In what will probably become an annual study, Bloomberg released MLB franchise valuations today. The timing, prior to the first World Series game, stands in contrast to Forbes’ release, which is usually on Opening Day. While there will continue to be heavy debate as to the veracity of the valuations (MLB financials are not public data), having a second set of numbers released is good at least for discussion purposes. Besides, the bubble effect we’ve seen with valuations the past several years has allowed Forbes to set a baseline for franchise sales, whether teams and leagues want to acknowledge the data or not.
There’s also a very useful, colorful, interactive info graphic that breaks down both franchise valuations and revenue sources. The former includes $110 million for each club’s 1/30th share of MLB Advanced Media, the league’s digital media arm. The latter indicates which teams have shares in regional sports networks, along with revenue sharing payers and receivers.
The A’s ended up 26th in the rankings with a $590 million valuation. That’s 26% higher than Forbes’ spring figure. Methodology is rather murky, but the two outlets seem to be using similar types of data (if not datasets). Bloomberg also has the A’s tied for 1st (with the Royals) among revenue sharing recipients with $36 million. That’s more than the $33 million the A’s brought in via ticket sales. The Giants, who were valued at $1.23 billion, paid in $21 million to the $480 million revenue sharing pool. The Giants may be worth more than twice the A’s value, but the media revenues aren’t as big a gap as you might think. Bloomberg has the Giants at $88 million via their evergreen deals with CSN Bay Area and KNBR, whereas the A’s pulled in $65 million thanks to new deals with CSN California and Entercom’s KGMZ over the last few years.
Curiously, quotes from A’s PR man Bob Rose and Giants control person Larry Baer provide some owner insight. While in the past Lew Wolff may have argued against the numbers due to perceived discrepancies in local revenue (Wolff thought they were overstated), Rose offers up the notion that the valuation may be low. If revenue is $175 million, Rose argues, then the team is worth 4x that amount, or $700 million. Previously I had multiples at 3x for low-revenue teams and 2x for high-revenue teams. Perhaps a rethinking is in order.
If Rose is correct, the cost to buy the A’s and build a stadium would cost upwards of $1.2 billion, not including land and infrastructure. Chances are they could get it, considering the attractiveness of MLB revenue streams. Of course, future value of the A’s would be heavily tied to whatever ballpark deal is made. If the A’s stay in a ballpark they largely have to pay for themselves, that would limit revenue potential. A publicly subsidized venue would make things easier on the A’s balance sheet.
All in all, it’s more reason for Lew Wolff and John Fisher to hold onto the club despite the ballpark territory stalemate. Then again, without a lease we may see that coming to a head soon enough.
newballpark.org 
Oakland-only advocates will expect Wolff to sell the team to Oakland-only buyers at a significant discount. After all, he’ll still make money, right? Wonder how the rest of the owners would feel about Wolff devaluing all their franchises by selling the A’s at a bargain-basement price?
The Giants and A’s media revenue figures aren’t really a direct comparison, when $230 Million of the Giants franchise value is their share of CSN-BA. If their TV deal is under present-day FMV, that’s just more revenue stuffed in their other pocket. Not unlike when Tribune Company owned both the Cubs and their TV/radio broadcast outlets, they can put the revenue where they want.
It’s time for the A’s to spend some extra money. It would be demoralizing for this playoff window to close in 2013. It’s the right business move to invest heavily in the 2014-2019 teams leading up to where ever they playing in 2020.
“Ladies and gentlemen, your Sacramento A’s, at least for now.” I hope Selig is happy with the mess he has created with his failure to act.
@Briggs
Yeah I agree with you, the A’s are never going to be big spenders, but with the window they have over the next two-three years it would be nice if the spent a little more.
pjk – Wouldn’t that be “Ladies and gentlemen, your San Jose A’s of Sacramento!”
Thankfully, as Rayburn alluded to in another thread, the A’s will belong to the Wolff’s for the long haul: Keith and then on to the grandsons. They’re not selling! Even if San Jose falls through. In that unlikely event (and with no new lease at the Coli), perhaps it’ll be “Your San Jose A’s of Fremont in West Sacramento Temporarily!”
I’m back!
Once we get the Forbes listings then we might have more insight, but regardless, I bet the numbers do slightly/somewhat understate term values. Would not shock me. It shows even more that ownership is not likely to change because even in its current state without a solid ballpark, the team makes Fisher and Wolff gobs of cash. How many other minority owners are there other than Beane and Crowley? Likewise if they were to sell it would not be at a discount like what Schottman got.
