After I got home from the game I walked around the neighborhood for two hours because I was still on edge. Then this occurred to me:
This is how Detroit Tiger President/GM Dave Dombrowski’s 9th inning went.
The bid by attorneys representing the City of San Jose (and the A’s) to smoke out the “nefarious” group behind the astroturf group Stand for San Jose has failed, thanks to a ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Joseph H. Huber.
I mentioned in my wrap of the hearing two weeks ago that the judge mentioned that cases like this happen all the time, and that just because there are business interests at stake doesn’t mean a plaintiff doesn’t have standing. At that point any observer could see how the judge was going to lean, making this ruling practically a foregone conclusion.
The question now is: What’s next? With this matter out of the way, the decks should be clear for the lawsuit to proceed unencumbered – unless the defendants’ attorneys line up yet another challenge. Whether the lawsuit actually moves forward is now more a matter for the Giants, A’s, and in all likelihood, MLB, to figure out. No new filings have been made since the ruling was made. We’ll continue to monitor events associated with the case to keep you informed.
Update 5:20 PM: Tweets from the Chronicle’s Susan Slusser indicate that the team is still only considering removing the tarps and has not made a decision yet.
Several #Athletics sources say there has been no decision to remove tarps at Coliseum for LCS but they may consider it if sales justify it.
— Susan Slusser (@susanslusser) October 9, 2012
I know that clashes with another report, but that’s what I’m being told – tarps NOT officially off for LCS; will be considered if necessary.
— Susan Slusser (@susanslusser) October 9, 2012
I was told flat-out that that other report about tarps “is wrong.” #Athletics
— Susan Slusser (@susanslusser) October 9, 2012
I do think there has been shift in #Athletics thinking, that is not at all inaccurate. The fact they’re even considering it is a big change.
— Susan Slusser (@susanslusser) October 9, 2012
…..
Original post:
Official word came from the A’s today (via BANG) that the much-reviled upper deck tarps will stay put for the rest of the Division Series against the Tigers, due to the time required to remove them. If the A’s are able to mount a difficult yet not impossible three-game home sweep to advance to League Championship Series, the tarps will be removed.
Today at 2 PM, representatives of Let’s Go Oakland/RemoveTheTarps.com went to the A’s business offices and presented a petition containing reportedly several thousand names. The article linked above noted that seats for Tuesday had sold out and a handful remained for Wednesday, even though online lookups last week made it appear as though both games were unavailable. Tickets for a Game 5 in Oakland are still available.
Initially I had asserted that the A’s had kept the tarps on due to a MLB rule about static capacity until the World Series. I couldn’t be more glad to be wrong, and hopefully there’s some reconsideration about the tarps for next year.
Quick scheduling note: the Raiders had a bye over the weekend, and their next game is a road date at undefeated Atlanta. Their next home game isn’t until the following Sunday, October 21, which could create a conflict with a potential ALCS Game 7 against Baltimore. We can only hope that such a conflict becomes a reality. There has been no clarification as to whether all of the tarps would be removed as opposed to just the tarps for the original upper deck, but I figure that as long as that next Raiders home game is in play, might as well take care of all of the tarps instead of having to split the effort.
Friday’s newswrap included a bit from @muppet151, who inquired about Howard Terminal’s costs associated with toxic cleanup at the site. As part of its use as a working port, numerous substances were capped by asphalt concrete and parts of the site were filled with concrete to prevent leaching into groundwater. Again, here’s a snippet of his letter to Oakland and Alameda County officials:
In 2002 the Department of Toxic Substances Control released an investigative study on the Howard Terminal site, a follow up to previous investigations that took place in 1998 and 2000. The study showed that having been a manufactured gas plant from 1902 to about 1960 an “area of aged hydrocarbon fuel, about three inches thick, was found in the groundwater in the southwestern corner of the Site.” This contamination does not pose an immediate risk because of an existing asphalt concrete cap. However the study concluded “that the construction activities that would breach the asphalt concrete cap would cause excessive exposure. Therefore all construction would need to be performed in accordance with a Health and Safety Plan.”
