gone through since 2008.

    We know the A’s won’t offer up big money to free agents so let’s fund a $500M stadium on the moon. The annual debt service is only $30.5M. (4.5 interest rate and 30 year amort). Maybe the Astros have territorial rights to the moon so that won’t work either.

  66. @Ethan – It’s fine for A’s ownership, it’s not good for MLB in the long run. The rest of The Lodge won’t allow the A’s to be a continual drag on the rest of the league.

  67. Isn’t the Lodge the ones who wanted Revenue Sharing to keep MLB competitive?

  68. I was under the impression the revenue sharing provision is for 2-team markets not being able to take from the pot under any circumstances except for the A’s in Oakland by 2016.

    The other 2-team markets (NY, LA, CHI) have all of their teams contributing into the pot in some form. The 2016 provision forever bars any of those teams including the Giants from ever getting revenue sharing help regardless of situation.

    The A’s are the exception and Baltimore/Washington do not count as they are not considered the same media market.

    Am I missing something? I did not think this provision extended to any other teams outside of the 2-team markets.

  69. “Maybe the Astros have territorial rights to the moon so that won’t work either.”

    Yup. Can’t build in the oceans (Rays, Mariners, and Marlins), or the air (O’s, Cardinals, Blue Jays) either. Guess Lew better sell!

  70. Hopefully we get some info on the A’s future in the next couple of days.

  71. @Mike2: you’re new to the conversation aren’t you? 😉

  72. LOLOLOLOLOL hilarious…….this will be resolved sooner than you think. Go Oakland only crowd! We love the support and we shall be victorious!

    San Jose only people? Sorry but you do have the lame 49ers playing in that 1 pct stadium in Santa Clara lol….but in no way will they put your area’s name on their logo ever! Funny huh?

  73. @TD-guess you know all about that- difference is the Golden State Warriors actually play in Oakland and refuse to take the city’s name- in the unforeseen event that the A’s remain in Oakland who knows what name they will take- that part will be entirely up to LW- nothing the gints can do about it if they want to be the San Jose A’s at Oakland-

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s