Wolff gets a lot of heat from portions of the A’s fanbase. Most of it is ignorant, misdirected noise. However, I’m surprised Wolff isn’t called out on his tendancy to speak too soon.
He announced Pacific Commons before it was a done deal, and it back fired. He openly planned relocating to San Jose before getting permission to build there and started a shit storm of bickering.
I’ve liked what Wolff/Fisher have done overall during their tenure, but his communication skills as a real estate developer haven’t translated well with a fickle sports fanbase. In the past decade, I don’t think everything has gotten better when Lew’s spoken publicly about it.
next time when Ms Quan opens her mouth, somebody better asks her if she can get 1B from anywhere and anybody for the team and the new park. At least 1B.
it is so easy to just talk and talk and talk.
Good to have you back Ivan.
Portland A’s? I haven’t even read this yet. But it looks like it throws more water on Oakland’s belief that the A’s have no place to go. http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2013/10/24/5024334/oakland-athletics-portland-oregon
@pjk: It must be a slow day in Portland sports because this article is just filler. A Portland-based sports agent and an architect believes Portland is a viable city for MLB. That’s it.
Well it’s funny that I hear that there are supposedly no other viable markets for the A’s so they have to stay in Oakland. Are the A’s, with their $36 million a year welfare check from MLB every year, really viable in Oakland?
@pjk The simple is . . . yes. The complicated answer is . . do they want to be?
@pjk- if the city of O and ACo are willing to take care of the clean up and infrastructure needs at HT and put up at least 50% of cost to build ballpark–then yes–beyond that–the answer is no in terms of a privately funded ballpark.
Pretty much the reason why Lew will privately finance a park in San Jose as opposed to on HT is because of population dynamics and corporate sponsorship. If he finances SJ, he’s betting he’ll make his money back because SJ has 3 x the population of Oak. and way more businesses. That’s the bet anyways.
@briggs,
How do we know that Wolff didn’t get permission to look at San Jose? I mean, his frat brah is only the Commish of baseball and personally invited him into the lodge. And the only reason (IMHO) Fremont “died” is because he DID get permission for SJ. Fremont remains the “in case of emergency, break glass” option if SJ can’t happen for some unforeseen reason (again, IMHO). One thing is certain (no opinion needed): they ain’t selling!
@ Briggs – in this day and age where a #3-4 rotation pitcher fetches ~$20M, what exactly are you looking for the A’s to spend on? It’s been known that key free agents have rebuffed theA’s offer in the past for more lucrative deals or chance to pad their #’s (see Beltre). Any long term big $$$ deal that goes bad also has huge repercussions to the franchise health as well (see Chavez). The A’s are then left to deal from their core youth (see Holliday), and I don’t think anyone would condone trading Choice, Russell, or Gray.
@Tony D.: I absolutely think that Wolff got permission to sniff out San Jose from Selig. I also agree that San Jose is the best option on the table at this moment, but that’s besides the point. He shouldn’t have uttered a word about it until he had permission to build there. Moving the A’s has caused grief with some fans. Are they justified feeling so put off? It doesn’t matter. To quote Moneyball, “Would you rather get one shot in the head or five in the chest and bleed to death?” That’s how San Jose should’ve been handled.
@Briggs–wasn’t it bs who uttered the word about SJ after Fremont failed? bs is the one who failed to deliver here–had he done what he is accountable for we would be well under construction if not already in a new ballpark in SJ–I give LW lots of credit for taking the heat as the bad guy when he is just stating the obvious–no different than Lacob heading across the bay and being much more blatant about his dislike of oakland or Al Davis referring to oakland as a depressed area–LW has only said that there is no where to build a privately funded ballpark in oakland–and to this date no one has proved him wrong
OT: Hey RM! What are the chances that SAP Center could one day get a $1billion renovation like MSG? Looks awesome! OK, perhaps not a cool billion, but something in the $300-500 million range could work for The Tank.
I have no idea if Portland can build a Stadium for the A’s, but one huge problem is making sure that the Games are on TV. The Trailblazers had plenty of areas in Oregon that had a blackout from Games, due to contract issues involving Comcast (similar to the current problem involving CSN with the Astros).
Briggs, while that may be true, after 4 or 5 years of no word and either lip service to Oakland’s actions or a complete rebuffing of it, the results would have been the same. But honestly, I doubt Wolff had any sort of “permission” from Selig. Had he, this would have been over already.
