Category Archives: Baseball

01.25.14
by

Why would Lew Wolff ask for a 5-10 year extension at the Coliseum?

Lew Wolff visited the JPA on Wednesday. Staying consistent in his stance from last month, Wolff was seeking a lease extension, up to 10 years in length. Matt Artz’s Tribune article references the lease but not Coliseum City.

If Wolff is willing to hear out CC plans, chances are that he won’t make any kind of commitment unless a lease is in place first. Last month, the A’s put out a press release in response to a Matier & Ross column claiming Wolff’s interest in CC.

We are only prepared to meet with our landlord, the JPA, or elected and designated officials of Alameda County and the City of Oakland, to discuss any aspect of our venue or lease.

Remember that before lease extension talks broke down between Wolff and the JPA last summer, Wolff was seeking a 5-7 year extension with an out clause should the Raiders’ new stadium plans interfere with the A’s being able to play at the Coliseum. Two years at the Coliseum is only somewhat helpful, since there’s no way a ballpark will be ready at the end of the lease. Wolff will continue to ask for a lease extension as long as this uncertainty post-2015 remains.

Shortly after the press release I wrote a lengthy post about Wolff’s motivations, should they extend beyond merely getting an extension. Area A of Coliseum City (east of 880) is divided into three phases, starting with the new Raiders stadium, then the ancillary development designed to support the stadium, and finally the remaining surrounding development and a ballpark in the A Lot.

Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project

Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project

As part of Phase III, the A’s ballpark couldn’t come earlier than the end of the decade unless there was a major reshuffling of priorities. That’s where a 10-year extension could come into play. If Wolff wants to partner up on Coliseum City and the schedule can’t be significantly altered, the A’s would have to play at the Coliseum for the full length of that extension until the new ballpark was in place. MLB may have wielded the AT&T Park threat against Oakland successfully when it inserted itself into last fall’s lease talks, but sharing AT&T Park for any length more than a season or two will create enormous logistical problems for MLB, the Giants, and San Francisco.

Impacts from construction have to be minimized, which is a big reason for the phased approach. Not only does Coliseum City include new venues, it has tons of new infrastructure, including a new BART pedestrian overpass, new bridges over 880, and the “spine” that links all of it together. To understand those impacts, let’s compare the Coliseum complex now and what’s envisioned.

overhead-coliseum

The current Coliseum complex

Coliseum City with all Area A phases completed

Coliseum City with all Area A phases completed

The above image has the new stadium slightly overlapping the current Coliseum footprint. Previous images had the stadium turned slightly and oriented further away from the spine, which could allow the current Coliseum to remain in place – or at partly demolished as was the case with Cincinnati’s Riverfront Stadium. To accommodate the football stadium where Mark Davis wants it (and where it’s shown in the image), the Coliseum would have to be demolished. That’s unavoidable, even though the new stadium’s footprint isn’t exactly on top of the old Coliseum. That’s also not a huge problem for the Raiders, since they could room with the 49ers for a couple years in the interim. It’s a huge problem for the A’s, who would be displaced. That’s why Wolff wants to get the lease in place. The A’s face eviction in this plan, even though there’s little chance for a new ballpark at CC or at Howard Terminal after the A’s are evicted. The lease would at least force BayIG and the Raiders to work around the A’s and the Warriors, who would be tenants for some time to come.

Another piece of infrastructure could be a huge factor: the power transmission lines running through the south parking lots. A big reason for building where the current Coliseum exists is that the power lines can be avoided. The cost of moving overhead transmission lines could be several million dollars, and easily double that cost if the lines were rerouted underground. In the end it may be best to move the lines underground, as it would free up land for other uses. Whether the lines remain overhead and are relocated down the road or moved underground, it’s a big infrastructure cost that has to be accounted for. Earlier renderings had the stadium displacing the power lines, so if there’s a consensus to avoid the lines, you’ll know it was a big factor. Besides the cost, PG&E and the Public Utilities Commission would have to be involved in the process, which could create delays.

Going back to the A’s and Wolff, as long as Wolff keeps some sort of dialogue going, he can have skin in the game. That disappears this summer, when BayIG is expected to have its anchor tenants signed on to the project, the Raiders being the first (I expect the deadline to slip). If Wolff can get an extension first, he’ll continue to have a say in how Coliseum City is developed. If not, and BayIG and the JPA can’t figure out a way to keep both the Raiders and A’s happy, Wolff can turn to MLB and force them to come up with a solution. That solution can’t be Howard Terminal in the short-term, since we don’t know what can be built at the Port site right now or in the future. Then there’s the possibility I wrote about in December:

If the Raiders stadium proves too costly, the A’s could easily slot right in with a much less expensive stadium option that has a much smaller funding gap, say $200-300 million. Plus with only one stadium there instead of two, there would be additional land to develop or reassign as needed. Wolff’s in a good position to wait and see how the market analyses work out for them and the Raiders.

Wolff can play this multiple ways, but the #1 issue is ensuring the A’s a home for the next several years. The rest is all process that should work itself out over the next 6-9 months. Lew may claim constantly that there’s no Plan B. I’ve never believed that. He’s not going to explain his contingency plans until he absolutely has to. That’s business.

