Category Archives: Football

11.06.11
by

CBA Talk: Cost certainty is a four-letter word

After another 8-hour marathon negotiating session, the NBA and NBPA again found themselves without any kind of agreement for a new CBA. This time, Commissioner David Stern also threw down the gauntlet, leaving the owners’ newest offer on the table for the players to stew over until the close of business Wednesday. If the players don’t accept the offer, the league will pull the deal and offer something measurably worse. First, let’s go over the basic tenets of the league’s offer.

  • League offers 49-51% “band” of BRI (defined league revenue) to players. This is essentially the same as the 50% offered to the players previously, but with a few wrinkles. The base offer is 50% to players, plus 1% annually set aside to fund retired player benefits. The 50% share would be dependent on the league reaching an unspecified BRI level, probably $4 billion. Any amount over that threshold would be split 57-43 in favor of the players, up to a total cumulative BRI split of 51% for the players. Running the numbers, for the players to reach 51% the league would have to beat the $4B revenue projection by $666 million, or 16.67%. That led NBPA president Derek Fisher to characterize the 51% figure as “impossible” to attain. In a move reminiscent of the NHL’s CBA, the players would be limited to 49% of BRI if BRI were significantly lower than the projection (also by an unspecified amount).
  • Escalating Luxury Tax. The previous dollar-for-dollar tax would be transformed into a much more punitive tax, starting at $1.50 per dollar over the tax threshold for the first $5 million over, then $1.75 for the next $5 million, $2.50 for the next $5 million, and $3.25 for the next five million. In addition, a “double tax” would be assessed at either $1 (league) or $0.50 (union) for teams who pay the tax three out of five years.
  • Variable Mid-level exception. There would actually be two definitions of the exception. For teams not over the luxury tax threshold, they’d be able to pay $3-4 million for 3-4 years. Teams over the threshold would only be able to pay $2.5 million for up to two years. There’s also some talk of having the maximum length of a MLE contract vary from season to season. This is clearly the most confusing part of the discussions and may be in flux, so expect some corrections in a few hours.
  • Sign-and-trade modifications. Luxury taxpayers would no longer have the ability to do sign-and-trade deals. If a team is over the cap and tax threshold and wanted a marquee free agent, they could work out a trade with that player’s previous team by having the previous team sign him for a lengthy max deal, then trade him immediately to the desired team for a mix of other players and draft picks.
  • Offer valid until close of business Wednesday (November 9).

Those five tenets were suggested by federal mediator George Cohen, and subsequently adopted by the league. A sixth item involving higher shared revenues for teams who don’t trigger the luxury taxes was not approved. For their part, the players aren’t backing off their request for 52.5% of BRI, though Fisher seemed to be somewhat amenable to 51% if it were a truly achievable number.

The Wednesday ultimatum sort of acts as a mini Doomsday, since the NBA will offer less if no deal is reached and it will probably cancel games in December. Any hopes of being able to play a full 82-game schedule in 2011-12 would be dashed. And there’s the growing possibility that the union will take a page out of the NFLPA’s playbook by calling for the union to decertify and an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA.

BRI for the 2010-11 season was $3.8 billion, which was up from 2009-10’s $3.65 billion, so it’s not hard to see the $4 B target as achievable. That’s where both sides are getting the “$40 million equals 1%” argument from. The players got 57% of BRI in the previous agreement, so a drop to 52.5% or 50% is a major concession. The problem for the players is that there’s a huge difference between the economy back when the last two CBAs were ratified and today’s economy. The NFL accomplished a major pullback in its negotiations with its players. The NHL is looking at the NBA talks with great interest, and is rumored to be pushing for a major pullback as well. MLB has no guaranteed payout to players as it has no salary cap or floor, but it regularly pays less than 50% to its players. The new trend for the four major North American sports is for the player-league split to drop to between 48% and 52%, depending on how revenue is defined. It’s quickly becoming a matter of bargaining against the other leagues, perhaps more than it is about preserving or changing existing agreements.

