Baseball in Oakland has gotten cheaper

When the A’s converted the all-you-can-eat sections in the upper deck to the Value Deck in 2010, it marked a major change in how tickets and concessions were priced at the Coliseum. Prior to 2010, both offerings were steadily increasing. Team Marketing’s Fan Cost Index, which tracks the cost of a game for a family of four, had the A’s above the middle of the pack even though the venue itself was no great shakes. Since the introduction of the Value Deck and Menu, prices have dropped and stayed remarkably flat as the newest MLB edition of FCI shows.

Fan Cost Index for the last four years

Fan Cost Index for the last four years

FCI considers the cost of four tickets plus soft drinks, beers for the adults, parking, programs, and caps. The caveat here is that such a package is not usually purchased by a family that goes to the park regularly. It also doesn’t take into account that many fans will eschew value menu fare and go for something a little more upmarket. In any case, it’s a fairly honest representation of pricing and spending at every stadium, and as you can see from the table above, a game at AT&T Park is considerably more expensive to attend than one at the Coliseum. As a matter of practice, Team Marketing surveys each team prior to the beginning of each season.

The A’s have chosen to keep prices steadily, remarkably stable for four straight years despite last year’s AL West crown. In 2010, FCI for the team was nearly 9% below MLB average. Now it’s almost 21% below the league. Instead of raising prices throughout, the team has chosen to charge more for premium items found in the Westside Club, Round Table pizzas or craft brews. It’s a reasonable philosophy to have, though for me personally I choose to drink my craft brews in the parking lot when I have the chance.

It’s normal for teams to raise prices in proportion to payroll increases. A’s payroll, like FCI, has remained steady over the last four years. Revenue has risen, though not dramatically. Revenue sharing fills in the gaps, so even if the A’s boosted prices that revenue increase would be partly offset by decreased revenue sharing.

As we’ve seen during the first homestand, fans aren’t terribly responsive to price, or even success carried over from last year. Tuesday’s “free parking” crowd was identical in size to the BART $2 Wednesday crowd. “Inclement” morning weather scared away Thursday’s getaway game walkup crowd. A multitude of factors play into every fan’s and family’s decision making process when it comes to attending any one game. The numbers show that advance and season tickets have improved measurably, but it’s not enough to move the needle much in terms of revenue.

For now the A’s price things to what they think the market will support. There’s enough room for one or two extra salaries to come via trade at midseason or at the deadline. The system allows for that. If the A’s wanted to boost payroll to $80 million, revenue would have to be boosted at least another $20 million independent of revenue sharing. Would the fanbase support the increased prices and attendance that would be necessary to generate that extra revenue? I’d sure like to find out.

146 thoughts on “Baseball in Oakland has gotten cheaper

  1. Is this what’s meant by the A’s supposed “poor marketing?” We’ll continue to more media bashing of the A’s owners, despite the dirt-cheap prices, while the Giants get a free pass despite their premium pricing.

  2. Another beautiful day at Minute Maid Park. This thread speaks volumes. Should go a long way towards silencing the Wolff haters and those who say he doesn’t do enough to get fans to the football stadi.. I MEAN! “Ballpark.” Their silence is deafening …

  3. Where is parking only $20 at AT&T Park?

  4. Also interesting news out of Montreal. Apparently MLB is amenable to moving either the Rays or the A’s up there should the city approve a retractable roof stadium. So time may be running out for us…

  5. Where can you park anywhere near ATT&T for $20?

  6. True, the Big Owe is still there ready to serve as a temp venue should Montreal look amenable to eventually building a new stadium.

  7. Relax re Montreal (really?). Wolff, Fisher, the DiNapoli family, other Silicon Valley interests would probably find it a little inconvenient to have their team playing 3,000 MILES AWAY! Look, its almost certain that San Jose has been chosen and some unforeseen loose ends need to be dealt with before MLB reveals the long awaited decision. BUT if something insanely stupid derails San Jose and Wolff is “forced” to stay in his territory, then it’s all about Fremont. Montreal? PLEASE!…

  8. Re Montreal,
    It appears they are a stalking horse…for the Rays. A hypothetical move of the Rays to Montreal would not require division realignment due to being in the same time zone and proximity to other AL East teams. So as always, just relax all…

  9. That Rays to Montreal rumor has been going on for several years now. It would make sense geographically for the team to move to Canada. Natural rival to Blue Jays and they would sure get more fan support than they currently do. To bad the Giants did not move to Tampa when they had the chance or we could have been talking about them moving to Canada instead of the Rays or A’s.

  10. Meanwhile, some in the Oakland-only camp are convinced the A’s simply have no place else to go and will be forced to build in Oakland on their own dime. But the list of possible destinations keeps growing: San Antonio, Virginia, North Carolina, Sacramento, Montreal…

  11. C’mon pjk!
    The A’s would play in Fremont before being “forced” to stay in Oakland OR relocate to those substandard markets (compared to Bay Area). Also much easier to allow the A’s SJ than entertain pie in the sky relocation scenarios. For the umpteenth time, RELAX! (enough from me on the Montreal, Sacramento, Timbuktu crap for our A’s …)

  12. Tony: MLB wants publicly funded ballparks. That’s not going to happen anywhere in the Bay Area. Privately funded ballparks set a bad precedent and can devalue franchises, if owners think they’re going to have to foot the bill for their own new stadiums because the taxpayers won’t. If one of those cities comes up with 50% or more of the cost of a ballpark, look for MLB to seriously, seriously, consider moving the A’s to that place. It’s not like MLB hasn’t given Oakland 15+ years to get its act together. Oakland’s offer to have the owners pay 100% of the cost of a ballpark and take 100% of the risk has gotten us nowhere. San Jose, unlike Oakland, probably does have the corporate $$ to make a privately funded ballpark happen. But it sure is easy for MLB to do nothing about San Jose’s efforts when it, like Oakland, is not willing to pay for the ballpark.

  13. I think drive-up parking is $20 this year. Season ticket holder’s pay $9. Tuesday nights, free parking except when the “good” teams come into town, check the schedule.

    Tailgates are an essential part of the experience. Pre and post. As long as you’ve got one dummy who will pull in a truck full of beer, everyone can coast in on BART.

    And out, pile in, we’ll drop you off at 19th St or such.