01.24.14
by

Like Montreal, Portland wants in

The lovely city of Portland, Oregon, expressed renewed interest in a MLB franchise this week. It’s been a decade since Portland lost out to Washington, DC, in the race to land the relocating Expos. In the offing, Portland traded its AAA baseball team for an MLS franchise, to rousing success. At the same time, multiple sites that were considered for a permanent baseball home ended up being developed for other uses. While a short season A team started up in the nearby suburb of Hillsboro, until now there has been little momentum towards attracting an MLB franchise.

Tracy Ringolsby has details on a renewed effort. New mayor Charlie Hales supports a site next to the two arenas at the Rose Quarter. Instead of an open air stadium, the plans now call for a retractable roof park with a smaller, 35,000-seat capacity. A funding mechanism that could pay for much of construction remains in place, though rising costs and the including of that retractable roof probably would cause PDX advocates to majorly revise the plan.

Most importantly, Portland interests have inquired with A’s ownership to see if they’d be willing to either move the team to PDX or sell to PDX-aligned interests. As expected, they were told no on both counts. Sacramento, Portland, and maybe in the past Las Vegas have inquired. Lew Wolff and John Fisher remain focused on the Bay Area, refusing to play the stadium ransom game. Someone had to temerity to brag about swindling the public earlier this week:

The Portland effort bears striking similarities to Montreal’s recently launched efforts. Both underestimate the cost of the stadium and the cost to acquire a franchise. Montreal’s study pegs the total cost at just over $1 billion, which would’ve been a better bet three or four years ago, during the recession and before the new national TV contracts. It’s hard to see any team being available for less than $600 million, maybe even $700 million because the revenue streams are so attractive. That would put the total cost at a combined $1.2 billion, maybe $1.3 billion when including infrastructure and land. Both cities also appear to be dependent on a rich investor group or corporation to fund the private side. That’s a lot to ask for, essentially a subsidy to be borne by a company. Guggenheim Partners made the overbid work because they had two things in their pocket: a to-be-negotiated local TV deal and 100 acres of land with huge development potential at Dodger Stadium. Neither Montreal nor Portland have such potential. Both teams stand a good chance of being future revenue sharing recipients, even with new ballparks in place.

With both the Rays and A’s entrenched in their current stadium malaise, it’ll be up to the next to the next commissioner to determine if Portland or Montreal gain entry to MLB. The new TV contracts are in their infancy, so the owners are only starting to see the benefits. At this point, it’s unlikely they’ll want to split up the pie 32 ways instead of 30.

01.22.14
by

New Howard Terminal ballpark group pushes for site lease/ENA

Finally.

We may finally have some deadlines. We may have a framework from which important questions can be answered. We may finally find out if Howard Terminal makes sense once and for all.

A group calling itself Oakland Waterfront Ballpark L.L.C. sent a letter to the Port of Oakland last week, asking for an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) for Howard Terminal. The ENA would run up to 12 months, allowing OWB to negotiate a long-term ground lease for Howard Terminal. A second period would be used to obtain permits from the City, Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC), and State Lands Commission (SLC) as needed. That time would also be used for the environmental studies (EIR, others) that would be required to secure such permits. After that’s done, the actual ground lease would be exercised, potentially leading to the construction of a ballpark on the site – pending club and league approvals and buy-in.

OWB is made up of mostly familiar faces: Clorox CEO Don Knauss, former Dreyer’s CEO T. Gary Rogers, Signature Properties principal Mike Ghielmetti, Baseball Oakland leader Doug Boxer, and a new entrant, developer Seth Hamalian. Hamalian’s planning a high-rise residential building in Uptown.

Howard Terminal’s still in a state of evaluation by the Port, as the Port is considering three other bidders for short-term use as longtime operator SSA departs for Middle Harbor. A group assembled by the Port to study future uses will not complete its work until the end of this quarter at the very least, and the Port is bound by the SLC to ensure that the land is used for maritime purposes as long as possible. A ruling in favor of OWB would help pave the way for a non-maritime use such as a ballpark. It’s possible that maritime uses could be arranged as a temporary use while the details of the ballpark plan are worked out.

HowardTerminal2a

Rendering of a new A’s ballpark at Howard Terminal

A key item in the letter is the notion that OWB could come in at any time do testing of soil or groundwater at the site. While that’s good, that’s really only a continuation of monitoring that’s already in place by law. The big issue is what happens to the site as it’s modified to accommodate a ballpark (and ancillary development). That includes potential cleanup or contamination that may occur with a breach of the asphalt cap at Howard Terminal.

