Category Archives: Athletics

04.07.12
by

A’s, O.co have rift over Coliseum name

A year ago, the Coliseum Authority inked a deal with internet retailer Overstock.com for naming rights at the Coliseum. That led to a further renaming from Overstock.com Coliseum to O.co Coliseum, which rolls off the tongue like so many classic stadium names like CMGI Field, PSINet Stadium, or 3Com Park. Apparently the A’s have been rather casual about honoring the change, because the references to O.co either at the stadium or during broadcasts are few and far between. The reason? Money, of course. The Trib’s Angela Woodall reports that the naming rights deal splits the $2 million per year between the JPA and the Raiders, with nothing going to the A’s.

Find O.co in this screenshot

Woodall points out that the A’s have control over the pouring rights and signage, a deal that was hammered out in the post-Mt. Davis settlement. The A’s and O.co are working out their own deal, though I have a sense that both sides are bringing an overinflated sense of worth to the proceedings. For now, the team is only obligated to promote O.co three times per game during radio and TV broadcasts. So it’s not surprising that when fans go to the Coliseum page on the A’s website, they might not realize that O.co is a sponsor due to the lack of mentions.

That’s just as well. Even though the A’s have many more games broadcast than the Raiders, O.co probably values the mentions during Raiders games, which are nationally broadcast, more than the baseball team’s mostly local broadcasts. Last Monday, the SEC closed an investigation into the retailer’s previous financial disclosures. That could halt the company’s six-month stock slide, though you wouldn’t know it from trading this week.

The Coliseum has gone through several name changes in its life, all of them starting with Mt. Davis:

  • Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (original-1998)
  • UMAX Coliseum (1997, aborted)
  • Network Associates Coliseum (1998-2004)
  • McAfee Coliseum (2004-08)
  • Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (reprise after McAfee deal expired, 2008-11)
  • Overstock.com Coliseum (2011, briefly)
  • O.co Coliseum (2011-current)

Isn’t it time to leave well enough alone?

04.06.12
by

Opening Day or Night?

I put out a couple of questions on Twitter, and I figured I should have the conversation here as well.

and…

The way the schedule is currently formatted, with the season starting on Wed-Fri and ending on Wed, it’s practically impossible to schedule a Sunday opener. This format is fairly new, so if MLB were to go back to starting on Sun-Tue and ending on Sun, there might be an opportunity for a day opener. Cincinnati used to always have the first game of the season, sometimes on a Sunday, almost always a day game before everyone else as a nod to Cincy being the most senior of senior league franchises.

Lone Stranger replied to my second question, saying, “Anything earlier than 6pm or so would need to be near people who can leave work early and still see first pitch. i.e. Downtown.” Other responses to the two questions were mixed, some citing favorable weather for day games, others wanting a night game as a better chance for a sellout.

FWIW, The Giants have done day openers going back to their days at the ‘Stick.

03.28.12
by

The bubble effect

While my team was coming up short in bar trivia last night, news came over the wire that the group headed by Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten, and Peter Guber (yes, that Peter Guber) won the extremely competitive bidding for the Dodgers with a $2.15 billion offer. As recently as last week, the Dodgers were going to be sold for $1.4-1.6 billion, and New York hedge fund magnate Stephen Cohen seemed to have taken the lead thanks to having more cash in the bid compared to the Johnson-Kasten’s larger overall offer. The facts of the sale have been trickling out throughout the morning, and the details couldn’t have been more surprising.

  • The $2.15 billion bid is in two parts: $2 billion for the team and stadium, and $150 million for the parking lots through a joint venture with outgoing owner Frank McCourt.
  • Despite McCourt’s bankruptcy foibles, he’ll end up clearing around $1 billion in profit after dealing with creditors, including his ex-wife. In 2004, McCourt bought the Dodgers from Fox for $430 million, not putting up any cash to do so. Plus he gets the parking vig.
  • The bid appears to be ALL CASH. If so that’s incredibly impressive and has major implications down the road.
  • Johnson and Kasten had six private investment firms come in to bid for the right to claim the majority share. The winner was Guggenheim Partners, a Chicago/New York firm that manages $127 billion in assets. As part of the deal, the control person or managing partner will be Guggenheim CEO Mark Walter. The new entity that owns the team will be called Guggenheim Baseball Partners.
  • For now it appears that nothing will change day-to-day in the Dodger front office. That means that Ned Colletti stays put as GM, though Stan Kasten will slide in above him as President and Magic Johnson will probably have an Executive VP role, similar to the one he had with the Lakers. Keep in mind that while Kasten oversaw much of the Atlanta Braves’ successful run throughout the 90’s and early 00’s, he had John Schuerholz run the baseball side of the house.
  • There is potential in developing the parking lots, though everyone in the joint venture would have to sign off on any plans.