    If the A’s move to San Jose (they won’t) it will put an end to “green” folks like me (or I won’t care one bit.)

    Go A’s! Hottest team in MLB right now? Gotta check my stats, been doing hoops all day. Jeremy Lin on 60 minutes. Love it.

  14. You can park at the UCSF parking garage on Third Street by the Mission Bay MUNI stop, about 10 mins walk from AT&T Park, for $20. It’s where I always park when I go to games there.

  15. re: If the A’s move to San Jose (they won’t)

    …Since no one wants to pay for a new ballpark in Oakland, what do you think will be the fate of the A’s if they can’t go to San Jose?

  16. @Freddy,
    They will. Go A’s and Go SJ!

  17. I’ve not seen $6.75 beers at AT&T or $2.75 Coliseum sodas either.

  18. OT: nice quote about Wolff in the ESPN/Bryant article, “Wolff says he has the support of a majority of owners to leave Oakland.” What was that again about relaxing? 😉

  19. I wish the A’s had a better club section. The Giants 2nd deck at AT&T is amazing. Meanwhile the A’s do not have anything of the sort, they have the West Side Club but it is limited with the amount of seating around it.

    I am one who does not mind paying a bit more to avoid lines and to have premium offerings in the food and liquor areas. Since I live so far from both Oakland and SF I prefer fewer games but better seats.

    Now if the A’s move to San Jose I would buy 15-20 games and I would consider club seating depending on financing and pricing.

    I love the Giants but they are too far and it is unbelievable their argument still holds that San Jose is their “territory” and that they would be crippled with the A’s moving there.

    Selig is going to retire and leave it up to the next guy to decide after this season….My hope is Jerry Reinsdorf becomes next commissioner.

  20. “I love the Giants but they are too far and it is unbelievable their argument still holds that San Jose is their “territory” and that they would be crippled with the A’s moving there.”

    @Sid, I’m sure this is close to the sentiments of the vast majority of Giants fans. If only the Giants cared one bit about the sentiments on this issue from their fan base. As long as the Giants continue to sellout all their games at AT&T Park, they could care less on what their fans think regarding a possible move of the A’s to San Jose.

  21. What does “territory” actually mean? What can the A’s other than move to SJ not do? What rights do each team have over their territory?

    I mean in the bay area fans can chose to go and see either team, can buy either teams merchandise, catch both teams on TV, etc… some commentor on another blog stated that the Giants even have team stores in A’s “territory”.

  22. @sjlaugh,
    You pretty much nailed it. At the present the gerrymandered territorial state of the Bay Area only determines where a ballpark can be built…that’s it! The rest is free game: TV viewing, marketing, advertising, ticket sales, radio broadcasts, freedom to cross county lines to watch games. That’s why this TRights argument of the Giants has been so stupid from day one. Think about it: perfectly OK (hypothetically) for the A’s to build in Fremont just across the county line, but cross it and propose a ballpark in Milpitas and all of a sudden the Giants start bitching and whining. Thankfully, the stupidity will be coming to an end soon…

  23. Pudgie says: “Where is parking only $20 at AT&T Park?”

    Besides the aforementioned garage, there’s a couple of other lots nearby for $20-$25. My company’s season tickets come with parking passes, those cost $22.60/game–maybe they’re using that figure? Because the cash price Saturday for an official G’s lot was $35.

  24. You couldnt pay me to go to a giants game – pay $25 for parking for the giants, $50 per ticket, $15 for a beer and garlic fries? No thank you – I’ll pass.

  25. It’ll be nice when A’s fans can say “my company’s season tickets…”

  26. The prices the Giants charge for tickets, parking, beer, etc are for those fans that come up from San Jose to watch a game.

  27. @mike2,
    Actually know a bunch of those San Jose-based Giants fans, and many (if not all of them) only go to about 2-3 games per year. I imagine there are some season tix holders from SJ, but they are far and few (not counting rich folks who buy season tickets just to resell them). Most Giants fans being exhorted by those priced for the most part reside in San Mateo County, not Santa Clara County/SJ.

  28. @Tony D

    I was being sarcastic. Most of my friends in SJ that do go to Giants games only attend a couple of games a year too. If baseball games was weekly I could see a team claiming that a city 50 miles away makes up a good chunk of the fan base and revenue. Since it is not I always found that as weak argument from the Giants.

  29. @mike2,
    Thanks for the clarification. The sarcasm went way over my head (its been a long day)..

  30. I guess I find the complaining about costs at AT&T tiring. At both parks, you can take mass transit or park for free or cheap if you don’t mind a walk. At both parks you can bring your own stuff and tailgate pre- or post-game; there’s more of it in Oakland, but SF has their diehards as well. (Many chose the “liquid-only version.”) At both parks, you can bring in your own food and properly packaged non-alcoholic beverages. AT&T certainly has more choices for carryout in the immediate vicinity, including a Safeway 2 blocks away. There are Giants games with tickets under $10; not for opening weekend, but they are there for certain games. Like tonight.

    You can spend a wad…hell, a car payment or worse at AT&T, but you don’t necessarily have to. You could spend $100 per ticket at the Coliseum on Memorial Day; again, if you wanted to. With 35,000-40,000 seats every game and 162 games in the Bay Area you can choose your own path…

  31. Miami or Santa Clara for the superbowl???…Just heard Florida will contribute 30% of a 400mil stadium improvements to Sun Life stadium…good move Florida….since I hate the 49ers I rather see Miami rewarded the superbowl site….better weather and a New renovated stadium would do wonders….now of Quan an get enough support for a raiders stadium, a superbowl in the east bay would be better then Santa Clara.

    Coliseum City lives on…..

  32. One thing is certain: There will be no Super Bowl played in Frisco. The 49ers and the national media might pretend the game will be played there, but it won’t.

  33. Hatin’ is so unbecoming.

  34. Haters gona hate!

    Gary Radnich: “If you have haters you are doing something right!” lol

  35. espn’s bryant who wrote a recent article about the a’s/woff/sj was on knbr earlier today. couldn’t catch the entire interview as i just happened to turn csnca and the interview was already taking place. also looked for it on their site but can’t find it there either.

    this is what i caught.

    -bryant feels that the midgets are scared that if the a’s were to move to sj that the market place would go back to nearly 50/50 instead of what is it today where the a’s barely have any kind of impact especially off the field.