A Removal Action Work plan (RAW) was drawn up, and the RAW leads to several questions that have yet to be discussed publically by officials who have spoken in favor of an A’s stadium at the Howard Terminal site, more specifically the role City and County governments would play in regards to the RAW.
The RAW states that should these asphalt concrete caps break, the removal of contamination would cost “in excess of $100 million. It would also require the terminal to shut down for a long period of time.” If the caps were to be broken during the building of a stadium, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say cost over runs could be in the neighborhood of $200 million (contamination removal and stadium building costs), and could delay the opening of a Howard Terminal stadium by at least a year and possibly longer. The worst case scenario being the project being permanently shut down causing the A’s to leave the Bay Area altogether. Such an accident would undoubtedly find its way into a court room as well.
Late Sunday, responses started to come in. The first was from Oakland District 3 Councilperson Nancy Nadel, in whose district (West Oakland) Howard Terminal resides. If you’re not aware, Nadel has never been much of a pro sports supporter, especially when it comes to providing anything for new or improved facilities. Nadel’s response:
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for your message. I see your enthusiasm for the A’s.
You ask excellent questions to which I do not have the answers. I was unaware of such extensive contamination at the Howard Terminal site. Therefore I will have to ask the questions too.
However, since the demise of Redevelopment, there is no city money at all for a baseball only stadium in the Jack London area. I hesitate to go deep into the toxics issues unless there is some movement on the part of the owner of the A’s or MLB. I will make city staff aware of the toxics presence to be sure it’s on their radar screen, if they are doing any feasibility costing of that site, unbeknownst to me.
Our most financially sensible location for sports facilities is the Coliseum, at the expense of the teams and private parties.
Have a great evening,
Nancy Nadel
Maybe Nadel couldn’t recall the cleanup issues at Howard Terminal because they were addressed a decade ago. But she’s been in office since 1996 and Howard Terminal has aroused a good deal of attention at different points throughout her Council tenure. In any case, it’s a curious response.
That was followed up by a response from fellow Councilmember Desley Brooks (East Oakland):
Dear Patrick.
Thank you for your email and the issues you raise. I was not aware of the howard terminal issues that you raise.
I am forwarding your questions to the city administrator so she, or the appropriate staff, can respond.
Please let me know if you have not heard from her by Friday.
Best regards,
Desley
In December 2010, Oakland authorized up to $750,000 to study Victory Court and the surrounding area, including Howard Terminal. Much of that money has been spent on studies, even though the public hasn’t seen a single page produced from the work. While much of the information gathered from traffic and parking studies can be used for HT, environmental concerns about the site may require a new and larger expenditure which would be covered by a full EIR. Oakland could choose not to act on that until it hears something positive from MLB. However, if the basic principles regarding cap breach remain, site costs would double overnight, from under $100 million just for infrastructure to $200 million or more including cleanup, and that’s if the work goes smoothly (not a given). Howard Terminal’s supposed to be the cheap site, right?
Even with the cap in place, several types of buildings can’t be built on top of Howard Terminal, thanks to the Port’s 2003 Land Use Covenant.
Where does a stadium fit into that? That’s for the state to decide. We discussed this issue in a previous comments thread, and Howard Terminal has some special similarities to AT&T Park: both are on liquefaction-prone land, and both sites were well contaminated and required cleanup before a stadium could be built. This isn’t like putting up a double-wide trailer on some blocks. It’s a cost that will need to be addressed if Howard Terminal is to be the site MLB chooses moving forward.
…..
Many thanks to muppet151 for taking the initiative to ask elected officials the right questions. We hope to get responses soon.
It’s been a couple of weeks since I’ve done one of these. Time to catch up.
A Removal Action Work plan (RAW) was drawn up, and the RAW leads to several questions that have yet to be discussed publically by officials who have spoken in favor of an A’s stadium at the Howard Terminal site, more specifically the role City and County governments would play in regards to the RAW.
The RAW states that should these asphalt concrete caps break, the removal of contamination would cost “in excess of $100 million. It would also require the terminal to shut down for a long period of time.” If the caps were to be broken during the building of a stadium, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say cost over runs could be in the neighborhood of $200 million (contamination removal and stadium building costs), and could delay the opening of a Howard Terminal stadium by at least a year and possibly longer. The worst case scenario being the project being permanently shut down causing the A’s to leave the Bay Area altogether. Such an accident would undoubtedly find its way into a court room as well.