Local and national writers have run the gamut speculating what this new ownership group will do going forward. The first obvious step is to get some kind of new TV deal done, which McCourt tried to do under the gun but was blocked from doing by a bankruptcy court judge. The Dodgers could continue with Fox Sports for $200 million or start their own network. A Dodger network may be the best call, though ownership will most certainly run into some hard negotiations with Time Warner, LA’s predominant cable operator. Time Warner will operate the Lakers’ upcoming dual-channel, dual-language sports network, so there is built-in competition.

Ticket prices will also go up at some point, commensurate with rising payroll. For 2012 the active roster payroll is only $90 million, plus $11 million in deferments to Manny Ramirez and Andruw Jones. The Dodgers had been dropping ticket prices precipitously over the past year or two, allowing for a great amount of headroom for hikes when the time comes. That time may be next year, when the team has to make decisions on Andre Ethier and James Loney, while deciding what kind of extension to give Clayton Kershaw. Those three alone could translate to some $40 million per year in additional salaries. Even so, that only brings payroll to $130 million. The Dodgers could make one or two additional huge free agent splashes in the next 48 months, which is why the Giants have to be absolutely frightened.

From a macro perspective, every owner now has to be wondering what this clearly overpriced sale will mean for them. Sale prices have already been trending some 20% higher than Forbes valuations, so this only extends the bubble that’s been forming over the past five years. The bubble was created by great increases in media revenues, chiefly from new and often team-owned regional sports networks like YES and MASN. In response, several incumbent RSNs have overpaid to keep teams on their channels, such as the Fox Sports regionals in Dallas (Rangers) and Los Angeles (Angels). The table below shows franchise valuations and sale prices, in conjunction with relative values to generated revenue and the aggregate value of all franchises. Most franchises are in the 2.5-3 range. The Yankees sport a 4+ multiple, whereas the Dodgers nearly reach 9 – an artifact of how the Dodgers have been run lean while in bankruptcy. Have-not and small market teams have a multiple in the low 2 range.

Right-hand column shows franchise values as a function of revenue. If the Dodgers got a $200 million/year TV deal, their multiple would be in line with the Yankees'.

Higher valuations or potential sale prices doesn’t mean that there’s going to be a bunch of franchises for sale. For one, Commissioner Selig doesn’t want to have a “glut” of teams available since that will only decrease competition and deflate if not pop the bubble. We know that Padres and Orioles are  available, even if they’re not being actively shopped at the moment. Maybe that will change now, with both current owners looking for $500+ million paydays. MLB can also draw out the sales process to unbearable lengths (see: Astros, Padres) while it completes its “due diligence” on any buyer. And if higher sales prices are being propelled by new media deals, teams in small markets aren’t necessarily going to receive huge valuation bumps if their TV deals aren’t bumped in accordance.

The A’s could see something of a bump, but how much is very unclear. They’re locked into CSN California for at least another decade. Since the terms aren’t public, we don’t know if moving to San Jose would provide a bump, but I have to think that it does simply from the much larger, healthier pool of available advertisers in the South Bay. When prospective buyers look at the books, they’ll know this going in or find out soon enough. Wolff and John Fisher aren’t going bankrupt anytime soon, so if they wanted to sell they could hold out for as high an offer as they wanted. In any case, Selig would probably dissuade Lew Wolff from even considering a sale, stalling while he “figures out” a solution. On the flip side, the Giants could actually harden their stance on territorial rights, saying that it’s their only way to compete with a soon-to-be mega money Dodger franchise. At the very least, the news should force the Giants to make a commitment to Matt Cain, since the Dodgers would be well-positioned in six months to blow the Giants out of the water with an offer. To that I have to say, Welcome to the club, Giants. Enjoy your stay.