OWB would be obligated to deposit $50,000 with the Port for the original six-month ENA, with another $50,000 due if a six-month extension is required. If they two sides can’t come to an agreement on the ground lease, the deposit is refundable. OWB would have the right to assign the ENA to current or future A’s ownership if they came around to liking the site.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, for her part, keeps pushing an idea that zoning should be easy at Howard Terminal because the site was considered for a convention center long ago. It’s a strange claim, we’ll see how well it holds up. At least OWB acknowledges the roles of the BCDC and SLC. Those two bodies are going to impact the scope and final approval on the project, there’s no way getting around it. Among the matters to resolve: Where is the shoreline technically and how close to the shoreline can they build?

tidelands_downtown

Map of Tidelands Trust areas where development is highly restricted

One thing missing from the KTVU and EBX links above is the ever-persistent question of cost. Cost sank Victory Court before ($240 million), and it threatens to sink Howard Terminal. 2001’s HOK study had Howard Terminal’s site cost at $177 million, and that was without any new transit infrastructure such as a nearby infill BART station or a streetcar to bring fans from existing BART stations downtown. A 2004 Caltrans feasibility study commissioned to investigate such options estimated that a new BART station along the West Oakland alignment between Market and Filbert Streets would cost $250-300 million, and that other options at Brush/Castro or Washington Streets were not doable due to the incline of the track, more than the 1% grade required for BART platforms.

Neither OWB nor Oakland has to start a feasibility study or an EIR until the ground lease with the Port is worked out, which is a shame because we’ve been wanting to know the cost for many years. There’s absolutely no reason why such work couldn’t start today, as long as one party budgeted money for it. It’s a chance to delay the reveal until circumstances force a decision, which is the way the mayor’s painting the situation. Quan mentioned on KTVU that the Raiders’ stadium deal at the Coliseum could be done by the summer. That assumes that everything goes well, including the all important determination of how to bridge Coliseum City’s funding gap. The adult conversation comes with many steps. This is a big step.

01.16.14
by

MLB and unions approve expanded replay, will Coliseum fans benefit?

The usually brief January owners meetings had one major item on the agenda: the approval of expanded replay. Reports coming into the meetings indicated that the discussions could be drawn out, even approaching the start of the regular season. Thankfully, all parties quickly approved the package of changes, including MLBPA and the World Umpires Association. For now the players’ union has agreed to one year of the new replay scheme, leaving the option for future replay arrangements to be collectively bargained or extended on an annual basis.

Basically, just about everything that happens when the ball is in play or batted is subject to replay. That includes the previously reviewable home run calls. Now the package includes fair/foul calls, catches and traps, timing plays, and even force plays (except for the “neighborhood” play on attempted double plays). Pitches that hit (or come close) batters are also up for debate. Like the NHL, all replays will be sent to review officials at MLB headquarters in New York, where they’ll need “clear and convincing” evidence to overturn a call. Unlike previous years, there will no longer be a monitor for use by field umpires to render or influence any decisions.

Perhaps the biggest benefit coming out of the replay plan is that all stadia now get to show all close plays on their video boards, including plays that aren’t under review. This change has been long in coming for ballparks, as it was always frustrating to be unable to see anything controversial. Now fans will be able to truly see how bad umpires blew calls or no-calls – well, most fans at least.

In Oakland, we’re still stuck with pretty old video technology dating back from the mid-90’s. The vintage Diamond Vision CRT displays aren’t the most crisp, and the boards’ size and distance from most fans will make viewing replays a frustrating affair. The Coliseum has by far the smallest video boards in the majors, and they located significantly further from the seats than anywhere else. The chart below illustrates how sad the state of affairs is:

dodgers-others-videoboards

Comparison of video boards throughout MLB from the Chicago Tribune

Throughout the lease negotiations between the JPA, A’s, and Raiders in the fall, we held out slim hopes of improvements that would’ve included scoreboards. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. We and the tenant teams will have to make do with what’s in the Coliseum. Yet there’s a little hope for something better and more reliable to be installed at the Coli.

A little over a year ago, I suggested that the Coliseum buy used video boards off any team or stadium operator that was in the process of replacing their 5 or 10-year-old displays. Turns out that the A’s had checked in with the SF Recreation and Parks department about the displays at Candlestick Park. Now, you may think that the boards at the ‘Stick are awfully outdated and decrepit like the rest of the stadium, but you’d be wrong. The existing displays were only installed in 2008 as part of a suite of technology enhancements. The old Jumbotron in the northeast end was replaced by a 48-foot-wide Daktronics display, mirrored by a much smaller display in the south end. In addition, ribbon boards were added for score and advertising purposes. So there’s the opportunity for only 6-year-old technology to be installed at the Coliseum, right?

Well, maybe not. The A’s (not the JPA or Raiders as far as I know) inquired about the displays, and were told that the displays would be used at least through the spring for events. No chance of getting anything in time for the start of the season, then. SFPR also informed the A’s that the displays would probably be put up on craigslist for the highest bidder, with the idea of recouping whatever funds they could get. Nevermind that to properly use the Daktronics technology a buyer would also have to invest in the control system (hardware and software) to operate the boards. The A’s, in particular, would have to rip out the existing control room and replace it with Daktronics equipment – hopefully the stuff currently at the ‘Stick. To do that the A’s would at some point have to involve the JPA and the Raiders and amend the new leases to reflect the A’s investment – basically a leasehold improvement.