    -there is no place to go right now in terms of relocation and moving the a’s so he feels that’s bad for the a’s in getting a deal done. doesn’t know if it’s smoke and mirrors by wolff when he said he has the votes and it’s up to mlb/commish to make the decision when it’s all said and done.

    -krueger mentioned whether this would set a precedent mlb doesn’t want to see take place as it’d allow 2 or 3 teams wanting to move to be that 3rd team in nyc or la. you know i’ve heard this argument before and i don’t buy this personally. what other teams are looking to move? tb maybe? every other team in mlb has seen a new park built over the past two decades and i’d guess they have a long term lease with the city and no way is the city gonna let a team move out of a relatively newly built baseball park that the taxpayers helped pay for. a’s, tb, and maybe tor are at this time the only team that are playing in venues that you could say they need to move out of. i don’t know how tor’s skydome has been kept up to date over the years since it opened in 1989 but at least in terms of capacity and size, it’s not anywhere close to these brand new and smaller basell ony parks being built since the early 90s. certainly the a’s and tb need a new baseball only park.

    -bryant also says mlb doesn’t believe that sj is as committed to getting the a’s/baseball as it’s made out to be.

  36. “-bryant also says mlb doesn’t believe that sj is as committed to getting the a’s/baseball as it’s made out to be.”

    This is pretty consistent with what Bryant has been saying for some time. Bryant has previously suggested that the lack of public money being put up for land, infrastructure and public transit has MLB cool on approving the move. That too is consistent with what has been discussed here about owners not liking 100% private deals. But it would be nice if the next time Mr. Bryant writes about the A’s and public money he mentions there isn’t going to be any coming from Alameda County either.

    BTW, Bryant has been pushing the third team in NY for some time. Last November he went on twitter and mentioned how the T-Rights issue could be tackled in NY by showing the others owners there’s enough money there, making a third NY team viable and profitable regardless of public funds. Funny, that argument sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

  37. The only way New Jersey or New York gets a 3rd team would be to challenge MLB’s AT. Sound familiar doesn’t it. No one has the balls to do it so we can spend another decade of this blog debating it. The Rays are locked into their lease until 2027, so they are stuck playing in that dump of a dome.

    Also who cares about ESPN? They turned into sensational sports reporting awhile back. If Bryant worked for MLB.com or wrote for any other national sports syndication I would take his work seriously.

  38. I want to see if san jose is willing to put up public funds to ensure mlb that san jose is the place for The a’s…. So all u san jose supporters from tony d all the way should relax…maybe we all could lose the A’s , its a California issue with tax money used on sports, the nfl and MLB are having a hard time to get northern California to put up money to build a new stadiums…so with that no moves for raiders and a’s, only way is to threaten California to move outta state….its really the only way…no wonder quan has been sitting on her hands

  39. @letsgoA’s,
    I actually agree somewhat with that last sentence in your post. Rather than hinting at litigation and firing off letters to Selig, San Jose should be busy acquiring ALL the land for a ballpark, negotiating a reasonable land-lease deal with Wolff, and drop all consideration for a public referendum (since, like the Quakes SSS, the ballpark will be privately financed).
    I don’t think now its so much MLB not liking 100% privately financed ballparks; it’s more of a case if they’ll work out financially/revenue wise if an owner foots the entire bill. San Jose will be getting a free ballpark and team courtesy of Wolff; MLB wants it to work out financially for them as well.
    BTW RM, the real estate market (at least here in the South Bay) is back! Is it possible for Wolff to go back to some form of “entitlement financing” that we would have seen at PAC Commons in 2006?

  40. KTVU last night reported how an evening at a Giants game costs more than the average and an evening at an A’s game costs less than the average. Still lots of fawning all over the Giants, though

  41. re: San Jose should be busy acquiring ALL the land for a ballpark,

    …Yes, San Jose’s story has been incomplete at best. The city doesn’t control the whole ballpark site now, just 40 percent of it. And there will be a public vote, which of course will bring out the “No matter what it is or who commenced it, I’m against it” crowd in full force. And the city won’t pay for the ballpark. If San Jose can take care of the first two issues, then the third may not matter.

  42. Tony D……Let’s Go Oakland!….the team is the Oakland A’s. That team that smashed the Angels last night that you root for are the Oakland A’s. dont give me this I’m a A’s fan nonsense. You are an OAKLAND A’s fan. When a stranger ask you who your favorite team is…its the OAKLAND A’s

  43. Is Howard Bryant an authority about the A’s and territory rights? – not. Most of the East coast sports writers are completely clueless about West coast sports and have no idea about the true facts. (For example – that’s likely why the Niners were able to draft Kaepernick in the 2nd round – Kaepernick was clearly the most talented QB taken out of that years’ draft, the (East coast) NFL gurus whiffed on that one.)

    The A’s have repeatedly said they will fund 100% of the cost of the SJ ballpark – how hard of a concept is that to grasp? San Jose is the 10th largest city, larger and ranked higher demographically than most cities which host MLB teams. San Jose has proven to strongly support local sports – the Sharks have enjoyed 10+ years of consecutive sellouts. The NCAA typically uses San Jose – not SF or Oakland – for the March madness BB games, because San Jose residents strongly support the games.

    Comparing the A’s move to San Jose with a possible 3rd MLB team moving to the NY area is also goofy. (The A’s/Giants situation would be comparable to the Mets attempting to relocate further away to New Jersey and the Yankees opposing it.) The MLB ATE is likely not much more effective than current NFL laws concerning franchise relocation, also the giants arguments against the A’s moving are bizzare and actually humorous, and would probably provide for a good laugh in a courthouse. SJ mayor Reed and Councilman Liccardo perhaps are making the right move by raising legal action about this issue.

  44. @510savage,
    Go through ALL my previous posts: when have I ever said they WEREN’T the OAKLAND A’s? I’ll give you a hint: NEVER! Like many a previous season, I’ll go 45 miles north up to the OAKLAND coliseum to catch a few OAKLAND A’s games, and I’ll also be part of many chants of LET’S GO OAKLAND! Any more questions, smart observations Einstein? BTW, what does your observation have to do with anything on this thread/post?