@dmoas: Good point regarding the 4-5 yrs of lip service necessary to dodge SJ questions. Selig used intentionally vague language in the February 2009 report where he suggested that Wolff explore “other communities” if Fremont fell through. I suppose we can intepret that in a number of ways, but the SJ plans showed up shortly after that.
@Tony D.: Yes, it’d be great to see a Shark Tank renovation feature a NBA-friendly configuration option because you never know. The ESPN time-lapse renovation of MGS that Marine Layer tweeted is very cool.
MSG owners are doing a $1 billion renovation but the city has ordered them to evacuate the building in 10 years to accommodate an upgrade to the Penn Station transit hub underneath the arena. Oops.
PJK, I am from New York, and I seriously doubt that MSG will be moving in 10 years. The biggest proponent of this is a group called “The Municipal Art Society” (MAS), and they are talking $10B price tags and UP. MAS are a bunch of elitists who want a New Penn Station for Art’s sake not for improved Transportation (lets see if the State and (or) Federal Government want to pay $10b for that?). Beyond that, one of the biggest problems is of course, finding suitable land to buy for a New MSG (not to mention who will pay for that), and there is a process in New York City called the Uniformed Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), that takes a couple of years to get through before actual Construction can start. I suspect that the A’s and even the Rays will be in New Stadiums before the break down on a New MSG.
DB: Didn’t the official vote go 47 to 1 in favor of kicking out MSG? I’d like to see the Knicks end up in Newark, which would love to have them at the Prudential Center? The Rangers? Move them to Hartford, maybe?
Shutting down the biggest event center in Midtown Manhattan? No way that happens. The 47:1 vote was to extend the operations permit. In 2023, they’ll go through this process again.
Apparently, the deal is this gives MSG-Knicks-Rangers 10 years to get another arena built somewhere else, not to begin the process over again in 2023. The space must be vacated in 10 years so upgrading of Penn Station can begin. It would be hilarious to watch the MSG folks simply relocate the Knicks over to the Prudential Center, which doesn’t have an NBA tenant.
I beleive Billy Beane recently mentioned that they will stretch the payroll where necessary. The big thing about the A’s right now, in my mind, is that they really don’t have a lot of moves to make. A legit DH? Sure, I’d take Carlos Beltran as a DH… Maybe a high obp, somewhat slugging Short Stop (Yunel Escobar?) and move Lowrie to Second Base, where is offensive value is less offset by his defense? But what else do they really need to change?
.
I honestly feel like the A’s biggest problem this year was losing John Jaso down the stretch. He was a huge offensive upgrade at catcher over the 2012 team and he was replaced by a serviceable, yet not elite (offensively speaking) catcher in Vogt. (.345 wOBA v .301).
.
I’d like to see the A’s spend, too. But I want to be spending for needs and upgrades, not spending to be spending.
If I were a betting man, I’d bet that the stalking horse for Oakland is Portland (but it’s not that much of a stalking horse, 22nd largest media market puts it on par with Sacramento, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.) and the Stalking horse for Tampa Bay is Montreal.
.
I believe the likelihood of Tampa Bay moving to Montreal is higher than the A’s moving to Portland. And by a lot.
re: I believe the likelihood of Tampa Bay moving to Montreal is higher than the A’s moving to Portland. And by a lot.
How so? TB’s lease expires in about 14 years. The A’s lease expires in about 70 days.
and where would any team play in Portland?
.
If MLB wanted the Rays in Montreal because it would be an all around better business decision than staying in Tampa Bay, then they would pay to break the lease.
.
Coincidentally, Selig has been a little more involved in the Rays new stadium saga than he has in Oakland. Bill Foster, mayor of St. Pete recently said that Selig is working to stop any deal that is workable. The City put out a number to allow the Rays to move to Tampa proper and end the lease and Selig apparently said “We will pay you nothing.”
.
One logical conclusion here is that knowing a refusal to pay off the lease to move to another area in the Tampa region will lead to no deal to keep the team in the Tampa region is step one to exiting the Tampa Region. St. Pete has now put a price on ending the lease ahead of schedule.
I say ML should start a betting pool on the A’s/Raiders lease at the Coliseum.
I say they get 3 yrs with two 1 yr mutual options.
MSG is not going to be vacated and torn down in 2023. Giving them a 10 year lease extension does not preclude future lease extensions. No vote today is going to be binding on city councils and arena owners 10 years from now if they don’t want it to be. There’s no plan for a new Penn Station or MSG and no money for either (both will require an ungodly amount), so this talk is silly.
from the NY Daily News: “Madison Square Garden will have to move, and I think this permit sends the message that that work needs to begin now,” City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said. “We need to make sure Penn Station becomes what we need it to be, a really 21st century grand entrance into the greatest city in the world, not … what Sen. [Daniel] Moynihan or others historically described as a bunch of rat tunnels that lead people in and out of the city every day.”