@patneshek As I cheered for your team today, I cry for your family tonight. Baseball’s for another day. You and your wife are in my prayers.
— newballpark (@newballpark) October 4, 2012
A’s reliever Pat Neshek left the team to go on paternity leave, as his wife Stephanee gave birth Tuesday. Their son, Gehrig John, passed away 23 hours after birth with no explanation as to why. We can talk about the team’s and individuals’ struggles. Nothing compares to the loss of a child. Baseball can wait. It’s time to grieve, and to heal.
The Chronicle’s Matier and Ross are reporting that the A’s and the Coliseum JPA are in talks regarding what could be a five-year extension at the Coliseum. As expected, MLB is facilitating the negotiations, which is sensible considering the sides’ general chilliness towards one another. There are a couple of interesting bits to the talks:
The lease was handed over to the team three weeks ago, and while details are still to be worked out, A’s managing partner Lew Wolff told us that he is “absolutely” interested in reaching an agreement.
“Even if we were building a new ballpark, it wouldn’t be ready until then anyway,” Wolff said.
According to insiders, one possible problem may be the $50 million penalty the Coliseum wants if the team leaves early for San Jose.
First of all, Wolff is basically admitting that a ballpark wouldn’t be ready until 2018. That’s a two-year slip from previous statements. Whether that’s a process issue or more a Giants mortgage issue isn’t clear. In any case it’s a long ways off.
The $50 million exit penalty is a potential showstopper. The A’s have had exit penalties in previous lease extension, but those simply had the A’s pay the remainder of the lease upfront (plus perhaps a nominal fee) to get out. In this case the JPA is using leverage (no other MLB ballpark in the A’s territory) to effectively force the A’s to stay or pay off more of the horrendously bad Mt. Davis deal.
Wolff, for his part, says he’s interested in reaching a deal. Probably not this deal, though. He probably wants something more along the lines of the three-year deals (plus two one-year options) he bargained for previously. And a $50 million exit penalty is not something I can see either Wolff or MLB approving. To put it in perspective: the A’s haven’t paid $50 million combined in rent since Mt. Davis was built, and that was 17 years ago.
The Coliseum Authority could be playing hardball here, or it could be starting off asking for the moon. It’s the first step of a negotiation that could last all winter, and could get very testy as it moves along. We’re a long way from the situation I described in August, but if that exit penalty is real and the JPA isn’t budging on it, MLB could very well get the impetus it needs to look elsewhere.
It all started as an experiment in forced scarcity. The reasoning: to create a more intimate environment for fans. Instead of improving the atmosphere, the tarps on the old upper deck have become a symbol of the great philosophical divide between A’s ownership and A’s fans. Ownership made the change to better control staffing levels and associated costs. They wanted to get fans accustomed to a two-deck ballpark concept that they were hoping to transition to in a few years. We’ve now had six seasons with the tarps on the upper deck with no ballpark forthcoming. A few changes were made over the years:
Regardless of the changes, fans looked at the installation of the tarps as a change done to spite the fanbase or drive down attendance. While the former is more of an emotional argument that can’t be proved, the attendance effects can’t be argued. Over the years, some of the youth culture that liked to hang out in the upper deck were displaced. They didn’t relocate to the Plaza Reserved level en masse. Some of the heartier types went to the bleachers. Many just left.
(One side effect of the current layout is how much more cramped the Coliseum is for fireworks shows. My friends and I got in line for the grass far too late sit there, and ended up sitting in the lower deck. Since so many sold seats face away from the display, those fans are forced to move down to the field or relocate elsewhere in the stadium to properly view the show.)
As the two sides remained divided over swaths of vinyl, the team on-the-field suffered through fits and starts trying to rebuild the roster, with seemingly endless cycles of player development followed by heartbreaking trades.