…

OT Note: The second game of the season vs. the Mariners will be shown live on MLB Network, as MLB has been so magnanimous as to lift its blackout. Oh thank you, capricious TV gods. /s

03.24.12
by

Rosenthal calls “stAy” crowd flat-earthers

Another week, another media morsel. If it’s not the Giants leaking information out or Larry Baer defending the Giants’ territorial rights claims, it’s a national sports writer pleading Lew Wolff’s case or Lew himself answering questions. To me, it feels more like slow-motion tennis than baseball, and while I like tennis, this has gotten repetitive and tiresome.

This time it’s Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal again with a plan to resolve the A’s-Giants impasse. Rosenthal thinks that the Giants should be guaranteed a minimum revenue amount against potential losses incurred from an A’s-to-San Jose move. He cites the O’s-Nats deal as an example. However, while Peter Angelos got a $360 million sale price guarantee and $75 million to start up MASN, I don’t believe that he got an annual revenue guarantee ($130 million) as Rosenthal suggests. There’s a good deal of conflicting information on this. It’s sort of a moot point because the O’s cleared the supposed minimum in the first year of the agreement, 2005, and haven’t looked back. Forbes’ estimated revenue for 2011 was $179 million.

Guaranteeing revenue for the Giants is a different matter. According to Forbes, the Giants haven’t been below the $200 million revenue mark in three years. Last year the Giants were in the top ten at $230 million, whereas the average revenue was $211 million (median: $201 million). I have to think that MLB, in its desperation to get some kind of deal done, has floated a revenue guarantee number to the Giants, to which Baer has balked. I’ve argued frequently for some kind of compensation plan that includes revenue, but a revenue guarantee of $230 million gives me pause, so I imagine it gives Bud Selig and the other owners pause as well. Then again, Wolff is projecting a bump from $150-160 million to $230 million for the A’s, so for baseball the result should be a net positive.

Rosenthal also talked to Tulane law professor Gabe Feldman about the prospects of an offensive antitrust lawsuit against baseball. Feldman characterized such a suit’s chances as very slim, a “real longshot”. Also ready with a quote was San Jose City Councilman and future mayoral hopeful Sam Liccardo, who may see all of this baseball posturing end up as part of his election platform if the saga continues at its current pace.

The sucker punch is saved for the end:

Only a few hardy souls — a latter-day version of the flat-earth society — believe the Athletics still can make it in Oakland. San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area. A new ballpark in the city not only would transform the Athletics’ business model, but baseball’s as well.

There will be some Oakland defenders who say things like, “If you tell a lie long enough people believe it”. No, that’s not it. Sometimes a spade is a spade. If it wasn’t the case, Oakland wouldn’t be pinning its urban revival hopes on a pie-in-the-sky plan like Coliseum City. If it wasn’t truthful, Signature wouldn’t be trying to offload O29 on any Tom, Dick, or Harry who might be interested in land. It’s telling that one of the chief pro-Oakland arguments is that baseball doesn’t have the wherewithal to change T-rights on Wolff’s behalf. That’s all well and good, but how is that confidence-inspiring for Oakland?

03.22.12
by

Baer reaffirms T-rights claim

On a panel at the 2012 IMG World Congress of Sports, Giants CEO/President Larry Baer continued to flog the idea that the Giants own Santa Clara County. Via Sports Business Journal:

During a panel discussion, he cited a “territorial grant” that allows the Giants to market to Santa Clara County. Baer said the Giants franchise depends on revenue derived from there, with 35 to 45 percent of its market coming from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

I thought the number was 50%? Now it’s 35-45%. Two weeks ago it was 43% from Santa Clara County alone. No wonder we can’t keep these numbers straight. Baer can’t either.

Baer went on to cite how the Giants got it done with good ole’ sweat and gumption. He conveniently forgets one tiny little detail: When it comes to having billionaires ready to coalesce and save the franchise, Oakland is no San Francisco. The two groups that reportedly want to buy the A’s? Not from Oakland. Bob Piccinini? Not from Oakland. If the team is going to be saved in Oakland, someone will have to step up from Oakland. It’s one thing to talk about civic pride, another to have the means to act on it.