Every week lost in the 2011-12 NBA season translates to $100 million lost in game revenue, including tickets, other arena revenue, and broadcasting revenue. Over the span of ten years, which is the preferred CBA length for both NBA and NBPA, a few hundred million is not that much to lose compared to the impact of losing 2.5% of BRI over the course of ten years ($1+ billion). The league may see this as a test of the union’s collective will. Some want to play ASAP, others want to go the decertification route. It’s getting to the point that several weeks of games (and thus paychecks) will be lost and unsalvageable. There’s no guarantee that by holding out, the players will end up with a better deal. It didn’t work for the NHL players, and it didn’t work for the NFL players. MLB and the MLBPA must be laughing at their counterparts. Their biggest bone of contention is fixed slotting for first round draft picks, which the players union considers its own miniature form of salary cap. Somehow both sides have convinced the players that the lack of a salary cap/floor/guarantee is best for all concerned, despite the players getting less combined than their counterparts. But they get the biggest, longest individual contracts with most guaranteed years. While baseball’s business model does little for broad competitiveness among teams, it generally works for the players in terms of meritocracy and tenure. That’s hard to argue with when the other leagues have so much trouble arguing over details.

10.30.11
by

News for 10/30/11

A few newsbytes as the week begins:

  • Matier and Ross report that the 49ers are gunning for a 2014 opening of the Santa Clara stadium, even though the finances – especially the stadium builder licenses – aren’t ironed out yet.
  • One of the reasons the CEQA/EIR process exists in California is that municipalities and citizens can identify issues that need to be addressed and take care of them early. In Miami, the Marlins ballpark is being built with no significant new transit infrastructure in an area that desperately needs it. The Orange Bowl/Little Havana neighborhood is at least 2,000 spaces short of what should be supplied for a full house, and on-site parking totals well less than 5,000 spaces. The nearest Metrorail station is almost a mile away, and shuttles to take fans from that station and other parts of Miami are currently unfunded.
  • Speaking of transit, the California High Speed Rail project will face renewed scrutiny with the release of an updated (and final) business plan on Tuesday. The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg paints a pessimistic view, as federal funding has dried up and has made continuation of the project an extremely difficult decision. So far, $650 million has been spent on planning and engineering studies.
  • Side note: If HSR goes down in flames, the combined cost of that project and the shuttered Solyndra plant in Fremont would be $1.1 Billion. That would pay for the 49ers stadium and change, or an A’s ballpark in Oakland/San Jose and a Sacramento Kings arena. Before you scoff, know that the total annual revenue for just the NFL and MLB combined ($16 Billion) surpasses that of the movie industry – box office and DVD sales – on an annual basis ($15 Billion).
  • Not only are the Scranton-Wilkes Barre Yankees forced to spend the year barnstorming while their ballpark is renovated, they won’t be able to keep the Yankees team name in the future. The Yankees brand is to be exclusive to the club in the Bronx. The same will go for all of the other Yankees minor league affiliates. Way to keep it in the family, Steinbrenners.
  • Commissioner Bud Selig may have to determine the proper compensation for the Red Sox allowing Theo Epstein to escape to the Cubs, since the two teams can’t come up with mutually agreeable terms on their own.
  • Wondering if Selig will actually retire after his contract ends in 2012? The establishment of an office at his old alma mater in Madison might be the ticket. Selig apparently wants to write his memoirs and participate in the history department at Wisconsin, including the hiring of a professor to teach the history of sports.
  • In addition to Selig’s endowed chair, three members of The Lodge (baseball team owners) also set up a scholarship in the names of Selig and his wife, Suzanne, as part of the university’s Great People Scholarship program. The owners? Three who are incredibly indebted and linked to Selig: fraternity brother Lew Wolff, current Brewers owner Mark Attanasio (who bought the team from a trust headed by Selig’s daughter), and Red Sox co-owner Tom Werner (who was a major beneficiary of the three way Boston-Florida-Montreal ownership swap deal). What do you get for a man who has everything? A scholarship in his name, of course! Now that’s a going away present.
  • One thing to keep in mind regarding Occupy Oakland: the horrific injury suffered by Iraq War veteran and Wisconsin native Scott Olsen will almost assuredly result in a lawsuit against Oakland/OPD, one which is not likely to come out well for the City. Whenever that judgement is rendered, it’ll be more money that Oakland simply doesn’t have for projects such as an Oakland ballpark.
  • On the bright side, the Oakland Tribune and other local papers will keep their names after all.
  • Tony LaRussa goes out on top.