Then there’s also the issue of whether the boards fit. The ‘Stick’s big board is 26′ x 48′, much larger than either of the 20′ x 31.5′ boards at the Coliseum. However, Daktronics’ LED display technology is modular, broken down into 16 x 16 pixel panels that are each slightly larger than a foot square. In theory, it’s possible to reconfigure the boards to fit the scoreboard frames at the Coliseum or change the frames to accommodate larger displays. To illustrate how this might work, I put together a table that shows how these displays would be mixed and matched.

oldstickvideoboards-sm

The key is that all of the displays – the big and small video boards and the ribbon boards – use the same underlying module size. The top lines show the Candlestick configuration, with different sized video boards and 4 ribbon boards elsewhere. The next scenario has a set number of modules replace each of the Diamond Vision displays, conforming to the current size and aspect ratio. The last group shows the boards reconfigured to support standard definition 16:9 video, with 2 of the ribbon boards used to expand the LF/RF scoreboards and the other 2 used to replace the Coli’s current boards. There would still be an issue of replacing the old matrix displays, but that’s a relatively cheap fix. The big non-video scoreboard in the ‘Stick’s north end zone is too football-centric to repurpose for baseball, though it might be useful for the Raiders. I joked earlier today that the JPA should take the displays and stick them on top of Mount Davis since no one’s sitting there, but was told that there’s no way make that work.

Candlestick Park's display setup, with a scoreboard on the left and video board on the right

Candlestick Park’s display setup, with a football-purposed scoreboard on the left and video board on the right

Assuming that some billionaire doesn’t snap up the ‘Stick displays for nostalgia or to build his own stadium somewhere, those boards should be available come spring for the Coliseum to buy. They should be relatively cheap to acquire and a no-brainer purchase for all parties to agree to. The relatively new technology would be a big enhancement for fans with little cash outlay, and would be a pretty responsible recycling of technology. If it can’t happen – well, can’t say someone didn’t try.

01.09.14
by

Ovations Food Services to replace Aramark at Coliseum

Well, this sure looks like news:

It isn’t news that the Coliseum is getting ready to do its seasonal hiring. The news is that the vendor isn’t Aramark. Instead it’s Ovations Food Services, an arm of venue management firm Comcast Spectacor. Ovations’ client list doesn’t have any current MLB regular season ballparks, making the Coliseum the first. However, they have plenty of local and Northern California experience, working at Raley Field, Banner Island Ballpark, and Chukchansi Park. They also handle food service at three Bay Area fairgrounds: Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, and Alameda County. In fact, Ovations’ California office is located at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, so if you have any complaints you can easily head to Pleasanton to speak your mind.

Part of the offseason is used to reevaluate any current vendor’s offerings in terms of successes and failures. With this offseason, Aramark’s contract was expiring so rival companies were bidding for the contract. It’s not as lucrative as it would be for a new ballpark, especially given the short lease extensions by both the A’s and Raiders. Nevertheless, the Coliseum remains a high profile venue, at least higher than what Ovations had in the baseball world. Chances are slim that any new offerings could be ready in time for FanFest – even though the Coliseum will be open this time around – because the turnaround is short. But it’d be nice if they had a booth to display a preview of their offerings.

 

01.07.14
by

Think winning helps to get a new ballpark? Think again.

One of the emerging narratives I heard when the A’s started playing well in 2012 was

The A’s are playing well, they don’t need to move, they may not even need a new ballpark.

As the team continued to succeed through the 2013 season, the narrative changed to

The A’s are winning in Oakland, they have to build here. The fans are coming out!

…along with…

If the A’s win the World Series, they’ll get their new ballpark in Oakland.

That lingered with me for a while. Other than the bandwagon factor on attendance, what does winning have to do with getting a new ballpark built? Turns out that winning has very little to do with getting a ballpark built. One idea often thrown out there is the notion that a team can ride the momentum of winning seasons, pennants, and rings to build the public goodwill necessary to seal a stadium deal. Over the past 20+ years, that generally has not been the case. Most ballparks are built absent of significant on-field success, the deals forged by behind-the-scenes political planning, not so much the optics of celebrating fans.

I wasn’t aware of how little winning mattered until I did the math. I took a look at all of the ballparks (not multipurpose stadia) built in the modern era, starting with US Cellular Field (New Comiskey) in 1991. Then I added up their respective home teams’ records and attendance going back 7 years. Why 7? A ballpark usually takes 3 years to build, an additional 2 to plan and approve, plus another 1-2 years depending on political and economic climate, legal hurdles, or other obstacles.

Out of 22 new ballparks built and 138 seasons – 129 full seasons when accounting for strike-shortened 1994 – played prior to opening of those parks, teams have combined to accrue a grand total of 1 World Series championship, 7 league pennants, and 29 postseason appearances (division crowns or wild card spots).

A list of 22 new ballparks built in the modern era. Legacy ballparks that have undergone renovations are not included.

A list of 22 new ballparks built in the modern era. Legacy ballparks that have undergone renovations are not included.

The astounding thing about all this futility is that the sole World Series was won by the Braves, a team that didn’t need to win to build support for a ballpark because they were getting a free ballpark after the 1996 Summer Olympics ended. In the run-up to the Games, the Braves were folded into the venue scheme when the Centennial Olympic Stadium was conceived in such a way that it could be converted from a track-and-field stadium to a ballpark after the Games ended. Since the funding was provided entirely by sponsors, there was no need to sell the stadium to the public. The Yankees experienced 2 World Series losses in the years before the new Yankee Stadium. Only 2 other teams even made it to the Series during their pre-ballpark runs.