03.21.12
by

Forbes has Giants twice as valuable as A’s

Forbes came out with their annual overview of The Business of Baseball, and if you’ve followed this site or other sports economics sites much you won’t be surprised by the results. The A’s, stuck in limbo, have the lowest valuation of any of the 30 MLB franchises at $321 million. The figure hasn’t quite caught up with Forbes’ pre-downturn, 2008 valuation of $323 million (which may have factored in a future in Fremont). Despite this, the number is up 5% over last year. Some other numbers and extrapolations:

  • The Yankees are worth the most at $1.85 billion, followed by the Dodgers at $1.4 billion (based on current franchise bids).
  • The Angels ($656 million) and Giants ($643 million) follow the Dodgers as most valuable on the West Coast.
  • Aggregate value of all franchises is $18.1 billion. The A’s account for only 1.77% of this total currently.
  • A’s revenue is estimated at $160 million, roughly in line with last year’s amount. This includes revenue sharing, if you’re asking. (I assume that Lew Wolff may quibble with the figure a bit.)
  • Player expenses for the A’s are listed at $81 million, slightly more than the 50% “salary cap” that we frequently discuss here.
  • The blurb on the A’s page questions what team president Michael Crowley does. Besides saying no, I wonder that myself sometimes.

A closer look at how the valuations for the Giants and A’s breaks down yields some additional insight.

Stadium and brand make up most of the difference

The big takeaway is that for the first time, the Giants are considered twice as valuable as the A’s. It’s reflective of the constraints the A’s are under, as well as the team’s lack of promotion within the market(s). To their credit, the A’s have a much more permanent media presence than they had in the last 20 years. It’s still a long climb out of the cellar. The team’s stadium value would probably be double in a sold out new ballpark, and the brand value could see a similar increase. Sport would see a drop due to less reliance on revenue sharing. Market’s a tougher question. Clearly, that number could double if the A’s were allowed to build in San Jose, but it should also go up appreciably if they built something new in Oakland. Some back-of-the-napkin math has me estimating the team’s value in a new ballpark in Oakland at $400 million, San Jose at $450 million.

 

03.15.12
by

Ownership Swap

Note: This is another “what if” scenario for this week. The conjecture within is not based on any recent news or reports.

Several teams throughout MLB are in some form of transition, whether it’s a venue (Marlins) or a sale (Padres, Dodgers, Astros). Some of these teams are taking far longer than they initially expected to get their transitions completed, creating a bit of heartache for their constituent ownership groups and business partners.

In January I wrote about the problems facing Jeff Moorad in his quest to gain control of the Padres. As reported last week, Moorad withdrew his application to become the “control person” in order for the team’s new TV deal with Fox Sports San Diego to go through. Moorad’s deal to buy the team from John Moores was set to take as much as five years on a sort of layaway plan, though Moorad has already assumed operation of the team. He also has clearly been looking to accelerate the process, yet hasn’t made any headway within The Lodge for several months. The control person issue hasn’t even gone to a vote, unlike the uncontentious decision made in when Larry Baer was approved by MLB four months ago. Maury Brown thinks that in addition to financial concerns, there may be others among the other owners who have it in for Moorad, including Jerry Reinsdorf and Moorad’s former partner, Ken Kendrick of the Diamondbacks.

With the troubles that Moorad’s facing in San Diego and Lew Wolff is dealing with in Oakland, could the time be coming for the two to switch places? Moorad’s group, which famously includes Save Mart CEO and one-time A’s bidder Bob Piccinini, would be able to get in the club with a lower price ($100+ million less) in Oakland than in San Diego. The group, which is reportedly full of Modesto-area interests, would be able to see a locally-based team. There still the fundamental issue of what to do in terms of a venue, but I’ll get to that later.

For Wolff and John Fisher, it would be an acknowledgement of defeat in terms of trying to build a venue. However, Wolff and his family would at least be able to continue to be owners of a franchise, and a Wolff-Fisher ownership group would have more capital on hand to pass muster with the Elders at The Lodge. Wolff himself is based in LA, so a move to the San Diego franchise would also be relatively local. Future revenue streams are far more stable and predictable for the Padres than they are for the A’s at this point, so aside from the fact that there’s no dream legacy-piece stadium to build (except maybe for AAA), it’s a good investment.

There’s a $100 million difference between the A’s and Padres valuations (latter is higher), which would have to be accounted for. Politically, a franchise swap could be the catalyst Oakland needs to get its Coliseum City/Victory Court/980 Park/Flavor-of-the-week stadium plan moving. It would allow Piccinini the opportunity to prove that he could keep the team in Oakland. It’s possible that Andy Dolich, who Piccinini teamed with last time and recently lost out in the Dodgers bidding process, could come on with a minority share. And if Oakland can’t get its act together or if the cost to stay in Oakland were too great, the group would be well-positioned to move the team to Sacramento, which is closer and a more hassle-free drive from Modesto (and further away from the Giants, who would rent the Mayflower trucks for the move).