Good stuff to come later in the week.

10.24.11
by

News for 10/24/11

We’re still three weeks from the winter meetings, at which the A’s situation is not guaranteed to be resolved. Until then we wait and stay informed.

Features to come after I finish a few things.

10.16.11
by

Shea asks if the A’s could stay at the Coliseum if the Raiders leave

Sometimes I wonder if, given the lack of juicy topics, some of the local media default to writing about the A’s stadium situation. It’s not sexy, and it’s easy to write about without getting into any real depth. That’s exactly what Chronicle baseball writer John Shea did when opining about a new Coliseum ballpark.

Shea thinks that the possibility of a joint 49ers-Raiders stadium in Santa Clara should provide an opening for the A’s to stay there. The land is already there and paid for, as is BART and a ton of parking. Sounds simple enough, right?

Should the Raiders decide that they want to stay in Santa Clara long term, then yes, this could work out just fine and dandy. Except for a few minor details. Allow me to enumerate.

  1. The Raiders may only view Santa Clara as a temporary thing (10 years), with an eye towards building somewhere else in the future. The prime location would be the Coliseum, which as reported previously, has plans on the drawing board for a new football stadium and land purchased to support it.
  2. MLB wants this thing wrapped up by 2015. They’ve said so to both Oakland and San Jose officials. By waiting out the Raiders’ decision making process, they’re guaranteeing that a new ballpark for the A’s couldn’t open until 2017 or 2018 at the earliest.
  3. Why should MLB be subordinate to what the NFL is doing? The A’s have already suffered from that exact problem for the last 16 years.
  4. Who’s paying for the remaining debt at the Coliseum now? Certainly not MLB or the A’s.
  5. What happened to Victory Court? That’s the Oakland site that was chosen by both the City and MLB to move forward because of its location downtown. MLB has already dismissed the Coliseum and Oakland has gone along with it. Nothing has fundamentally changed to make the site more attractive. By going back and forth on sites like this, those involved look as if they’re not making a concerted effort. Instead, it looks like they’re grasping at straws.
  6. Wolff responds in the article to Shea’s idea by saying that he couldn’t privately finance it at the Coliseum site. And he’s right. A “rebuilt” Coliseum is out of the question since MLB would never go for it. And investing $450 million at the Coliseum is impossible for some time to come, given the state of stadium lending and the fact that it’s a “depressed area“.

The only thing that could drive this is if MLB outright rejected the A’s efforts to gain territorial rights in Santa Clara County. Even then, it really comes down to simple sentiment: Al Davis said before his passing that there could be a future for the Raiders at the Coliseum, whereas Lew Wolff doesn’t believe in such a future for the A’s. They’ve both spent a lot of time on this. After all this time, are they both wrong? Or is a quaint notion thrown out there on a whim more realistic? Somehow I find that hard to believe. Facts are inconvenient, I know.

10.13.11
by

News for 10/14/11

It’s been a somewhat contentious week in the comments. Let’s cool it down a bit.

  • The City of Industry NFL stadium’s financing plan is a little too 90’s optimistic for this era. (ESPNLA/Arash Markazi) Choice quote:

    “You would probably be more likely to see Eric Dickerson suit back up for L.A. than see a stadium pay for itself solely with PSLs, naming rights and the NFL $150 million payment,” (sports economist Victor) Matheson said.