What happened more frequently was that teams were quite terrible leading up to their new digs. The Tigers were atrocious by design, as Mike Ilitch chose to use that period for rebuilding and to help pay for what would eventually be Comerica Park. The Marlins were built to tank until a park came, as were the Brewers. The Pirates chose to rebuild in their post-Bonds period, an era that lasted much longer than anyone envisioned. And Cleveland was continuing that great legacy of ineptitude that spawned a movie franchise. Two teams in the above list were expansion teams. The Rockies played at Mile High for two years while Coors Field was being completed, whereas the Diamondbacks were deferred until 1998 when Chase Field opened. A third team, the Nationals, effectively acted as an expansion team because they were sold by MLB to the highest bidder and Washington was granted the franchise move conditionally upon completion of a ballpark deal.

The Giants, whose new ownership made a big splash in 1993 by signing Barry Bonds, was often said to have started working on their downtown SF ballpark plan once they took the reins. Even so, the team split its time between being competitive but not good enough to win the division (late 90’s) and nearly unwatchable (mid 90’s). Winning didn’t build the park, Bonds did.

Some teams tried to follow the formula of building a team to coincide with the opening of a park. The Giants are certainly one of those. The Indians are a classic example, going to the postseason in 6 out of the first 7 full seasons at Jacobs Field (Progressive). The Twins tried to anticipate such a window by signing local superstar Joe Mauer to a long contract extension coinciding with opening of Target Field. Injuries to Mauer, Justin Morneau, and a slew of pitchers severely crippled the franchise, which is still trying to get back to relevance after its successful opening season outdoors. The blueprint worked for the Orioles and Rangers, and more recently the Phillies. In all of these cases the franchises anticipated major revenue growth upon moving to their new homes, which is exactly what happened.

Going into the recent winter meetings, Billy Beane talked about not having a “five year plan,” code for the kind of rebuilding phase we’d normally associate with the run-up to a new ballpark. That’s a very different stance than he had taken in 2007 or 2010, when he was more likely to speak in terms of planning for the future, with a ballpark in Fremont or San Jose in mind. Now that the competitive window is wide open and the future of the franchise is in flux, there’s no need to be in that mode. It’s as pure a win-now mentality as we’ve seen with Beane at the helm.

Some will look at this and talk correlation not implying causation. What I’m saying is that historically, winning isn’t associated with teams and new parks until after those parks open. My point is to drop any hint of causation in the run-up because there is no correlation. If you are looking for causation, consider that 5 World Series (and 10 pennants) have been won by teams in the first 7 years after a modern era ballpark opened (NYY 1, PHI 1, STL 2, ARI 1).

That said, could winning help make the case for the A’s? I suppose there’s a small chance, if winning gooses season ticket and premium sales sustainably to the point of funding the ballpark to a similar amount seen with other ballparks. That would mean hitting around 20,000 season ticket subscriptions or more (the A’s are under 10,000 currently). It might also mean PSL sales, or locking in several dozen businesses to sponsorships and suite contracts. But is that realistic? There’s a disconnect here, as the big corporate deals tend to run in the 5-10 year range if not longer. Winning is much more fleeting than that. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals can leverage winning tradition better than most because they’ve proven it repeatedly. It’s a form of currency for them. The A’s don’t have that. If the A’s aren’t competitive this year for whatever reasons, look for the attendance and sales gains seen in the past two years to quickly recede. By winning, I don’t mean getting to the LDS or even the LCS. I mean winning the last game of the season. That’s our legacy, whether we’re talking Finley, Haas, Schott, or Wolff. To look to winning as an elixir to solve the ballpark dilemma is to trivialize winning. Anyone who watched the A’s in the late 90’s, late 00’s, and late 70’s knows full well how difficult winning is. My advice to fans is to not worry about winning creating momentum. Enjoy the on field exploits as they occur, and let the ballpark business unfold on its own. You can’t count on winning being a big part of the solution.

01.01.14
by

The stage shifts in 2014

As we bring on a new year and a new baseball season, let’s reflect on the rather tumultuous year that was 2013.