Obviously, swapping ownership groups is not nearly as simple as I’ve described. It’s only been done once in modern baseball history when John Henry took over the Red Sox while Jeff Loria sold the Expos and bought the Marlins. The important thing is that unlike the T-rights dispute, there is a real precedent for this. Whether you think this is realistic or farfetched is probably dependent on your view of current ownership and your opinion of Oakland or San Jose.

I look forward to the comments on this one. Fire away.

03.14.12
by

A way to Sacramento

A year ago, Giants CEO Larry Baer hinted that it would be good for the A’s to look somewhere outside the Bay Area for a new ballpark, if a deal for an East Bay park couldn’t be worked out. I wrote three years ago that an expansion to Raley Field would cost at least $250 million. It would be hard for the A’s to make a large contribution towards the expansion project because Sacramento’s government town status makes the corporate revenue pickings slim. If the A’s are going to pay for it, and MLB isn’t going to pay for it, who will?

The Giants, of course.

Now, I’m not actually suggesting that the Giants will pay for the stadium directly. They’re coming to the end of their own mortgage, so why would they saddle themselves with someone else’s? They wouldn’t. Yet if the A’s were forced to vacate the Bay Area, the Giants would likely pay the A’s to surrender the territorial rights to the East Bay. Such money which could be used to build or expand a stadium elsewhere. The Giants would end up indirectly funding the A’s stadium as a result.

We’d start with the MLB standard compensation package: $75 million, half coming from the commissioner and half coming from the paying team. That’s too small of compensation for the 2.5 million-strong East Bay, especially when you consider that the Giants’ franchise valuation could get a 2-3x boost from the A’s leaving. $150 million is probably a fairer package with the same 50/50 terms.

By the time the A’s were able to consider such a move in 2016-17, the $250 million cost could easily balloon to $300 million. That puts the Giants/MLB contribution at half. The A’s might be able to contribute $75 million on their own (via a new lease and revenue share), meaning the rest would have to come from a public source. This is absolutely important so that the A’s don’t get relegated to being another small market team. If the A’s move to Sacramento and have to pay a fat mortgage, that’s not an improvement upon staying in Oakland. The A’s best chance to thrive in Sacramento is if their stadium costs are as minimal as possible.

For Sacramento’s part, the plan only makes sense if the Kings are gone. The A’s still need corporate support to sell out premium offerings, and it’s expected that the Railyards Arena will suck up all of those customers. Involvement of AEG will only enhance that. The controversial parking revenue play won’t work because the plan is to expand Raley Field in West Sacramento, which is out of the Capitol City’s jurisdiction. A joint powers agreement between Yolo and Sacramento Counties sounds like a possibility.

At the actual stadium, the hard work includes taking down the press box and suites, ripping up the concourse to put in new columns, and putting in new facilities under the concourse such as modern, MLB-standard team clubhouses and a kitchen/commissary. Then the A’s could focus on putting in a club level, new suites, an MLB-standard press box, and a third deck to bring in those extra needed seats. The scope of work reminds me of this:

Mount Davis added 10,000 seats in a three-deck grandstand, an expansive indoor club, and 96 suites. The scope of work is similar to what would be required at Raley Field (sans tarps).

Would $300 million be enough in the end? It’s hard to say. It would be easy to argue that MLB wouldn’t want to skimp on amenities, or else Raley Field could be viewed as a cheap, temporary solution. Terms published for Nationals Park showed that MLB wasn’t interested in cost effectiveness – except in terms of external finishings. Marlins Ballpark is a testament to excess with its bizarre center field sculpture and aquarium behind the plate. The “wedge” in the Railyards dedicated for the arena isn’t large enough for a ballpark, so if MLB weren’t satisfied with Raley and wanted to look in Downtown Sacramento, it would have to use another plot within the project area for a completely new stadium, and a $500+ million price tag to go with it. Unless MLB was really desperate (which they usually aren’t), it seems iffy for baseball go along with the expansion plan when Sacramento was willing to foot a large part of the bill for a brand new arena.