  • A little further towards downtown, Frank McCourt is up to his eyes in debt – $550-600 million, not including the Dodgers’ recently approved $150 emergency bridge loan. After the Dodgers are sold and McCourt’s divorce is final, he could be left with very little. (LA Times/Bill Shaikin)
  • Mark Davis, son of the late Al Davis, reportedly met with AEG about Farmers Field six months ago, but balked at selling a large percentage of the team in exchange for first dibs on the downtown LA stadium. (Yahoo! Sports/Mike Silver)
  • On the other hand, given the Davis family’s cash position and the potential for estate taxes, the least expensive and most feasible option may be to go to Santa Clara. (Yahoo! Sports/Jason Cole)
  • NBA commissioner David Stern is really putting the screws to the players, saying that if there isn’t a deal by Tuesday, games through this Christmas will be cancelled. I don’t understand the proportionality of these threats. That’s what makes him the Godfather. (NY Times/Ken Belson)
  • Apparently it’s not just California cities that are under the gun regarding redevelopment. Reno’s agency faces a default if it can’t make a $2.7 million bond payment next summer. Property tax receipts are in the gutter, so the agency is looking to Washoe County for help. (Reno Gazette Journal/Brian Duggan)
  • Peter Gammons tweeted on Wednesday that the Astros sale to Jim Crane will go through no later than the owners meetings, which are scheduled for November 15-16. Included in the ownership change would be the ‘Stros switch to the American League, which, given the release of the preliminary schedule, probably wouldn’t occur until the 2013 season (concurrent with a playoff format change if approved). Those owners meetings are shaping up to be a doozy, aren’t they?
  • Come on Cal, you can’t be 0-for-AT&T Park (Presbyterian doesn’t count, does it?).

I’m working on a post or two for the weekend, so watch this space.

09.26.11
by

News for 9/26/11

Haven’t done one of these for a while. Good links in here.

  • Governor Jerry Brown will, in fact, sign that LA football stadium bill. Guess he’s not such a sports hater after all. /s
  • The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg profiles Jack Hill, the Texas guy who gets things built. What things? Cowboys Stadium and American Airlines Center to name two.
  • At Grantland, Malcolm Gladwell juxtaposes the NBA’s talk of financial ruin with the Nets/Atlantic Yards deal.
  • According to Biz of Baseball’s Rob Smith, Rays owner Stuart Sternberg needs a stalking horse to get the ball rolling on a new ballpark in Tampa-St. Pete.
  • Bleacher Report’s Brandon McClintock has his own debate about what the Willingham situation means for the A’s.
  • The NY Times reports that there are red flags over Cal’s ability to pay for the Memorial Stadium makeover.
  • As the season ends, Bryan Stow is getting better.
  • Oakland Unified School District plans to close as many as 13 schools by the end of the school year, and up to 30 more over the next two years.
  • Yesterday’s sellout crowd of 61,546 at the Coliseum was the largest for a Raiders home game in two years (via CSN’s Paul Gutierrez).
  • Also in the NY Times is an article that asks if we are in a new dead ball era.
  • Rangers Ballpark finished the season with 228 home runs hit there, leading baseball. The Coliseum had 109.
  • San Rafael approved a deal to bring a North American League club to the city’s Albert Park.
  • It’s worth checking out Merc writer Dan Brown’s chat segment about Moneyball.
  • There is expected to be a press conference today in Seattle to announce the 2012 opening series between the A’s and M’s in Japan.
  • Added 6:22 PM – The NY Mets know how to play the T-rights game too, having denied the Yankees’ request to temporarily host their AAA affiliate in Newark, NJ for a year while their permanent home in Scranton-Wilkes Barre is renovated.

I’ll add more if I see anything else worth mentioning.

09.19.11
by

Great America to be bought by group containing 49ers, will end lawsuit

If the 49ers couldn’t celebrate at the ‘Stick yesterday, at least they made a huge step towards celebrating every week in Santa Clara. According to the Merc’s Lisa Fernandez, a real estate firm partnering with a 49ers-controlled entity will buy Great America (the theme park assets not including the land) for $70 million. JMA Ventures, the lead in this purchase, is a 25-year old company backed by major private equity firms (Carlyle Group, Lehman, Morgan Stanley). They also own several properties throughout Northern California, from Tahoe ski resorts to SF restaurants. As for Cedar Fair, the squeaky wheel throughout all of this? They get cash to pay down debt.