…As of this juncture, MSG has to close in 10 years.
@pjk: Well, MGS requested a permit to continue operating above Penn Station indefinitely, as in forever… like 4-eva eva eva. Do you think City Council will grant that permit?
PJK, let me put this meaningless vote in Oakland terms. Essentially, this MSG vote has the credibility, and importance level of Rebecca Kaplan and Mayor Quan putting an A’s Stadium in HT, without Wolff’s permission and without thought to cost. Now there is a place nearby, called the Jacob Javits Convention Center which is 1,800,000 Square Feet, and thus, can be used for a New Garden. But it is owned by New York State, and there is no way the State is giving it up for nothing, just so the City can have a Train Station that does nothing for increasing Transportation options (particularly if they want the State to help pay for it). The City also does not want to lose the tax and tourist dollars generated by the Garden, so sending the Knicks, Rangers, Big East Tournament, and everything else, packing is a Non-Starter. Thus, the City must satisfy the State, and the Dolan Family who owns MSG. When they can do THAT and have a plan to build the Train station (funding included), then I will believe MSG is moving.
Briggs: The indefinite permit was rejected in favor of the 10-year one. The city wants MSG, the Knicks, Rangers, gone from the spot above Penn Station.
DB: I hear what you’re saying but the official word right now is – MSG out of the current spot in 10 years.
…the New York City Council sounds like the biggest bunch of anti-sports politicians since that guy who was mayor of, what was that California city again? He’s governor now, I think.
@pjk: Yes, that’s the point I was trying to make. Of course NY City Council would reject a permit that allows MSG to operate in perpetuity. The 10 year permit that the City Council proposed and approved give them flexibility to reconsider their options in 7-10 years.
City wanting MSG moved ≠ MSG moving for many of the same reasons Oakland wanting an A’s stadium at HT ≠ A’s moving to a new stadium at HT.
Briggs: It’s going to take 10 years for the Dolans to find a new site, get financing, get it built. They can’t sit on their hands for 7 years and then come to the conclusion that the city really does want them off that site. If that happens and a new Garden can’t be built by 2023, then welcome your New Jersey Knicks and New Jersey Rangers. If the Dolans want to stay in Manhattan, they need to find a new site very, very soon. Then, the destruction of their newly renovated, $1 billion MSG can take place as scheduled in 2023.
Oakland needs a stalking horse? If you assume MLB wants the A’s to remain within Oakland city limits, I guess…(LOL! that’s all I’ll say about that)
All the stalking horses in the world won’t change the fact that Oakland simply doesn’t have the taxpayer money to pay for a ballpark even if it had a site, and that private financing won’t work there, either.
Damn pjk! I usually don’t agree with you on a lot of stuff (even if we’re both pro-SJ), but you nailed it re stalking horse and Oakland!
Pjk, this is not about being Anti-sports, it is a game, a very expensive Real Estate Game. For example: Earlier this year, there was an agreement to redo the National Tennis Center at Flushing Meadow Park, and Willets Point which is by the Mets home at Citi Field, in Queens, and also an agreement to build the biggest Ice Skating Facility in the World (9 NHL Regulation Rinks), at Kingsbridge Armory in The Bronx (North of Yankee Stadium), this one still needs City Council approval but is a layup. Keep in mind, everything that goes on in New York City that is related to Real Estate is a bargaining chip (particularly in Manhattan). This year alone, the three biggest pieces of undeveloped land in Manhattan (Hudson Yards, Hudson Square, and an area called SPURA (by where I live) all went into contract to be Developed (Hudson Yards actually broke ground). Let me give you some numbers from the City: In Manhattan the Lot Areas (Acres) is 10,877. The percentage of Vacant Land off that, is 2.6%. Now I concede the point that not all of Hudson Yards, Hudson Square and SPURA are not vacant land, but quite a bit of it is. In addition, Parking Facilities (SPURA has two gigantic open air Parking Lots) is 1.5%. There is such desperation for Land (particularly Residential and Mixed Used) that even Gas Stations are being converted into housing. This is from the Tuesday New York Times. “In October, there were 117 stations in Manhattan, down from 207 in 2004, or a 44 percent decrease.” I can go on, but the point is clear. Do not forget, the City must find a spot so they don’t lose the revenue from the Knicks, Rangers, and every other event at MSG, from Concerts, to the Big East Tournament, to the Westminster Dog Show. And just in case you think the Barclays Center in Brooklyn can handle it, the Islanders are moving there also. Oh by the way, the Nassau Coliseum (where the Islanders currently play) will being Redeveloped by the people who own Barclays so the Knicks & Rangers aren’t going there), so the State would lose money as well. Here is what I think people really want. 1: The biggest piece of Land that might be Redeveloped in the City is Aqueduct Race Track in Queens (near JFK which is undergoing a $10b Expansion). They close it down, and shift Horse Racing to Belmont Park. Gov. Cuomo wanted to put the Javits Center there, but they balked. They send Javits there, along with a Stadium for the Jets (the Jets have an out at their lease at Met Life). 2: MSG Moves to Javits. 3: The New Penn Station gets built (but there must be a transportation benefit involved). Do I think it happens that way? Possible but not in 10 years…. Try 20.