  45. @duffer,
    FYI: it hasn’t been noted in the papers or here, but yesterday on KLIV Reed stated he did recieve a letter back from Selig. In a nutshell, no meeting and continue to work through the committee assigned by MLB. One interesting thing of note however: Reed completely backtracked on the idea of litigation by San Jose, as if him and Liccardo never said anything in the first place. Hmm, wonder what else the letter from Selig said…

  46. too bad David – it has nothing to do with the A’s and in fact, probably kills off any HT/JLS proposal. Looks like it’s all in for the CC now….

  47. David you damn right….let’s go Oakland!

  48. Oh yeah another Oaklander gets praise in the basketball world..Gary Payton elected to the Hall of Fame…Oakland a basketball city…SF is not

  49. Anon, it actually doesn’t really impact Howard Terminal, but I have said forever that Howard Terminal is not realistic anyway.
    .
    This development is really the old Oak 2 9th repackaged as “Brooklyn Basin.” This is more in the vicinity of Victory Court, which was dropped long ago.
    .
    What does impact Howard Terminal is the recent revelation that the Port of Oakland can’t raise the funds to complete phase two of the old Oakland Army Base and the project (the 2nd phase of the project) may be delayed for a decade. The Port would have to come up significant coin for massive infrastructure upgrades around Howard Terminal in order for a Ballpark to work there, and they are pretty much saying “We don’t got it” for a project that is vital to the long term health of the port itself, let alone a ball park.
    .
    It’s been Coliseum City, or bust, for a long time already. And, well.. It’s probably more like “Raiders, or bust” at this point anyway. Even at Coliseum City.

  50. Wow… “3100 residential units” within about a mile of the proposed Howard Terminal ballpark site, along with 200,000 sqft of brand new retail space. All sandwiched around Jack London Square and Oakland’s growing waterfront. Any ownership groups with an interest in buying the A’s and building at HT just licked their chops.
    .
    It’s too bad Lew Wolff isn’t behind Brooklyn Basin, or we might see some movement in this stalemate.

  51. Thanks for correcting me Jeffrey. I thought the expansion of Brooklyn Basin encompassed area north of JLS as well, but is only south. This is great for the city of the Oakland and the region in general, because 1.5B pouring into the Bay Area. Too bad, they couldn’t sign up for an A’s stadium at the same time….

    btw> What’s up with the SF penis envy?!

  52. this is a positive economic (ginormous) development for the City of Oakland. I knew there would be hater spin from the SJ ballpark folks. Nothing new there….

    @Jeffrey – we shall see about all of that!

  53. re: Any ownership groups with an interest in buying the A’s and building at HT just licked their chops.
    .

    …Has anybody ever heard of any potential ownership groups interested in buying the A’s and building in Oakland with no public funds for ballpark construction? We’ve been waiting several years for somebody, anybody, to come forward but the silence is deafening. Anonymous so-called investors willing to take a look at it under no obligation won’t cut it. Has to be somebody ready to proudly proclaim they are ready to build in Oakland, with the $$ in the bank.

  54. @pjk:
    .
    “If the current ownership is not committed to Oakland, we’re confident we have identified a new ownership group who can and will buy the team if it is put up for sale. And that new ownership group would be committed to staying, keeping the team in Oakland, and getting a new stadium built. So we want to be clear to (Major League Baseball) Commissioner Selig and the rest of the owners, that the business community, the city, the county, and obviously the fans are very committed to keeping the A’s here in their home town.”
    .
    Don Knauss, Clorox CEO, May 2012. http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/05/03/clorox-ceo-wants-to-keep-the-as-in-oakland/

  55. JH510, I sincerely doubt there’s a single soul who would see the likely $750 million stadium cost at HT and lick their chops over it. This development is a HUGE win for the city of Oakland, no doubt about it, but it has zero positive impact on the possibility of the A’s staying. HT is out because of costs, JLS is out because there are too many businesses that would have to bought out (who will thrive even more with this new development near by). That leaves Coli City where you just took a $1.5 billion off the table for potential development and added a huge competitor with the mega growth at JLS. This is fantastic for the city, make no mistake. It’s a mind boggling win. But, if anything, it’s huge nail in the coffin for Oakland sports.

  56. Don Knauss? Please. The guy who wants to pay for a ballpark with the same disastrous plan used for the Raiders – PSLs. Why won’t Knauss name names? Because these so-called persons don’t want to be named because they are not committed to building a privately financed ballpark in Oakland.

  57. @dmoas: A $1.5B residential and commercial investment on the waterfront of Oakland within a mile of a publicly-owned 50 acre site within which a waterfront downtown baseball stadium could be built is a “huge nail in the coffin for Oakland sports.” … Not sure what to say, other than I disagree.

  58. David,
    Here’s the story of Port of Oakland cash woes.
    .
    It’s possible that the Port of Oakland could become a second tier port as a result of the delays (which are real). I’m not sure how that requires any “we will see” sort of attitude about Howard Terminal. But, you’re allowed to wear rosy colored glasses.

  59. @pjk: just answering the question you posed.

  60. JH510, if someone was looking to use ancillary development as a way to pay for a stadium (which no one is) this would be negative news. That’s a lot of development that someone else will be reaping the rewards from. What good is 50 acres to develop when a larger spot about a mile down the road is being built out tremendously, already?
    .
    This is great news for Oakland, and Signature Properties. It’s been a decade since that development was originally “approved.” It isn’t great news for Howard Terminal (especially when you consider the Ports inability to fund any infrastructure improvements around Howard Terminal to make it actually work as a ballpark site.
    .
    I’d also argue that this is great news for Oakland, bad news for Coliseum City. How many giant mixed use developments can Oakland really support with requisite foot traffic?
    .
    I want to reiterate, I am not saying this is bad for Oakland. It’s really great for Oakland, downtown and JLS. JLS has been “the next big thing” for Oakland for about 50 years and this is a game changer that actually might make that a true statement. It’s fantastic.
    .
    But it isn’t really great news for Oakland sports teams.

  61. Does this development include a ballpark? No, it doesn’t. Would be great if it did but it sure doesn’t look like Signature Properties wants to be the A’s savior here.

  62. To add to what Jeffrey just said, *HAD* the port been able to clean things up at the terminal, JH510, you would be 100% correct that it would be prime spot to stick a bal park as part of that bigger development. The true death knell for HT is that a $500 million ball park there would be a financial stretch. A $750 million (including the clean up work and the roadwork, etc.) is a complete non-starter. No one in their right mind would touch that. This is especially true when they’re not going to reap any of the development rewards for the bigger project near by.