  • January – FanFest was a great event again, though the cramped concourses at Oracle Arena had many fans wishing for the event to be held at the Coliseum instead.
  • The Coliseum Authority raided scoreboard funds to pay for the ongoing Coliseum Study.
  • February – Oakland officials were forced to apologize to A’s owner Lew Wolff for misplacing a letter requesting further lease extension talks.
  • March – The City of Mesa, AZ, approved a renovation plan and 20-year lease for Hohokam Stadium that will bring the A’s over from their longtime spring home, Phoenix Municipal Stadium. 2014 will be the last year at Muni for the A’s, after which the stadium will be home to the ASU Sun Devils. The Cubs, who vacated Hohokam after 2013, are moving to their own mega-complex on the west side of Mesa.
  • San Jose was dealt the first of a series of setbacks when the state rolled back the City’s transfer of the Diridon ballpark site to the Diridon Development Authority. Eventually the City and Santa Clara County worked out the details of a deal, though it remains up in the air for now. In addition, a request to disqualify the Stand for San Jose lawsuit failed.
  • April/May – Kevin Johnson rallied Sacramento and Bay Area interests to put together an ownership group that eventually bought the NBA Kings from the Maloof family.
  • SAP takes over for HP as naming rights sponsor of San Jose’s Arena. Most fans continue to call the building The Shark Tank.
  • The Giants refinance the remaining debt at AT&T Park (originally due to be paid off in 2017) in order to provide funds for their own project in the parking lot across McCovey Cove from the ballpark.
  • Oakland Fan Pledge kicks off a campaign to build a list of fans willing to buy  season tickets (and in some cases PSLs) at a new A’s ballpark in Oakland. Currently there are just over 5,000 pledges.
  • Levi’s Stadium and the 49ers are awarded Super Bowl L in 2016. While the game will take place in the new stadium in Santa Clara, most of the other festivities will take place in San Francisco at venues like Moscone Center.
  • June – San Jose files an antitrust lawsuit against MLB, alleging that the league’s stalling is costing the City tax revenues.
  • A settlement between Howard Terminal operator SSA and the Port of Oakland could help clear the way for a ballpark on the waterfront site. Site proponents call this move “site control.” The Port was also motivated to get rid of an expensive, ongoing lawsuit by SSA over more favorable lease terms given to a nearby rival operator.
  • A sewer main at the Coliseum is clogged, causing sewage to overflow the clubhouse level and requiring the teams to use the Raiders’ facilities (up one level). Eventually a towel or piece of clothing is found to be the culprit.
  • July – A feasibility study for Coliseum City outlines the funding gap (now $400-500 million) that needs to be bridged for a new stadium, along with an explanation of the economic weaknesses of the East Bay market.
  • The Earthquakes’ stadium is further delayed (until 2015) when numerous underground bunkers are found and need to be demolished before building anew. Erection of the stadium bowl would begin in late December.
  • August – Raiders owner Mark Davis starts crowing for a long lease extension at the Coliseum, with the condition that the extension comes with a replacement to the Coliseum, preferably on the same site as the current stadium.
  • MLB and the San Jose make filings in anticipation of an October hearing in their antitrust lawsuit.
  • September – Lew Wolff clarifies that he seeks a five-year lease after the current lease ends after the 2013 season, with flexibility to leave early if impacted by a Raiders stadium.
  • October – A federal judge throws out San Jose’s antitrust complaint against MLB, but allows the City an immediate appeal (Ninth Circuit) and for the state tort claims to continue. The state claims were also thrown out at the end of the year.
  • A private investor group headed by LA mega-hedge fund Colony Capital and Dubai’s HayaH Holdings signs on to be the financial muscle behind the Coliseum City development. The group, teamed up with architecture firm JRDV, is tasked with providing a series of deliverables that will determine the feasibility of the project.
  • Bloomberg estimates that the A’s are worth $590 million, a huge jump over Forbes’ preseason estimate of $468 million.
  • November – With talks between the A’s and the JPA at an impasse, MLB steps in and negotiates a two-year extension for the A’s, resolving an outstanding issue regarding parking taxes. The Raiders receive a one-year extension with a one-year team option, which they would presumably exercise if they saw sufficient progress on the stadium front.
  • December – The Oakland City Council and Alameda County Board of Supervisors hold their first joint session to discuss the pros and cons of Coliseum City. The Supes claim that the City has dragged the County along, and the County has not been sufficiently involved in the process.
  • A court filing in the antitrust case states that MLB denied the A’s proposal to move to San Jose in June, just before the lawsuit was filed. MLB is unwilling to disclose the contents of the rejection letter. Sources inside baseball indicate that the A’s proposal, not the City of San Jose, was denied, opening the door to another proposal that MLB could conceivably accept.
  • Renderings of the Howard Terminal ballpark are released. It appears that the vision would try to avoid the BCDC’s jurisdiction by placing the footprint sufficiently inland. It is unclear if such a move will work. Normal CEQA issues remain, and proper environmental review has not started yet. Meanwhile, the Port solicits bids for use at the vacated terminal per state law.

What can we expect in 2014? A lot of follow-up to many of the issues above. Lawsuits will continue, and short-term leases only kick the can down the road. With the leases temporarily out of the way, 2014 is the year of the election. Both Oakland and San Jose have mayoral races this year. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan finds herself at the top of a list of five declared candidates. The race to replace San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed will also be hot and heavy, with several current council members facing off against a former councilman and current county supervisor. We should expect to see some serious progress on Coliseum City’s feasibility, as several project deliverables are due in the first half of the year. Oakland partisans will continue to flog Wolff, while San Jose partisans flog Mayor Quan. 2014 is also Commissioner Bud Selig’s last full year in his job. The search for his replacement could be interesting, though the favorite is currently COO and longtime MLB exec Rob Manfred. Movement on the antitrust lawsuit is not expected until the spring, and the “forgotten” Stand for San Jose lawsuit continues its machinations. All in all it looks to be a very newsworthy year. Will attendance continue to grow? Will it be an eventful 2014? That depends on whether anything gets resolved. This site has been running for nearly nine years. The stadium situation has never looked more muddled, with no end in sight. Something’s gotta give, right? Right?