This is a much better move than the 49ers buying the theme park outright, since they don’t have the expertise to do anything like operating a theme park. JMA Ventures would seem a more ideal partner, and at least at the outset they don’t appear to be interested in changing anything. Great America is on a weekends-only operating schedule until the end of October, when it closes to the public for the season. That should give JMA and the 49ers plenty of opportunity to take a look around and see what improvements could be made.

Could Great America close in the long run? I doubt it, since JMA is sinking $70 million into what is essentially a bunch of rides and games. Hopefully, they and the Niners can start working the channels with the NFL to integrate some sort of football theme into the park. That could go a long way towards making the Santa Clara stadium a much more cohesive experience for future Super Bowls, even if the stadium won’t have the retractable roof the league covets so much. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room to expand there as previous owners added water park features to Great America – features that won’t be useful in January/February.

Initially, I have a good feeling that JMA, a company geared around entertainment, will keep a local institution going while making it play nice with the 49ers. There’s that chance of integration with the stadium. If the two can enhance job opportunities in the area (even if they are low paying jobs, many of my immigrant relatives work there) it’s a win-win.

09.11.11
by

Legislative and political flurry

A series of changes at Oakland City Hall and the State Capitol may portend well for Oakland’s chances to get either an A’s ballpark or Raiders stadium built. Or maybe not.

First up, newly hired Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana, late of San Jose, made two key hires in poaching SJ Finance Director Scott Johnson and SF Redevelopment head Fred Blackwell to be Assistant City Administrators, each with different roles. Johnson will be tasked with the responsibilities you’d normally consider as part of a city manager/administrator role, such as finance/budget and labor relations. Meanwhile, Blackwell will be covering a redevelopment-oriented role. Scuttlebutt is that CEDA head Walter Cohen may be on his way out amidst “major changes” there. Could CEDA and ORA be headed for big time restructuring? It would make sense if they want to deal with next year’s budget deficit early. That shouldn’t mean bad things for the Victory Court EIR or the Raiders project since they’re already in the pipeline. It probably means there will be fewer resources for planning and future projects, both short and long-term.

Up in Cowtown, yet another bill (actually two) designed to bypass the CEQA process has made it through the Legislature. SB 292 (D-Padilla, San Fernando Valley) limits potential legal actions against LA Stadium/Farmers Field EIR by pushing challenges up to the State Court of Appeal, where cases could be expedited more quickly. This is important because it could save several months, maybe even a year by offering this kind of protection. The actual EIR review process will not be impacted in a major way, only the method for dealing with legal challenges. SB 292 only protects the Farmers Field project, so it isn’t helpful for either Oakland project, or others with already certified EIRs.

A companion bill, AB 900 (D-Steinberg, Los Angeles), could help Oakland. Initially meant as a companion for SB 292, AB 900 expands its coverage to large projects worth $100 million or more. Naturally, that would include any major stadium or arena project throughout the state, including either Oakland stadium, the Kings’ downtown arena in Sacramento, and others. AB 900 actually sets a time limit of 175 days for the Court of Appeal to issue a decision on any affected project after a party files a petition challenging said project. AB 900 will not become law unless SB 292 also is signed into law, so at this point everything rests with Governor Brown, on whose desk the two bills sit.

Brown may be of two minds on the bills. On one hand, he can’t be in love with the Legislature for flat out denying him on a multitude of tax extension requests, though he may be putting the blame on Republicans instead of his own party. And while he’s no proponent of stadium projects, in the case of these two bills there are no traditional public sources of funding being tapped, so he may be a little more amenable to signing these bills than he would for other deals. We’ll see shortly.

08.30.11
by

News for 8/30/11

There’s a little back-and-forth between the Chargers and a LA-based blogger who has concluded that AEG is buying 96% of the team from the Spanos family, with the intent of moving the franchise to a new downtown LA stadium. Chargers spokesperson Mark Fabiani has said unequivocally that the team will not be sold.