There’s not a chance the Jets end up in Manhattan, now that they have a new stadium in the Meadowlands. The Jets Javits stadium ship sailed years ago.
Pjk I did not say Manhattan, I said Queens. Besides when and if something happens it would be 20 years from now. Perhaps more importantly the ship had not sailed ( the Jets ( like the Raiders & A’s), still want their own Facility ( ask Mark Davis what he thinks of Santa Rosa?)). Again taking this back to Oakland, why do you think he prefers Oakland to LA? It’s about controlling things not sharing ( that means Rams or A’s). Everything is about timing. The time was not right for a New Stadium on the West Side of Manhattan, so the Jets stayed at New Jersey. For New York they lucked out, and got Hudson Yards instead ( far more valuable than the Football Stadium). Plus the Aqueduct Property is still out there, for the Football Stadium. In case, you think this is theoretical, think of this: The Barclays Center where the Nets play, was originally going to be a Baseball Stadium for the Dodgers. Although it did not happen, it did not mean the idea for a Sports Team to play there was abandoned, it was deferred. Beyond that two Projects broke ground this month in Lower Manhattan: 50 West St ( a vacant lot for 30 years) and 5 Beekman St ( the same for 65 years). The West St Site is well known ( by the World Trade Center) but the Beekman St is very obscure ( I did not even know it existed). But both Projects will be Mixed Use ( luxury Hotel Rooms and Condos). The West St Project was supposed to happen a Decade ago, but 9/11 happened, then 5 years ago, but the “Great Recession” happened, then late late year, but Hurricaine “Sandy” happened. The funny thing is this. Because they did not build, they were able to come up with a plan move everything generators etc to a higher ground, making it an even more valuable property. Basically timing is everything.
OT – Joe Montana on the 49ers move to the South Bay:
“Still, Montana said he is excited about the new state-of-the-art stadium in Santa Clara and said “it’s not like they went to Oakland.”
yeouch!!!
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=9880625
@DB,
Interesting post re NYC and land use; especially the Hudson Yards site and how it is far more valuable now than the once proposed Jets Stadium would have been. You know, I’ve often wondered if the Diridon site in SJ will become to valuable for a ballpark/sports venue, especially being near a future transit center. Is that why Yankee Stadium is located in the South Bronx vs Midtown Manhattan where real estate is expensive? I’m probably wrong, but I think there’s a possibility an A’s yard in SJ won’t be at Diridon due to the same reasoning you mentioned in your post re NYC. We have lots of time (perhaps to much!) to figure it out.
The Jets wanted a new stadium and they got one, in a great location that’s much closer to downtown NYC than Santa Clara is to Frisco. I don’t see the Jets getting another stadium in our lifetimes. It doesn’t really matter to the Jets that the stadium gets used 20 days a year and is shared with another team, instead of only being used 10 days a year.
OT – While on the subject of Montana and the Niner’s new stadium, looks like there’s the potential for some big changes in the area around Levi’s Stadium. The Montana lead development located across the stadium is moving forward, albeit at a slower pace than anticipated, and a huge development involving retail, hotel, residential and commercial space is planned for the land currently occupied by a city owned golf course.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/10/25/details-emerge-on-santa-clara.html?page=all
Tony, thank you for the nice words. The reason for Yankee Stadium in The Bronx, was believe it or not the Giants before moving to San Francisco (sound familiar?) For a few years, they shared the Polo Grounds (in Upper Manhattan), with the Giants, and when bought Babe Ruth from the Red Sox, they outdrew the Giants, so manager John McGraw (and Giant ownership) kicked them out, so they built Yankee Stadium right across the River from the Polo Grounds.