12.23.13
by

The Solomonesque solution that thankfully never happened

When the latest Matier and Ross column featuring Coliseum City and the A’s dropped over the weekend, I wasn’t sure if I should follow-up right away or wait for the proverbial other shoe to drop. Drop it did, with a press release coming from the A’s early today. Frankly, I don’t know what to make of any of it. BayIG (the combined investor/developer group) was supposed to contact the A’s starting in mid-November. Now it’s all a bunch of he-said/she-said. It’s all meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so I won’t bother wasting anymore words on it.

Instead I’ll reference a nightmare scenario that happened almost 40 years ago. It involves a Charlie Finley anecdote that I hadn’t fully heard until I read his 2010 biography some time ago. In the late 70’s, Finley was fighting a personal two-front war, an acrimonious divorce on one side and skyrocketing salaries that threatened his ability to operate the A’s on the other. (He also had other feuds with MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, the Coliseum Commission and numerous players and agents, but I digress.) Knowing his time in baseball was running out, Finley chose to put the team up for sale as soon as 1977. Numerous suitors surfaced, some offering to keep the team in Oakland and other looking to move the franchise out at the end of the 1977 season. The most famous buyer was oil billionaire Marvin Davis, whose family was said to be the model for the soap opera Dynasty. Davis also owned the 20th Century Fox studio for some time before selling it to some Australian named Rupert Murdoch.

The difficult part of the move was the generally ironclad lease the Coliseum had with the A’s. It was a 20-year term, with an expensive buyout if the A’s left. As the Coliseum filed a $35 million lawsuit against Finley, Finley worked with Kuhn and Giants owner Bob Lurie to figure out a solution. Wait, what did Bob Lurie have to do with this?

Kuhn had been convinced that, with both teams showing poor attendance, the Bay Area was only a one-team market. He spoke to pols in both San Francisco and Oakland to work on a compromise, but in the end the Bay Area would be left with only one team. Previously, Lurie had bought the team from Horace Stoneham, saving SF from the prospect of moving the Giants to Toronto. Lurie was brought into the talks to figure out what role the Giants would have in a one-team Bay Area.

The solution, as architected by Kuhn and others before the 1978 season, would’ve been to have the A’s sold to Marvin Davis, which would’ve gotten rid of Kuhn’s nemesis Finley. Then in order to compromise on the Coliseum lease, the Giants would’ve played some number of games at the Coliseum, 25-40 depending on how the final deal was drawn up. In San Francisco the team would’ve been called the San Francisco Giants, while in Oakland the team would’ve been called simply the Giants. Kuhn recalled:

For the next three weeks, the politicians, the baseball administration and the lawyers struggled to find solutions. At last, amazingly, parity was agreed to. The team name would be the San Francisco Giants except in Oakland, where it would be the Giants. Financial payments to the Oakland Coliseum were set at $3.25 million. The internal fight within baseball was difficult when Finley would put up no more than $1 million as his share of the Coliseum payment. Even that we were able to persuade the clubs to accept. But, when we asked him [Finley] to waive claims of any kind against baseball, he balked.

Even though Finley was leaving baseball – forever – he still wanted to keep his right to sue just in case he felt he got ripped off. Finley was no stranger to courtrooms, so this could be expected. Still, you’d think that after all that work (and his building desperation) he would’ve waived that one right in order to finish the deal. The sale fell apart and Finley went into full fire sale mode, finally selling the team to the Haas family in 1980.

Consider the ramifications:

  • The Giants would’ve become the San Francisco Giants/Giants, probably playing most of the Oakland games before football season.
  • The buyout would’ve funded improvements to the Coliseum that Al Davis was seeking, improvements that probably would’ve kept the Raiders in Oakland.
  • From that point forward, the Bay Area would’ve been a one-team town, with a young, growing city like San Jose pursuing an expansion franchise.
  • Eventually, the team-sharing situation would’ve created a race between SF and Oakland to build a permanent home when leases at both Candlestick Park and the Coliseum expired in the late 80’s. Territorial rights would’ve included the “BART counties” plus Marin County.
  • Rickey Henderson, who was drafted in 1976, would’ve spent much of his career in Denver. The same could be said of Tony Armas and Dwayne Murphy, among others. Marvin Davis had the money to bolster the team’s payroll, so the chances of keeping a talented young team intact were very good.

So this Christmas, thank the ghost of Charlie Finley for being so selfish that he had to be able to sue – just in case. Without that, the Oakland Athletics would’ve been a 10 year experiment, a blip on the radar, an historical anomaly.

—

(h/t Rob Neyer, who referenced the near-sale when the A’s-to-China Basin reports surfaced. I didn’t see his post until after I finished this one.)

12.20.13
by

How to negotiate a ballpark deal without giving away the farm

If you haven’t heard, the City of San Jose finalized a five-year lease extension with the San Jose Giants this week. Talks were somewhat contentious for several months, as it was Giants ownership (San Francisco Giants) that spearheaded the Stand For San Jose-vs.-City of San Jose lawsuit two years ago. The relationship was so sour that the SJ Giants had to remove themselves from the lawsuit in order to repair the relationship with the City. The Giants, usually at the tops of the California League in attendance, had things pretty good with a favorable lease and a vast array of corporate sponsors to choose from.