  63. @ JH510 – If DK is such the white knight that folks have painted him to be, where has he been all this time since his meeting with LW? Why hasn’t anyone heard a peep out of him? Silence sometimes can be more deafening then the press conferences and rallies…

  64. On the plus side MLB has started another committee to study ways to improving on field diversity. Who wants to put money down on who makes their recommendations first to the owners between the A’s Blue Ribbon Committee and the on field diversity committee? My money is on the latter.

  65. Last sentence mentioned a possible ballpark site there…Estuary Park/Victory Court type may be revisited

  66. Knauss has had more than enough time to come forward with a committed, well-financed bid to buy the A’s and pay for a new ballpark without public funding. But like Anon just noted, the silence is deafening. How could Wolff proceed with San Jose if somebody of Knauss’s stature came forward with the solid investors and solid financing? Wolff would be forced to sell, since we know Selig is too cowardly to stand up to the Giants, anyway. Well, Wolff is still working on San Jose because Knauss has done nothing of the sort.

  67. re: Last sentence mentioned a possible ballpark site there…Estuary Park/Victory Court type may be revisited

    …And the Coliseum could be a site, Howard Terminal, Jack London Square, Uptown, Victory Court, etc etc etc. Where does it all end? If a ballpark were feasible and a worthwhile investment there, why isn’t Signature proposing to build one?

  68. Estuary Park is too small AND ALREADY HAS VOTER APPROVED DEVELOPMENT for it. You’re not going to turn back the clock on it. And VC requires buying out 10-15+ business owners and getting them to move. They weren’t willing do so before a large development that would likely improve their businesses even got approved. Somehow I doubt they’re going to move now that there is a development near by. And that doesn’t get into the cost of buying them all out.

  69. 510 Savage, the last sentence is referencing what HAD been considered there. Not what IS being considered there. O29th was studied in 2001 as part of the HOK study.

  70. PS- look at the renderings and you can see the planned development at Estuary Park featured prominently. There will NEVER be a ballpark on Estuary Park.

  71. This isn’t exactly Oak to 9th, it starts a little further south, from the big cement/sand plant or whatever it is. It covers Silviera’s 5th Ave Marina, the 9th Ave Terminal & a couple of cheap motels. I don’t think any of this was considered ballpark territory.

    Estuary Park is relatively untouched – in fact it’s expanded – all they’ve done is tear down a big wholesale shop there.

    • @freddy – That IS Oak-to-Ninth exactly. I’m going to write about this more tonight. It’s good that Oakland is getting investment, but let’s consider what it took to get to this point and what it means for other projects.

  72. re: Somehow I doubt they’re going to move now that there is a development near by. And that doesn’t get into the cost of buying them all out.

    Don’t you get it? “John Fisher is rich” and can pay for it all. He just needs to be willing to lose lots of $$, that’s all.

  73. freddy, this is Oak-to-9th. It is the signature properties development renamed. Unless Jean Quan meant something else when she said that.

  74. I love how a big development is seen by some as the savior of Oakland and the A’s, however, when Wolff wants to create a development to help pay for a stadium he is seen by many of those same people as a money-hungry elitist using the A’s to push his own business.

  75. LoneStranger: Different sets of rules for A’s, Giants. Giants are adored for raking in $$ and charging premium prices, A’s are skewered for charging family-friendly prices and requiring league welfare just to get by. Why is it OK for Giants owners to be mega-mega-rich while the A’s owners are supposed to run their franchise as a money-losing charity?

  76. The Oak-to-Ninth I knew also had a big chunk of development on Estuary Park, i.e.:

    Compare that to the map I provided above. See the difference? Not that I expect to win even a minor point here.

  77. @pjk unfortunately that is the rules oakland business are expected to abide by; by the oakland pols, citizens and local media. The sentiment in oakland is us vs the 1%, you dont agree you hate oakland. Try to build a high profile project and expect a return on investment then you are evil!!

  78. Dear Lew Wolff
    Dude please the A’s are atop the al west 6-2 currently…will u drop the gloves and please build in Oakland either at Howard terminal which is next to the next big real estate deal or the lovelt coliseum city which could also be a great move….please don’t drop this silly san Jose fantasy…ur pal and A’s Fan Berry

    P.s

    Yes pjk 100% of the costs , but maybe Oakland will throw in the stadium fun from the SOS meeting last year

  79. @berry

    You make me laugh.

  80. @Elvis: looks like I’m late to the party with all the Brooklyn Basin talk – that will teach me to skim over the comments section

  81. Interesting to see Jerry Brown’s willingness to give Quan credit for getting this development moving. Two more different Oakland mayors are hard to imagine. Maybe it’s a bit of compensation for the redevelopment-dissolution blood-bath Oakland’s suffering through. Brown’s clearly responsible for that (in fact, his experience as mayor probably showed him just how corrupt the RDA system had become in many cities and counties). Meanwhile, Quan really wasn’t to blame for the decades-old situation she inherited.

    Build out this estuary development, put a ballpark at Howard Terminal (huge pedestrian bridges over the RR tracks would be cool — don’t bridges like that bring fans to the Pittsburgh park?). The heart of Oakland, from JLS to Uptown, will boom.

  82. @suit,
    Will you stop with the “build a ballpark at JLS” stuff; you’re better than that (I think). Props to Oakland for landing this development; feeling bad for those who think its more than that. Maybe this causes Quan’s approval rating to rise out of the 20% range and will solve all of Oakland’s financial woes.

  83. Meant “build a ballpark at HT,” not JLS (pretty much the same though..not happening).

  84. Just like SJ isnt happening Tony D

  85. @xootsuit: thats the idea. But don’t talk about it too much on here, people might start getting worried.

  86. @Jeffrey – My we shall see comment, was about CC, not HT.

  87. JH510….they are worried….they’ve been worried. Guys like Tony D wont go down without a fight. Remember how he spun Chuck Reed’s letter of desperation to Bud Selig or the state controller chopping that land deal in SJ?