There was some talk about moving the Yankees to the Hudson Yards site (before the Jets), or New Jersey, but they stayed in The Bronx and one reason is they have there is an outstanding Transportation Network: 2 Subway Lines (connected at a Station that is Universally Considered the BEST in The Bronx), a Commuter Railroad (Metro-North which offers a great connection from Grand Central, Westchester, and Connecticut)),that opened when the New Stadium did, and two new bridges from Manhattan (each less than a Decade old), there is even a New Mall and Courthouse within walking distance (they are even discussing a Soccer Stadium nearby).
The reason for land prices in Manhattan deals with scarcity (particularly if it is near Subways and (or) Parkland). Believe it or not Churches are being turned into Condos, that is how scarce the Land is. There is a place called West 57th Street that is called “Billionaires Row” its that exclusive. One other point, the Land will be even more expensive going forward, because, the Lower Manhattan part of Downtown (which is the “Brooklyn Bridge” and South) will be fully built out by 2020, and two Universities (New York University (NYU) & Columbia University) are embarked on 20 Year major Expansions (Columbia just announced they are building a School of Nursing Uptown on 168th St). Basically except for Public Housing (“Projects”), which cannot be touched for political reasons (the Polo Grounds are one of the worst, oddly enough), there will be little available South of West 190th Street. Note: the West Side ends around 227th St, and the East Side ends at 158th (the Polo Grounds). I hope I helped explain things.
Tony D., The urban development planners for the downtown area of San Jose, which includes the Diridon Station area, still very much want a MLB ballpark there as a core anchor for its further development and growth beyond predominantly being just an office/business district. On the other hand, having a ten event NFL stadium on what is the last underdeveloped area of Manhattan, would do very little to positively impact the growth and development of that Midtown far West Side neighborhood. What has actually been done more to increase the value of that area is the soon to be completed subway extension, along with the planned construction of badly needed housing units. All other things that add to the cultural character of Manhattan including museums, theater, sporting events, restaurants, etc. are easily accessible via subway, bus, taxi, or in some cases by walking.
@DB,
thanks for the NYC baseball stadium history and real estate info. I guess when it comes to NYC real estate $$$$$ is an understatement.
@llpec,
Totally understand an A’s ballpark acting as a core anchor for Diridon development, and I’m still confident it will happen. That said, if in the future the Diridon parcel became to difficult for a prospective ballpark (acquisition, legal, ED issues), perhaps Wolff could revisit a ballpark at Airport West north of the Quakes SSS. The land is a blank slate pretty much ready for immediate construction and still would enjoy easy transit access to Downtown/Diridon via Caltrain or Capitol Corridor (perhaps even BART in the 2020’s). The commercial, hotel, retail (add residential) now planned for Airport West could then go in at Diridon.
Just thinking outside the box on this one. Again, I’ll take a Diridon ballpark any day over no ballpark in SJ…
The biggest problems that the A’s have faced has: 1: Being far too nice. 2: Accepting not having their own facility to own. In fact the last time they had something New of their own was Shipe Park in Philadelphia in 1909. I actually think Number one is bigger. Many people know Selig and the other owners are screwing them over, but what about Bowie Kuhn not letting Charlie Finley sell of players in ” The Best Interest Of The Game” ? Or Mount Davis? Or ” Giving” the Giants rights to San Jose? Say whatever you think of Alex Rodriguez ( and boy I do not like him), at least he is fighting back and not taking Selig’s garbage. Until Wolff stands up to the likes of Selig, Kaplan, Quan, the Giants, and the Media it will not change. Maybe instead of tolerating the ” Greed” comments he brings up ” Mount Davis” and being nice to the Giants. He should not let San Jose be their surrogate and fight this battle. Do what Al Davis did with LA, and announce we are moving to San Jose and in 3 years the Lodge and the Giants don’t like it, see you in Court.
Montana took a cheap shot at Oakland today from London.
DB: MLB is paying Wolff $36 million a year to keep quiet. By refusing to act, MLB inflicts its own punishment in the A’situation: Heavily subsidizing the otherwise-unprofitable A’s franchise and enduring bad publicity when the sewage overflows at the Coliseum. Everyone knows the A’s play in a dump and that MLB twiddles its thumbs and does nothing about it.