All that brings us to today, where a resurgent A’s franchise is showing great improvement on the field and steady improvement at the gate. The tarps haven’t changed season ticket and advance sales in any meaningful way. Whatever data the business side wanted to gather from this scarcity experiment is probably in a large enough sample to make some sort of declaration or judgement about the upper deck. Any revenue potential for ads on the tarps evaporated as they became enormously unpopular. The limited availability Value Deck has settled in as a popular, affordable seating option.
Come 2013, it should be time to turn the page. The tarps can come down permanently. That would add 11,000 seats back to the Coliseum, bringing its capacity to 46,000 – too large for a ballpark. However, the Plaza Reserved (East Side Club) could be closed in conjunction, removing 3,000 seats from inventory. That puts the capacity at 43,000, which is still rather large for MLB but sufficient for the premium games. Use of Plaza Reserved has always struck me as backwards if the aim is to improve the fan experience. Sight lines are terrible because of the cut-off outfield, and the tier is all in the outfield, so it’s not particularly close to the action. It requires its own security and concessions staffing, as well as its own restrooms. The club behind the seats is typically underutilized during the baseball season, only coming into play for special functions such as the Root Beer Float Day.
Chances are that Wolff and Crowley (who originated the tarp idea) will stick with the status quo, since they’re already made the investment. But there is a third way that ownership could move that makes sense for both fans and ownership. The idea involves removing tarps on 12 additional sections in the upper deck (310-315, 319-324), adding 4,600 seats in the process. If those sections are added and Plaza Reserved is closed, the offset is a net 1,600 seats, bringing the Coliseum’s capacity to 36,600. That’s roughly the minimum that MLB supposedly wants for the next A’s stadium, so the change adds seats while retaining some level of scarcity. It also works from a staffing standpoint, since the “new” sections are accessed from the upper concourse. That allows the use of the same concession stands, restrooms, ramps, and elevators. The minimal security used for Plaza Reserved can be brought to the upper deck, so no change there. Sightlines will be better compared to Plaza Reserved, and some of that feel of the old upper deck can start to come back, even if part of the tier remains cordoned off or tarped.
Whether we’re talking about the 36,600 or 43,000-seat alternatives, either one is much better than the status quo. One of the problems with dealing with MLB or other pro sports leagues is that the leagues often mandate a single fixed capacity per year. The A’s aren’t allowed to remove and replace tarps on a per-game or per-series basis, which is why you get the same capacity for Giants or Yankees games as you would vs. the Royals or Rays. That rule is unlikely to change, so the A’s should consider taking at least a conciliatory step (or half-step) towards addressing the real problems caused by the existing seating configuration. No, it’s not going to suddenly convert those who have a deep-seated hatred towards Wolff/Fisher/Crowley. What it can’t do is degrade the experience any further. It might actually help. It’s worth some consideration.
A popular refrain is emerging from the Oakland-only camp, in which the A’s should stay in Oakland because the team’s playoff run, thereby proving that the team can be competitive in Oakland. During the Wheelhouse today, Greg Papa and John Lund mentioned Chris Townsend’s argument that Wolff could go to Selig and the owners and claim, “This is as good as it gets, now let me move the team.” Both arguments are guilty of the most shallow, gut-reaction analysis and are as strong as a wet paper bag. In fact it was Papa who, when Lund asked him if the A’s resurgence changes the equation in any way, correctly pronounced that this season is meaningless in terms of the Oakland/San Jose debate because it doesn’t take into account the big picture.
The fatal flaw with the Oakland-only argument is that they’re arguing against something that wasn’t ownership’s argument to begin with. One season is an outlier, an anomaly. It may start a trend of great success, which would in turn engender greater fan support, which would be great if that happened. If the team can continue to be successful, if it can get season ticket subscriptions past 10,000 for next season, then there’s a very good argument that the fanbase can not only support the team by the loudness of their voices, but also by their sheer numbers. The success may also be a blip, in the way that success couldn’t be sustained over multiple or even consecutive years. No owner, no matter how much he spends on payroll, can guarantee playoff appearances let alone championships, every single year. To expect that of any owner is wholly unrealistic.