Tim Kawakami has done some back-of-the-envelope numbers on financing for the 49ers stadium and has come up with many of the same conclusions written here a year ago.

Chron sports editor Al Saracevic reports on a new parking study commissioned by a SF Planning Commissioner takes issue with the 49ers stadium EIR’s assessment that parking inventory will be “equal to or superior to any in the NFL.” Considering the way this new study was derived, the results have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t good points. I’m absolutely certain that tailgating, of the kind Niner fans currently experience at the ‘Stick, will be practically extinct. It’ll be largely replaced by team-sponsored fan zones and other tailgating facsimiles.

BANG is asking fans to submit suggestions as to how the Raiders can increase attendance in Oakland. Send responses to turn2@angnewspapers.com or ccnsports@bayareanewsgroup.com.

A fan fell down a stairwell at Rangers Ballpark on Saturday. The unidentified 24 year-old man was knocked unconscious by the fall and remains in a local hospital.

I want take this opportunity to address something discussed in the last comments thread. There’s an opinion – generally espoused by Rick Tittle – that the A’s should spend money on the Coliseum to make things a little more fan friendly. Tittle frequently cites the investment made by Peter Magowan when he assumed control of the Giants as a good example. It sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t explain how this would work. Let’s get a few facts out of the way regarding what the Giants did:

  • The Giants spent $5 million in 1994 to add new LF bleachers, field boxes, the outfield fence, and the out-of-town scoreboard above the RF pavilion.
  • The money also went toward replacing the dirt warning track with the rubberized “tartan” surface. After all, you can’t have high rollers in field boxes stepping on dirt to reach their seats, or have wind-blown dust in their eyes.
  • In 2011 dollars, the inflation-adjusted value would be $8 million or less.

We’ve talked a lot about what it would take to spruce up the Coli, even to the point of fans initiating the effort since we can’t expect the A’s, Raiders, or Coliseum Authority to do it. We’ve heard that the Coliseum Authority may be replacing the obsolete scoreboard system, which is a good and necessary move. However, there aren’t many other changes that could be made that wouldn’t adversely impact either the A’s or the Raiders. Consider this:

  • I’ve suggested in the past that the best way to expand the lower concourse is to take out the last 3-4 rows of the field level seats and make new platforms for wheelchair seating areas and standing room sections. Doing this would remove 3,000+ seats, which would drop the Coliseum’s capacity below 60,000, below NFL guidelines. I can’t imagine either the Raiders or the NFL going for that, even if the Raiders don’t routinely sell out the joint.
  • The A’s can’t add more seats on the field because space is taken by the dugouts, the existing field boxes, the rolled up field tarp, and the bullpens.
  • The A’s can’t reduce foul territory by reconfiguring the lower deck without major engineering and construction challenges.
  • The Coliseum does actually have some modern amenities, such as the West Side Club and the Diamond Level seats.
  • As much as people complain about the troughs in the men’s restrooms, the decision to keep those in place was made in 1995. Have you ever noticed that the troughs have those sensors above that can tell when you’re finished and then flush? That’s the extent of change in the original restrooms.
  • It’s possible that the A’s could invest in expanding the clubhouse facilities, but I don’t know what complexities lie in attempting that.

Now let’s say that you own the A’s, and like what Magowan did 17 years ago, you’d like to spend $8 million, no, up to $10 million on the Coliseum to improve the experience. Take the scoreboards off the table. What would you improve? Do you have any idea how much it would cost? Is there a decent chance you’d recoup that investment? One thing to keep in mind is that when Wally Haas sunk money into the Coliseum, he was eventually paid back by the Coliseum Commission. He eventually saw greater revenues during the Bash Brothers era, but was unable to sustain that in the long run. Many of the current deficiencies with the Coliseum can’t and won’t be addressed by quick fixes.

Before you chime in, read this ESPN article about the A’s and their relationship with the Coliseum by Mark Kreidler, one of the “Rise Guys” brought in from Sacramento a month ago. Then look at the date. Some things never change.