In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that the Giants took the City for granted. In 2007 they even played the old stadium ransom game, threatening to leave if they didn’t get as much as $8 million to renovate Municipal Stadium. City let the San Jose Arena Authority manage the situation, so renovations on an annual basis were kept reasonable, a little over $1 million from that point until now.

So when the time came for the two sides to talk, you can imagine how uninterested the City was with the Giants’ sales pitch. The S4SJ lawsuit involved the Giants’ law firm, Pillsbury, and from what I heard, City was happy to let the Giants twist in the wind a little. Eventually cooler heads prevailed, resulting in the five year extension through 2018.

The lease remains dirt cheap at about $25,000 per year. In addition, the City is for the first time granting the sale of naming rights to Muni. Money from any naming rights deal will go into a capital improvements fund. The important takeaway is that the City is no longer responsible for general upkeep at Muni, nor will it be pushed into funding other improvements at Muni as the Giants had previously requested. In a related move, a deal to share parking with Sharks Ice next door was also reached.

With the coffers running low to fund ongoing facilities improvements, City has used naming rights successfully to take care of various small projects. Most recently, the venerable Civic Auditorium received a name change to the awkward sounding City National Civic, after City National Bank. And of course, there’s also SAP Center, which changed from HP Pavilion in a rather quick manner after the CEOs of HP and SAP talked it over. City National Civic’s deal is worth $240,000 a year, within the range of single-A ballpark naming rights deals. It remains to be seen if Muni will fetch more because of the Giants’ name and the size of the market or less because Muni’s elderly condition. In either case, there should be a number of local sponsors who should be expected to bid, Adobe and Orchard Supply Hardware to name two.

Or, if the parent SF Giants wanted to get really snarky about it, they could rename it Giants Stadium. Talk about planting a flag. The Sharks took over the naming rights to their practice facility from Logitech, and have been expanding that brand ever since with rinks in Fremont and uptown Oakland.

12.19.13
by

Reaction time

It would be silly to devote a post to every single new tidbit that comes out, so I’ll do one of those rare newswraps here.

  • The East Bay Express’s Robert Gammon reported that the previous group showing interest in buying the A’s (Don Knauss, Doug Boxer, Mike Ghielmetti) is back again talking up buying the franchise. This time, they’re not alone. There could be up to three groups, including one fronted by Warriors owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber. Lacob and Guber were previously associated with the Dolich-Piccinini group in 2001. Lew Wolff continues to maintain that the team is not for sale.
  • Bill Shaikin of the LA Times partly shot down the Warriors connection when he contacted Guber, who said unequivocally that he’s not interested in the A’s. Lacob and others may be interested, though Lacob is not commenting at the moment.
  • BANG’s Marcus Thompson wrote a quite stirring column asking Oakland to act now to save the A’s in Oakland. Thompson also asked many of the important questions about both Howard Terminal and Coliseum City that currently have no answers.
  • SFGate has a new editorial imploring MLB to make a decision, once and for all. In the column is a quote from Wolff claiming that Howard Terminal’s cost would be more than $1 billion.

Pretty heavy news day, huh? Well, not according to KCBS’s Doug Sovern.

Is there actual news to report? Why yes there is!

  • The FCC is moving forward with its proposal to eliminate TV blackouts of sports broadcasts. The proposal mainly targets NFL games, so naturally the NFL opposes it.
  • The 49ers struck a partnership with fellow Santa Clara resident Intel for a major sponsorship & technology deal. Intel will provide a great deal of tech infrastructure while taking control of the big northwest gate.

Finally, Bizjournal’s Nate Donato-Weinstein has been tracking the iStar development and has an update. If you’re not aware, iStar is a developer and land owner tied to the Earthquakes stadium project. While the stadium is going up west of San Jose Airport, the iStar land is in South San Jose’s Edenvale neighborhood. The plan was to take some of the proceeds of various development activities at iStar and funnel them towards the stadium. The numbers:

  • 260,000 square feet of office space
  • 150,000 square feet of retail
  • 720 housing units
  • $10 million would be funneled to the stadium

Those numbers are important because they can provide a comparison to what is being proposed at Coliseum City.

  • 837,000 square feet of office space
  • 265,000 square feet of retail
  • 837 housing units
  • 2 hotels comprising 478 units

iStar went through numerous struggles and iterations as the recession ravaged the real estate market. Now that things are on the rebound, projects like iStar are picking up again. It’s surprising that despite the fairly large scope of the project, only $10 million is being made available. That’s one-sixth one-seventh the $60 $70 million budget for the Earthquakes stadium. Now consider that Coliseum City, whose Area A phases cover comparable development plans (other than the much greater office space) over a very long timeline. How much could the development activity realistically provide? $50 million? $100 million? While revenue sharing formulas will probably be different, there is a practical limit before eating into profitability. The Raiders stadium will cost more than 15 times as much as the Earthquakes’ new digs. Bridging the gap is the foremost issue for these stadium initiatives. Without that puzzle solved, there really isn’t much else to talk about.