There’s also at least one inside baseball consideration. MLB is fully aware of what Sacramento’s market limitations are. If the Railyards arena deal falls through, it won’t look good to MLB that the City couldn’t put together either a cohesive local or regional plan to retain a team. Sacramento wouldn’t show up on the top of anyone’s “viability” list, even though the resources to support a baseball team alone are there. Yet if the arena deal were successful, the market is too limited to exploit for a second major sports franchise, especially one whose economic requirements are much greater than those for a basketball or hockey team. It’s definitely a strange paradox.

03.12.12
by

Two groups express interest in A’s

UPDATE 6:40 PM – Lew Wolff responds, reiterating that team is not for sale. From the article, Andy Dolich was contacted and denied that he was one of the “suitors” interested in the A’s. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said that if the team were sold to a more Oakland-friendly group, the Victory Court site may be considered again. There may even be a third group interested.

The A’s are not for sale, at least from everything I’ve read and heard. That hasn’t stopped two groups from expressing interest in buying the club, according to Matier and Ross.

Let’s play this little hypothetical out: If Bud Selig can’t broker a deal to get the A’s territorial rights to San Jose, then it would seem that Lew Wolff’s next step may be to put the team up for sale. Such a sale probably couldn’t be completed until 2013 at the earliest, which coincidentally is the same year the A’s lease ends at the Coliseum.

Forbes valued the A’s at $307 million last year, and should have a similar valuation this year. The going trend for franchise sales would have the team sell for a significant premium over that valuation.

Recent MLB franchise sales prices compared with Forbes valuations

The environment during which a hypothetical sale of the A’s occurs is much different from 1995, when Wally Haas sold the A’s to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann, or even 2003, when Schott sold the team to Wolff and John Fisher. Nowadays, Bud Selig is pushing hard to get the biggest possible sale price for outgoing owners, even rogues like Frank McCourt. Given the trend, I can’t see the A’s selling for less than $400 million on the open market, especially if there are competitive bids. This would happen even if the A’s low-revenue problems show few signs of improvement anytime soon.

Of course, after soon comes 2016, which is when the new CBA expires. There’s also that CBA provision in which teams in the largest markets become ineligible for revenue sharing. The Oakland situation is odd in that the A’s are supposed to be exempt from that rule as long as they’re stuck in the Coliseum. There’s still a little confusion on this which probably won’t be resolved until we actually see the document in final printed form, and that hasn’t happened yet. Here’s my guess as to why the A’s situation is so foggy:

  1. As long as the A’s only have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as their defined stadium territory, MLB has an excuse to consider them a low-revenue franchise despite the broad NorCal TV territory.
  2. If the A’s go to San Jose, it’s likely that Wolff will have gotten his wish that the Bay Area will become a shared territory (though I would expect the City of San Francisco to remain strictly with the Giants). If that shared territory deal occurs, the A’s would become a large market team by CBA definition.

The trouble facing any prospective buyer is that he’d be paying for the team in situation #1, with limited opportunities for growth. $400 million for just the franchise, perhaps more given that Wolff will want something for all of the headaches he’s gotten in pursuing a ballpark deal. Unlike the Haas-Schott sale, there are no hometown discounts anymore. The obvious revenue growth prospect is a stadium at Coliseum City, which by the time it could actually happen would cost at least $500 million. But, as we hammered here repeatedly, there’s a lot of doubt about the ability for the A’s to pay for a ballpark in Oakland. If the A’s pre-sold $100 million of the $500 million ballpark thanks to naming rights and such, the remaining $400 million converts to a $30 million annual mortgage payment over 30 years. Matier and Ross indicate that the 1990 record of 2.9 million in attendance is proof of the support, but that’s not the concern. The concern is what happens when the A’s are losing and fans don’t show up? The A’s recent revenue sharing receipts have been in the $30 million range. If the revenue sharing receipt effectively gets transferred to a bank to pay for the ballpark, it doesn’t solve the A’s competitiveness problems since they’d remain a poor team, in this case “house poor”. That’s a terrible investment on the owner’s and league’s part. I’m also skeptical that, with Selig’s focus on incoming owners’ liquidity, such a plan to keep the A’s in Oakland would pass muster. Selig or his successor isn’t going to sign off on Oakland becoming another Pittsburgh: great stadium, poor team.