    Trust me its gonna get much funnier as the year progresses…just sit back and watch

  88. Let us know when you guys have convinced Oakland’s City Council to take up and vote on approving the million dollars plus necessary to study a stadium at Howard Terminal. I want to be there for the public comments; especially since we now know Larry Reid has the ability to pack the house with speakers (see last week’s meeting). Pivoting away from Coliseum City no matter what formation the final designs may have (the smaller the better) is not a smart move politically. I fully understand how is makes sense to the most passionate members of the stAy crowd to have as many options available to them as possible to build a new stadium – but Oakland’s financial and political reality doesn’t allow for that. Approval to move to San Jose won’t be happening this week or next, Oakland partisans are better off letting Coliseum City run its course before spending even more millions studying elsewhere.

  89. @510whatever,
    Worried about what? Spin a Reed letter…huh? What’s going to get funnier? Look, if you want to continue to wear rose colored glasses about a ballpark in Oakland and piss all over San Jose’s effort, that’s your problem, not mine or other sane individuals here…It’s your world. I’ll chose to reside in reality and have honest, mature discussions with others on this board. Consider yourself like other trolls who’ve frequented here past and present…IGNORED!
    (Again, amazed how this otherwise good news out of Oakland had been completely twisted, blown out of proportion by some here…oh we’ll)

  90. BTW, I plan on taking the high road with comments when the SJ decision is revealed. Some of you however have me reconsidering. Unleash with a torrent against trolls and SJ naysayers?..,nah, I’m way above that 😉

  91. You guys are arguing vociferously about news that has nothing at all to do with a new stadium. /smh

  92. Hey you guys, all the stadiums issues aside the ball club is extremely hot right now. Its a pleasure to see the team playing great.

    I really hope that the stadium gets built real soon cause we are going need the extra dough to keep these great players into the long term.

    SJ, OAK, or Fremont. Just build the damn place already!

    The A’s and us (the true fans) deserve it.

  93. JJ…A’s are very hot and I yelled like I was in bar after Moss’ big blast!

    But build it in Oakland…sorry bruh but this is the place

  94. Tony no one cares about you high or low road. You been on various sites spewing your nonsense. Dont act like you dont spin stuff saying “this is a closer step to San Jose”…..blah blah blah!

    Muppet…..San Jose approval wont happen this week or the next or any week….got that?

    MarinaLayer….shhhhhhhhhhh. You can shake your bald head all you want to…Oakland just came with a fastball similar to what Tommy Gun Milone just struck out Mike Dumbo with

  95. “You guys are arguing vociferously about news that has nothing at all to do with a new stadium. /smh”

    I didn’t say a word about a new stadium, just pointed out a difference between the Oak-to-Ninth & Brooklyn Basin plans. The latter starts south of the Lake Merritt channel. They are not building on Estuary Park; in fact, they are removing a structure. I even had the decency to provide links. Crucify me.

  96. I didn’t say anything about a ballpark either. I came to discuss this development, because people around here try to act like Oakland can’t make big things happen.

    Every “pro-Oakland” person around here are not reading from a script. I could care less which site in Oakland a baseball-only stadium is built. Just get’er done!

    If y’all want to pretend like you’re experts (talking to everyone Oak or SJ), go for it!

    Lastly, that letter that Selig wrote in response to Reed is great reading!
    http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_22998583/mlb-commissioner-selig-rebuffs-san-jose-mayors-meeting

  97. Freddy…….Estuary Park with that apartment complex would be fine man….even not HT with alot of millions in cleanup would be fine or Coliseum City….but I’d prefer something close to the downtown area

    How many of you guys went to school for architecture like the maker of the Estuary Park idea?

    MarineLayer…keep out of this…you swear to know so much just like your so called claim a resolution is coming soon

  98. David….exactly we want it in Oakland, a city on the rise in the heart of Northern California that is connected to the BAY BRIDGE

    People act like the franchise wouldnt be changing…..um yes they would…SJ hats? Jerseys that say San Jose? The Wolff idea is to call them the San Jose Athletics….nope not Oakland on it. Its a civic pride thing. You have pride seeing it say OAKLAND on it

  99. Savage, Estuary Park already has a completed EIR for development with city approval. You don’t need an education in architecture to understand that means the land has been taken and can’t be used for a stadium.

  100. dmoas….shut up talking to me and go back to the sfgate blog and hate more on Oakland….just saw your bs post……no matter where A’s play it wont be San Jose

    The Oakland Athletics are playing right now and still will be Oakland Athletics the next decade as well

  101. Actually, that’s the first thing you’ve said that might actually happen (the A’s still playing in the Oakland in the next decade). It just won’t be in a new park. It would just merely be a holding pattern until some other city ponies up the dough for a new stadium somewhere else in the country. I’d genuinely love for the A’s to find a way to stay in Oakland, but I’ve seen zip in the last two decades to suggest that has a chance in hell of happening.

  102. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz dmoas…you SJ lovers getting pounded like the angels bullpen the last two nights

    Let’s Go Oakland!

  103. Oakland’s bats are hot tonight, 10-4!

  104. Freddy….last year’s team= 1971 A’s…just a little too young but surprised many…..2013= 1972 A’s

    LA baseball= real moneyball lol

    Warriors will host playoff games while A’s are playing at home vs O’s in two weeks…plus its the Raiders draft……LET’S GO OAKLAND!

  105. We are wiping the Angels with sandpaper right now!

    Hear the A’s fans yelling….”Let’s Go Oakland”?

  106. Goodnite…time to get more brews!

  107. Run!! tony d, pjk and all u whack ass san jpse supporters…u lost this debate

  108. No one wants to pay for a ballpark in Oakland, berry. It’s kind of an insurmountable obstacle

  109. Wait, there was a debate?

  110. You must really be enjoying all this nonsense RM; hence allowing the Oakland-only gibberish that’s no holds barred at this point. I must admit; I’m laughing my ass off at some of these comments (too funny to get mad over BTW). I guess a little humor (or a lot in this case) will help get us through this saga in a sane manner. Gonna finish watching our A’s handle the Angels, which is truly awesome. Go A’s and Go San Jose baby!

  111. Sorry to spoil your story, 510 savage. What is funny are the giants owners group’s goofy arguments opposing the A’s move. Also, that report, by ESPN several months ago, where Selig was stumping MLB owners for a yes vote on the A’s to SJ move and having success has credibility.