Ownership’s argument about moving to Silicon Valley’s better economic environment has always been about being able to sustain a competitive team. Any team can be successful for a year – Oakland and Baltimore this season are testaments to that kind of randomness. It takes incredible skill, luck, and just as important, money to sustain success. Anyone who has been a lifelong fan of A’s baseball has seen this play out several times. Over their 45 years in Oakland, the A’s have lost Catfish Hunter, Reggie Jackson, Rickey Henderson (twice), Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, the Big Three, and most recently Gio Gonzalez because of ostensibly economic reasons. No ownership group was immune from this inevitability, including the great Walter Haas. If the A’s don’t have a ballpark deal in place the next couple of years, guess who’s going to join that illustrious list? Yoenis Cespedes and Josh Reddick, they of the nearly 8 fWAR combined this season. They’re both young, cost-controlled, and will net significant young assets in trade.
The A’s celebrate in front of an announced crowd of 21,162. The crowd appeared much larger – but why?
Now maybe there’s a legitimate economic argument to keep the A’s in Oakland. If there is, it needs to involve vastly improving season tickets and FTEs (full-season equivalents) past that 10k figure. The Giants are flirting with 30k season tickets thanks to their ballpark and World Series win. The A’s don’t need to match that number, but they need to get to something approaching 20k if anyone wants to take them seriously, whether they’re talking Oakland or San Jose. The thing that is killing the A’s right now is the major swings in attendance. Sure, we can pull in a full house for a Star Wars fireworks night, or what appeared to be 27k for last night’s wild card game clincher. The problem is that the baseline attendance is that season ticket/advance sales figure, which absent of promotions or giveaways hovers around the 10k level. Last night the paid attendance was 21k, including 5,000 walkups. The crowd looked fuller, which can be explained several ways:
That said, the 27k I cite is just an estimate based on previous observations of crowds. The Coliseum’s capacity is 35,077. So why wasn’t it completely full? Well, you can’t count on 15k walkups for an A’s game at the Coliseum, no matter how good the team is. Where were all the empty seats, then? Take a look…
The Plaza Reserved level, practically empty for Monday night
No discounts were available for the Plaza Reserved tier, though the A’s will frequently fill the deck when discounts are made. Tonight a similar Dynamic Deal to last night’s was made available. Couple that with the ritual free parking on Tuesdays, and it’s easy to see the announced attendance tonight being 28-30k. These loud, and potentially sizable crowds don’t prove anything other than that people will come out to see a good A’s team when the conditions and price are right. To prove that the market is viable will take a much greater commitment among the fanbase. Don’t call a blip a trend, Start a trend. Without that measurable improvement, that greater commitment, there’s really no discussion to be had.
…..
P.S. – Tomorrow I’ll discuss a way to make improve attendance and renew fan goodwill. Yes, it will involve removing tarps.
Last Friday, Lew Wolff was interviewed on an episode of CNBC Sports Biz, which you may have missed because it airs on NBC Sports Network instead of CNBC (what?). The show also is one of the few NBC properties that can’t be pulled up via streaming. Maybe the identity problem has something to do with it.
Anyway, in the interview, Wolff told CNBC’s Brian Shactman (who took over the spot from now-ESPNer Darren Rovell) that the A’s annual revenue could rise by almost $100 million with a new ballpark.
“[A new stadium would increase Oakland A’s revenue by] Almost $100, 000,000 more.” – Lew Wolff
— Brian Shactman (@bshactman) September 28, 2012
Asked to further clarify Wolff’s comment, Shactman followed up with another tweet.
He said annual revenue would pop by $100 million-kind of unreal. RT @ultras_mel:revenue or franchise value? 100 mill seems like a lot.
— Brian Shactman (@bshactman) October 1, 2012
Since we can’t see the interview (reruns only played over the weekend with none scheduled this week), we don’t know what Wolff’s context is. Is he referring to a revenue rise without the $30+ million revenue sharing check? The revenue sharing check that’s supposed to go away with a new ballpark, after 2016? That’s the only way the number makes sense to me, though clearly I don’t have access to the books. When I talked to Wolff over a year ago, he suggested that numbers proffered by Forbes overstated the A’s actual revenues.
In any case, Wolff is probably using that figure to press the case with the other owners and with the national media. Whether that makes any difference – well, we’ll see about that.
newballpark.org 