A few months ago, some pro-Oakland. keep-them-at-the-Coliseum interests called Wolff to see if he was interested in selling. He confirmed that he wasn’t. So it’s funny, though not surprising, that the interests mentioned by Matier and Ross are from Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, not Oakland or the East Bay. With the A’s ongoing presence in Oakland precarious, it would seem better to have some kind of homegrown ownership group, lest an incoming group be called carpetbaggers all over again. If either of those groups were to go in, they’d invest at least $400 million in the team and $500 million in the stadium, with no guarantee of a great sales price once they feel like selling. That’s a tough proposition for any prospective buyer, and just one of the endgame scenarios Selig has to consider when deciding the A’s fate.

03.09.12
by

News for 3/9/12

Feels like we need this since the week has been dominated by the PR war.

  • The A’s announced today that they will have a private entrance for season ticket holders. The terms are that you’ll need the credential from your season ticket book along with your ticket to use the entrance. In addition, for any extra tickets you buy for a particular game, those holding the extra tickets won’t be able to use the entrance. It seems like this was done to reward STH during bobblehead and other high-demand giveaway games, though the FAQ emphasizes that distribution of giveaways will be proportional. The entrance will be next door to Ticket Services.
  • Jeff Moorad withdrew his application to become the “control person” of the Padres, leaving John Moores as the control person for the time being. The move is considered a procedural one, with the need to consummate a TV deal between the Padres and the new Fox Sports San Diego channel first. Moorad’s deal to acquire the team from Moores was constructed so that Moorad could stretch the timeline out to four years if necessary, though his intent was to acquire controlling interest sooner than that. MLB had raised concerns that Moorad might take a lot of the Fox money upfront and use it to buy out Moores or to pay down debt, instead of putting it into the franchise (the McCourt-Dodgers TV problem). It’s a smart move by MLB, because if the rumor had some merit it could’ve sapped some $10 milion per year in revenue from the team. Now the Padres are Exhibit A in how to pull off a sale that puts the team on the best financial footing. If anything, it looks like Moorad was putting the cart before the horse. And this article from the SD Union-Tribune sheds light on the group of owners set in opposition to Moorad. There’s a big difference between that and the supposed foment against T-rights changes that Lew Wolff faces.
  • In Miami, the 5,700+ parking spaces at the Marlins ballpark are proving to be a logistical nightmare, not like we didn’t see that coming. The suggestion: buy pre-paid parking or else you’re taking your chances finding a spot on someone’s lawn.
  • As he is wont to do, Peter Hartlaub went into the archives and found a concept for a huge, multipurpose stadium on what looks like Laney College. The year: 1960. 80,000 for football and 48,000 for baseball? Not without a lot of Astroturf.
  • MLS Commissioner Don Garber really wants a stadium and team somewhere in the five four boroughs of New York City. Sorry, Staten Island.
  • Bruce Jenkins has a few words about the A’s-Giants tete-a-tete. Surprisingly, he wants the Giants crushed and calls them bullies. Sounds good to me.
  • There’s a movement afoot to get rid of the television blackout once and for all.
  • Robert Gammon considers Coliseum City the last, best chance to retain Oakland’s teams. Sad then, that Oakland’s announcement was drowned out by the A’s-Giants drama. There was a press conference on Wednesday, though no representatives for the three teams showed up to provide support.
  • Tim Kawakami thinks Joe Lacob and Peter Guber should announce where they intend to settle by next year sometime. That might be a little premature. If the Giants were to build an arena in time for the 2017-18 NBA season, they wouldn’t have to break ground until summer 2015. That puts EIR and related prep work at the beginning of 2014. Even then, if there were some snags the Coliseum Authority isn’t going to say no to a year-to-year lease, since the debt service on Oracle Arena runs through 2027.
  • BTW – Yoenis Cespedes is expected to play his first MLB game ever on TV tomorrow against the Reds (CSNCA, Noon). Don’t miss it.

One more thing about the Giants’ press release: They implied that Wolff/Fisher got a no-San Jose discount when the A’s were purchased for $172 million in 2005. What then, do they say about Arte Moreno, who bought the Angels for $185 million in 2003? He didn’t have any territorial restrictions that called for a discount, and that was for a much larger market. Weak sauce Gigantes. Maybe if some of The Game’s and KNBR’s radio talent actually did some fact-checking they’d know this stuff.

Added 2:50 PM – The field is almost done!