  112. @JH510 – for someone pro-anywhere, you sure are biased and opinionated on the viability of Oakland without any proof besides the usual new ownership banter….it’s just too bad that JQ and Brown couldn’t announce a stadium deal with Brooklyn Basin. The A’s will continue to be the red-headed step child ignored by MLB, the city, and people of Oakland….

  113. Enough with this red-headed stepchild nonsense; stop denigrating the franchise you covet.

    Oakland won the AL West last year and and were one of the best stories in baseball. Granted, their story was dwarfed by the Giants, but what do you expect? The A’s organization has no interest in marketing their current product, meanwhile SF won the WS.

    Why couldn’t JQ and Brown announce a stadium deal with Brooklyn Basin? Easy answer: who else would need to be involved with that decision? Need a hint?

    C’mon – if anybody was proposing a $1.5 billion development on the downtown San Jose waterfront close to its potential ballpark site, you don’t think ML & Tony would be all over it?

    Biased non-journalism at its best. Good entertainment.

  114. @ Freddy – unfortunately, history and fact have a way have proving that the A’s have been the bastard child in the Oakland sports world (Mt. Davis, Victory Court, etc) for the better part of their existence, yet the only thing folks can blame on is ownership?! I root for the A’s and hope that it’s steward City can provide some means to take care of a proud franchise, but to date that haven’t done squat besides blowing a lot of hot air. If you think otherwise, I dare Oakland to dangle a 500M subsidized (by the Chinese, Clorox, or whomever) stadium at HT and see how LW reacts. If he still persists with the SJ, it will make us realists more sympathetic to Oakland’s plight. But until then, this inferiority complex with Oakland thinking they deserve some sort of entitlement is getting really old…

  115. Sorry, I don’t buy into that inferiority complex at all. I’m proud of my team. Unless you’re talking about a marketing scheme – this inferiority complex which was fabricated the moment Wolfe to town.

    4 rings > 2 rings

    Oakland A’s fans > SF Giants fans

    An A’s game at the Mausoleum > a Giant’s game at the Phone Booth.

    Ken Korach > their scrubs (tip of the hat to Bill King)

    Are the Oakland Athletics an underdog? Hell yeah. Makes it more fun when we win. Halfway through last season, the shoe fell on the other foot. The team figured out management didn’t give a crap, they started the Bernie Lean. And A’s fans became A’s fans again.

    Oakland won’t dangle half a billion bucks to Lew Wolfe. I wouldn’t want them to. I don’t think he’s trustworthy of investment. Look at his track record, failure after failure.

    Will the Chinese? Doubt it. But I’m down for a second opinion, my landlord is a prominent Chinese businessman. Want me to ask him?

    I don’t have a problem admitting when I am wrong. But right now, as it stands, A’s baseball is FUN.

    We should remember that on this blog. It’s just free entertainment, what the hell? I love the way ML toes the company line and Tony repeats himself.

  116. Oh crap, typo in the first sentence. Should end with “the moment Wolfe came to town.”

    This site is as 20th century as the Coli – “edit” or “preview” would be nice.

    • @freddy – It’s WordPress. If you’re a registered user you get editing capabilities. You’d know that if you weren’t a lazy whiner.

  117. @ freddy – so you want someone to take on a $500M risks for the city that hates him, based on historical data suggesting that there is neither corporate or gate receipt revenue generation enough to recuperate his money (much less invest more in the team)? Makes perfect sense (/rolleyes)…And what are these failures you speak of, because it accumulates into being a wealthy business man, I’d like to mimic it.

  118. Lazy whiner – that’s funny. Thanks for the laugh. You did a good job hiding this is a wordpress site. Now that I view page source, you are absolutely right!

    Not that I’d register or anything like that.

  119. Right now, the A’s are one of the top teams in the standings but rank dead-last in attendance. Must be Lew Wolff’s fault for trying to suppress attendance by putting out a low-quality team. Oh wait a second- that can’t be right. Maybe it’s his fault for putting up tarps on all those seats that wouldn’t sell anyway. Whatever the reason, the poor attendance HAS to be Lew Wolff’s fault…

  120. @pjk – you write the same narrative all across the internet. We get your point dude. What else do you have to say? Clorox is a major company. Its CEO said there are parties ready to buy the team and build in Oakland. Frankly, he is more credible than you or I. The current ownership is hostile towards the city. That makes sense why they don’t want to go public.

    Kevin johnson is treated like a saint amongst you SJ baseball folks, but what’s he going to get for his public efforts with a groups the Maloofs aren’t interested in selling to? Nada, dude. Nada. The Kings are going to Seattle. KJ is going to lose.

  121. What else do you have to say, David, besides saying Selig doesn’t have the votes, etc, that people “hate Oakland,” etc? Yes, we know the Clorox CEO says there are parties ready to buy the A’s and build in Oakland but he has not delivered their names in a year. What’s taking him?

  122. Knauss came on the scene in May of last year. Has he moved the process of an Oakland ballpark along at all? No, he has not.

  123. dickey said something on chron live a few minutes ago about the tr issue i never knew or maybe it’s something he just made up. he said regarding the a’s and sj, it’s not going to happen because the midgets and mlb had an agreement that when they bought the team in 1993 mlb said if they could build a new park within a decade that the rights to the south bay would be officially their’s? well we know what happened there.

    course the other jackass panelist was cohn and we all know how he feels about the situation regarding the a’s and sj, and the a’s in general where he basically called them a non mlb team before the start of 2012.

    • @letsgoas – Dickey’s been repeating that line for years. The Giants fed him the line and he never questioned it. Yet the Giants have never produced any documents to back it up, even though it would largely resolve the territorial dispute.

  124. Selig has never claimed there is any type of agreement such as that. Also why would Selig form the blue ribbon committee, and also play politics with MLB owners to approve the A’s move and continue the b.s. for 4+ years? The so-called agreement between MLB and the giants is very likely yet another b.s. story by the giants mgt.

  125. I’d be willing to bet that there was an agreement between Selig and the Giants. It was probably the one where the Giants get to tell banks that SCC is theirs exclusively so the deal could be seen as less risky and they could secure lower rates on their loans. Their loans would be paid off soon if they didn’t refinance, though the payments get lower and the risk is reduced, especially with the Giants making money like they are. I think that’s one of the sticking points.