The sports franchise valuations by Forbes, Bloomberg, etc. at least provide some framework for a franchise’s actual value. The valuations are typically considerably understated when the franchises are actually sold though. For example, in Feb. 2011, Forbes’ valuation of the Dodgers was $1.1 Bil. – in May of 2011, the team was sold to the Guggenheim group for $2.2 bil. The Sacto Kings were valued by Forbes at $160 mil. in Dec. of 2012 – 65% of the team was sold to the current Kings owners group for $340 mil. in May of this year. If a new prospective MLB owners planned to purchase the A’s and build a new ballpark in Oakland, one would belive the total cost would be $1.5 bil. or more – if a new A’s ballpark was built at HT because of the EPA cleanup costs. Wolff could fetch $800 mil. or more for the team (the $700 mil. + figure by the A’s PR person appears more accurate than the Bloomberg valuation)
Duffer, the reason why the Kings sold for more was the promise of a New Arena and the Leadership of Kevin Johnson. Contrast that to the “leadership” of Jean Quan and her offering of HOPE of a New Stadium. If it was my money, I would not want to risk spending another Decade in the Coliseum (even for $36M a year from MLB). The Dodgers are a different Animal: They are one of most iconic franchises in MLB History (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs & Cardinals being the others), so there is a Premium Price to be paid for them.
Pjk, I concede the point that paying $1m plus per owner to the A’s is not a lot of money. The owners of the United Center were so desperate not to have the New McCormick Center get built in Chicago, they offered DePaul a rent free deal for 10 years (which the Blue Demons turned down). I am sure one of the reasons is because DePaul knows it is in their Long-Term interests not to do so. Taking this to the A’s, one day there will be a price to be paid for this subsidy. It could be a New Stadium on the Coliseum Site for the Raiders, it could be the place being deemed “Structurally Unsafe”, it could be when MLB owners (except the Giants), will tire of paying $36m to the A’s. Even the Yankees want to get their payroll under $189m, because it makes no Economic sense. The probability is one day, one of these things will happen. If I look at it from business perspective, I would not want to take a chance playing “Musical Chairs” and risk being without a chair when the music stops.
the above poster who said the A’s are too nice is right. What would Mr. Davis have done? He would have moved to san jose, told the league to stuff it, and would have sued anyone who got in the way
This Bloomberg article proves how bad this situation is.
The A’s are worth half of what the Giants are 12 miles away in what is the richest market in the US.
36M? The Giants are only paying 21M? That means this market is losing 15M to the league and yet they let the Giants continue to suppress the A’s?
In reality, the A’s have to move. Whether that is San Jose or elsewhere. There is no point to have 2 teams in a market if the net gain to the league is negative 15M a year.
In San Jose in a new ballpark the A’s value would skyrocket to almost 1B dollars. They would be right behind the Angels as a good comparison.
Their sponsorships and concession revenue is the lowest in the league and that is because of the ballpark and its poor location. This market can support two teams if placed in SF and SJ not Oak.
This is unbelievable Selig lets this continue on….
The teams that are paying money are choosing to do so via the luxury tax. They choose to spend more on payroll and know the rules and do so anyway. Nobody should feel bad for those teams. The teams receiving money are doing so in accordance with the rules of the league also. Without a Salary Cap this is what Baseball has come up with, so I don’t see it as a big issue. I don’t see it as something MLB is worrying about, since they are just redistributing the tax.
It would be nice if Teams such as the Yankees gave the visiting team an equal split in TV revenue’s etc for a specific series…but that ,I guess will never happen. Afterall the Yankees can’t play themselves every night, unless they plan on forming their own league and have multiple Yankee teams. Point being, this would help all teams that do not have the big market TV contracts, but still show up and play for the programming on these mega networks. A Salary Cap would be great also.
Robo, the issue is not about feeling “bad” for the Yankees, no one does, but you cannot have a Socialistic System like the NFL does. The NFL System is quite different due to many factors, one of which is the Scarcity of Games (10 times the amount of MLB, and 5 times the amount of the NBA & NHL). In MLB you also have a salary cap, due to the power of the Major League Players Association (MLBPA). Another issue is of course, tax rates where it is much higher in California than Texas. This is not an issue that often gets discussed by fans, but it pops up all the time with Owners and Players alike (we heard about this earlier this year with Phil Mickelson). For owners there is also the cost of doing business which is higher in California than Texas (I am not referring to player salaries either), “Right To Work” versus “NON Right To Work States” is just one example of this, Regulations are another. I have also mentioned before that land is more expensive in say New York than Oakland. Another issue are the additional “Bells And Whistles” also known as aesthetics, that are a big issue in New York, and not so important in the Marlins Ballpark (the Steinbrenner Family knew that while people will complain about the additional cost of Yankee Stadium for a few YEARS, not putting in those aesthetics will mean complaints for a few DECADES (when you read about the idea of spending BILLIONS to do a Recreation of the Original Penn Station (half a Century after it was knocked down), you understand why this was done)). These are reasons why it costs over a BILLION to build a Stadium in Santa Clara and New Jersey and less in Minnesota.