  126. More nonsense from the Giants – every one of their arguments are wrong.
    It’s perfectly acceptable for the giants make an attempt to move to San Jose (even though San Jose voters wisely rejected the giants attempt to move here – yet the giants still claim San Jose as their territory – go figure)

    Yet the A’s cannot move to San Jose (even though Oakland is nearer to SJ in proximity and the A’s therefore own a stronger claim to San Jose than the giants do)

    Also, the giants mgt. is attempting to pull off something unprecedented in professional sports. It’s quite certain that in a two team fanbase situation, no team (giants) has previously attempted to prevent the other team (A’s) from moving further away from the shared fanbase – completely ridickulous.

    The giants also claim that San Jose voters is “giants territory” – even though San Jose voters have previously rejected a giants plan of moving to San Jose (and the Giants consider that a show of support?) Also, any team that attempts a move from SF to Tampa FL – as the giants have done, evidently is not receiving strong fan support from San Jose or anywhere else locally. The giants owners groups’ arguments are very foolish, they are fortunate that Wolff doesn’t wish to offend his buddy Selig and MLB owners by taking MLB and/or the giants to court.

  127. another thing dickey mentioned in that segment on chron live is that if mlb does allow the a’s to move to sj that the midgets would challenge the anti trust. wouldn’t it be threat most likely come the other way around with the a’s threatening to challenge the anti trust exemption if they don’t get the green light to sj?

  128. When you have two competing businesses who share the same market and one business restricts the location of where the other business can set up shop, then you have restraint of trade. I understand that MLB is exempt from the anti-trust laws. However, in the case of the Giants and the A’s you already have two franchises that share the same market. We are not talking about bringing in another team from another market to the Bay Area market. I believe that the territorial restrictions that prevent the A’s from building their ballpark anywhere within their Bay Area market is a restraint of trade beyond MLB’s anti-trust exemption. MLB’s decision to give the Giants territorial exclusivity for the choicest locations for ballpark locale over the A’s gives the Giants unfair competitive advantage over the A’s. I think MLB is overplaying their hand on their Anti-trust exemption, and IMO San Jose has a great case if they so choose to take the issue to the courts.

  129. Good analysis, llpec, that sounds like the plan.

  130. lets say the nucler option is or sj to challenge the anti trust, wouldn’t they need the a’s to be in on the lawsuit? are the a’s owners going to fight it out with their own league to get to sj and be the black sheep out of all the other 30 franchises? in the end i could see wolff selling the team ala how the maloofs are doing right now to a group that eventually moves them out of the bay area entirely if he waits and waits and waits but doesn’t get the green light.

    i do think in the end the a’s will move to sj but at this time there doesn’t seem to be any answer coming any time soon and that maybe more frustrating to the a’s fanbase in the bay area than to the a’s org themselves who themselves may know something privately but can’t speak of it while us a’s fans are fighting it out with each other year after year because we don’t know what’s going to happen even though all signs point to sj being by far the best and most realistic option to keep the a’s in the bay area.

  131. A move out of the bay area is unlikely though. Oakland, with a new A’s park, would be more profitable for the A’s than any the familiar proposed locations (Portland, Sacto, Vegas, etc., even Montreal)The Bay area is a much larger fanbase than each of those cities could offer. The bay area offers more potential corporate sponsorship and tv rights deals also. Also the A’s have an established presence locally, with four world series titles.

  132. Duffer, not really. A move out of the bay today won’t happen. But if they’re willing to wait 5 – 10 years, it can/will happen. Other cities out are likely going to be willing to be throw money to help. In Oakland (and in SJ) it’ll just become more and more expensive with neither able to put money into it. Don’t under value the financial impact having to pay for a stadium will be for a team. MLB certainly isn’t WRT to SJ.

  133. Anyways, the situation is becoming goofier by the day. According to the latest Mark Purdy column. Instead of a 3/4 owner majority vote to approve the A’s move, Selig is now looking for an unanimous vote – including the giants owners group – to ok the A’s move (good luck with that!) Selig does not want the Giants mgt. to oppose the A’s when the ballmark measure is decided by SJ voters at the ballot (also a yes vote by the giants mgt. would prevent them from suing MLB) It’s possible that Reed, Liccardo and SJ may need to force Selig’s hand and take on MLB and/or the Giants in court to finally get this issue settled.

  134. @duffer, The Mark Purdy column confirms the total controlling hold that the Giants have on Selig and MLB. I now believe that there are only two scenarios that will allow the A’s to move to San Jose. One would be if San Jose challenges MLB’s anti-trust exemption in the courts. In this scenario MLB will likely make an out of court settlement and allow the A’s to move to San Jose, rather than giving the courts to be anywhere near a ruling on MLB’s anti-trust exemption. The second scenario would be if the Santa Clara County corporate community withdraws sponsorship of the Giants as well as season tickets(club seating,luxury boxes,etc.) The second scenario would put pressure on the Giants to compromise with the
    A’s. Barring anything else, the A’s will likely be forced to eventually move out of the Bay Area, which as the Purdy column states is the ultimate objective of the Giants.

  135. Possibily, llpec. Selig also appears to be a very indecisive weenie also though. Recall back in late 2012, ESPN reported that Selig was stumping MLB owners to approve the A’s move to San Jose, and was having success, it’s possible Selig might already has the 3/4 majority vote to ok the move.

    The A’s can afford to play the waiting game also. The team is profitable because of the MLB revenue sharing plan, and the A’s value has likely quadrupled in value since Wolff bought the team in 2005. The A’s seem to be winning the PR battle too. The A’s are possibly planning that Selig won’t make a decision about this mess and they may need to wait until after Selig is replaced. The momentum, with other MLB owners at least, appears to be on the A’s side. Several have stated that they side with the A’s about the move. No MLB owners have sided publicly with the giants mgt. yet.

    It’s also possible a new A’s owners group could give Wolff a very good offer for the team, purchase the A’s, and decide to build a new ballpark in Oakland,and keep the team in Oakland . Oakland does support the Raiders and Dubs well, and the A’s would probably be better off staying put than moving to the one the frequently mentioned proposed sites, which all have significantly smaller fanbases than the bay area and would be less profitable for the A’s. There are several MLB clubs with small fanbases which are struggling, MLB likely does not want to add another one (if the A’s were to move to Portland or Vegas) If a team moves to Montreal, it would likely be the Tampa Bay Rays, not the A’s.

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