Basically, for some of the reasons I mentioned (people win Nobel Prizes discussing this) having a situation where everyone makes the same amount of profit, and are happy together is pure fantasy (even the NFL is not as equal as many people think). This is a popular but unattainable MYTH (unless you want to live in North Korea, where people are brainwashed into believing this (and even there the leaders do not live like commoners. In theory it may work, but in Real World its not happening.
DB, Thanks for the valid points, especially the cost of doing business in different states. I really didn’t mean to project the view that every team should share everything. In this day and age where television revenues are so enormous and the biggest percentage of revenue,it has helped contribute to an increase in disparity. I guess, The reason I brought all this up was all the talk of the A’s as a charity case. I’m not sure if visiting teams get anything from the home teams TV contracts or not. My point was if the visiting team doesn’t show up , there is no game, thus no programming. In sports, Teams need other Teams. In the real business world that isn’t the case.
“This Bloomberg article proves how bad this situation is.
The A’s are worth half of what the Giants are 12 miles away in what is the richest market in the US.”
@Sid, It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see something standing out as being not quite right here with the wide disparity in franchise values between the two Bay Area franchise. All the other two team market MLB franchises are relatively close in value, and all are at or near the top of the ranking order. The Giants were not anywhere near the top of franchise value until they moved from the very undesirable Candlestick Point location to a most ideal site for a ballpark in the China Basin area of San Francisco. The same change in franchise value rankings for the A’s would also hold true, if the A’s were allowed to move from the Coliseum to the Diridon Station area of San Jose. While revenue sharing prevents the less profitable franchises from taking a beating financially, it does not work in the best interests of baseball when only the most lucrative franchises make the playoffs consistently and go deep into the playoffs and World Series. That’s why revenue sharing is a bunch of hogwash, since it does little to level the competitive playing field. Lew Wolff doesn’t just want to make a profit every year. He would like to put a playoff/World Series caliber team out on the field every year. To do just that, Wolff must be allowed to build his ballpark at a site that would generate the best profit making potential for the A’s needed in order to retain and acquire the best playing talent out on the field.
Robo the reality is the small teams, Schools, etc want to play on the big stage, not be on a lower level. Otherwise they would have given up. For example: there was an idea put forth years ago by the then owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates Kevin McClatchy to ban Large Revenue Teams from Broadcasting Road Games ( ex: WGN not being allowed to Broadcast Cub Games from Pittsburgh without paying the Pirates and similar teams). A number of teams including the Yankees, White Sox, Red Sox, Dodgers, and of course, the Cubs threatened to leave MLB if this was passed. Naturally it did not. Why? Smaller teams knew the price of no Yankees etc would be too high a price to pay. Another example is this: if you look at attendance figures in the Big 10 Football Conference you will see a huge difference between Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin and Nebraska to Indiana, Purdue and Northwestern. How is that? Look at the difference in seating capacity. Ryan Field ( Northwestern) seats 47,130, while Michigan Stadium ( ” The Big House”) seats 109,901. There is no way, Northwestern can economically compete with Michigan with those numbers. However, when the Big 10 wanted to add Penn State years ago, there was one undecided School who would determine if Penn State would be admitted, that was Northwestern. A couple of a Schools actually told Northwestern that Penn State was coming to replace them. When Northwestern was assured they can remain, they voted yes. The rest is History. So maybe Northwestern loses on gate receipts, but they gain on the TV Contract. Same concept for the A’s and Rays maybe they lose on the local TV Contract, and attendance, but they gain on the National TV Contract ( even though Fox, ESPN, and Turner broadcast the Yankees and Red Sox more than the A’s and Rays). Those two teams ( like Northwestern), are actually competing quite nicely with the bigger teams ( in fact, are Superior to some of them like the Cubs and Mets). They still need upgrades and are below the Yankees, and Michigan’s of the World but they would rather be in the Majors than in Triple AAA or in the MAC Conference in the case of Northwestern. It is the decision ( right or wrong) they make everyday.
Why did Robert Bobb push to hard for a downtown ballpark on the Sears parking lot if MLB was not interested? He lost his job over his pursuit? Please explain
He lost his job because his boss was Jerry Brown. I’ve never heard of any disinterest on MLB’s part for that site and I can’t imagine why that would have been the case.