Category Archives: Football

08.22.11
by

Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting

Actually, it isn’t.

Tim Kawakami, Gwen Knapp, and Scott Ostler have all written reaction pieces to the violence at the 49ers-Raiders game at the ‘Stick on Saturday night. They and national writers are waxing societal on the incident, yet they are all missing the forest for the trees in their analyses. It really all comes down to two things:

  • It was a Raiders-49ers game.
  • The game was played on Saturday night.

When the Raiders came back to Oakland, there would be occasional warnings about behavior and violence for Sunday or Monday night games, especially if they were “Broncos” or “Chiefs” week. Those 5 PM starts allow for full daydrinking sessions (which are hard work), which can lead to an unstable atmosphere once people are allowed into the stadium. A fully marinated jerk who can’t hold his liquor may be friendlier or more hostile. Everyone’s different. For Sunday and Monday night games, a guy has to think about the next day’s work. In my youth I’ve gone into work with a hangover a few times, but at least I had to consider the potential consequences. Usually it meant I held back on that extra beer or shot, and that was enough. Not everyone is going to have the conscience kick in at the right moment. Still, having that lingering in the back of one’s mind helps a lot of people.

By putting the game on Saturday night, the teams and the NFL gave the jerks carte blanche to act however they pleased. A full day of tailgating or partying (one assailant may have come on a party bus) with no consequences to think about for the next day is exactly the kind of atmosphere needed to set off what occurred at the ‘Stick. Maybe there was a gang-related factor. Or maybe it’s because both teams are mediocre. Whatever the case, there’s no doubt in my mind that a few assholes having a few extra beverages turned an already tense (even though it shouldn’t be) game into a powderkeg.

In the Midwest and on the East Coast, this problem doesn’t occur nearly as often. It could be because they can hold their liquor better. I’d like to think it has to do with the start times of the games. We are so used to 10 AM and 1 PM starts here that a 5 PM (or later) start is too much for the system to take. In Chicago or Dallas, the late game means a 3 PM start. In Philadelphia or New York, SNF/MNF starts after 8 PM locally. They’re used to it. They pace themselves. We in the Bay Area may have access to some of the greatest beer and wine on the face of the earth, but we sure can’t handle it correctly if this incident is any indicator.

Because of the actions a few there’s a good chance that the NFL, in its reactionary turn towards safety this season, will disallow future 49er-Raider preseason games. Why risk another PR nightmare? However, they can’t stop the two teams from playing each other once every four years during the regular season. They might be able to put in metal detectors in at the stadium gates, but they’re not going to be able to search every car for weapons. Police state measures are impractical, especially at the emergency management nightmare that is Candlestick Point (poor access).

Now let’s assume that the 49ers and Raiders share a Santa Clara stadium. This incident will only confirm misgivings by many locals in the immediate area – especially about Raiders fans even though it may be unfair. It’s likely that the tailgating scene will be limited due to a lack of space and facilities. That won’t stop an incident from occurring at the Bennigan’s down the road from the stadium, where idiots in party buses could come into conflict. A 1 PM start just might rein things in enough that the potential for a conflict is significantly less. The crazy thing to me is that both teams’ management should have seen this coming a mile away and didn’t adjust accordingly. Did they schedule the 5 PM start just to sell as many tickets as possible for a preseason game? The place was half-full. Whatever the motivation, both teams and the league have a lot of explaining to do, have had plenty of precedent to plan accordingly. No amount of defending fans against stereotyping is going to help. It happened. Fix it or it will happen again, and much sooner than can be imagined.

07.31.11
by

News for 7/31/11

No, this is not the big reveal. That’s coming in a few hours. Relax. I’m only putting up this post to cover some news items of interest.

Lew Wolff is the first owner to publicly call for Frank McCourt’s ouster.

Wolff said he did not speak out as a way to curry favor with Selig, his fraternity brother at the University of Wisconsin, who has kept the A’s waiting more than two years for a decision on a proposed move to San Jose. Wolff said no one — including Selig — had asked him to speak out and said he had no interest in buying the Dodgers.

I don’t get the sense that Wolff wants to deal with the mess that is the Dodgers. At this point, he’s a lot more like Murtaugh than Riggs. Added – At Biz of Baseball, Maury Brown traced back the chronology of McCourt buying the Dodgers. As always, the truth is more complicated than convenient.

The San Diego Chargers released an “update” on how their stadium campaign is going. For now, they continue to focus on a downtown SD site near the Convention Center and PETCO Park. They also have a very interesting response to a question about the death of redevelopment.

You’ve stated that recently-passed California redevelopment law changes may still undergo a legal process before they’re set in stone. If the legislation remains unchanged, how does it affect your efforts?

Assuming that the California Supreme Court does not invalidate the new redevelopment laws, the changes will impact our efforts in the following ways:

(1) The City of San Diego will not have available redevelopment money until sometime into the next decade – perhaps as late as 2024 or 2025. So we can no longer count on any immediate redevelopment funding for our project.

(2) Therefore, we now need to find alternative sources of funding. One idea that is getting some traction is the creation of a new Sports and Entertainment District that would tie closely into the existing Convention Center – and perhaps become part of the proposed Convention Center expansion. This sort of District could give us access to funding sources that are now not available for a simple stand-alone pro football stadium.

(3) Finally, we are exploring ways to bridge the gap between when stadium funding would be necessary and the time when redevelopment funding would be available in the next decade. It may be possible, with the cooperation of other government entities in the region, to bond against the future redevelopment revenues so that stadium construction can begin before the actual redevelopment dollars are available. This option increases the cost of the project, but such cost increases may be unavoidable in light of the recent state law changes.

Sounds a lot they’re using the 49ers sales pitch, though the ability to use the Q site as financial backing for the new stadium seems questionable at best.

Montreal interests want MLB back in town. They’ll need a comprehensive ballpark plan before anyone pays attention, unless they want to be used as a stalking horse. BTW – a $60 million payroll could be supported? Any team nowadays should be able to support $60-70 million without blinking an eye thanks to revenue sharing.

We may have been incredulous at the prospect of building two ballparks in Omaha – one for AAA ball and one for the CWS. Now it appears that a valid reason has surfaced for the separation of teams: one of the ballparks just had to have circus rides for kids and a big bar for the adults.

95.7 Sports Radio relaunches Monday at 6 AM as 95.7 The Game. The hosts are:

  • 6-10 AM – The Rise Guys (Whitey Gleason, Mark Kreidler, Dan Dibley) come from Sacramento
  • 10 AM-2 PM – The Wheelhouse with John Lund (Lund is from Portland)
  • 2 PM-6 PM – The Drive with Brandon Tierney and Eric Davis (Tierney was on NY’s ESPN 1050, Davis was the All-Pro ex-49er cornerback)
  • 6-10 PM – The Chris Townsend Show (coincides with baseball during the season, includes his pre/postgame duties on weekdays)
  • Weekends – Rick Tittle will be handling pre/postgame for the A’s on weekends.

According to Darren Rovell, the Versus network will be re-branded NBC Sports next January. Yawn.

Thanks for your patience on the big reveal. I’m still finding things that need tweaking so I’ve needed every hour.

07.26.11
by

New NFL CBA outlines “stadium credits”

While the mad scramble to cut, sign, and trade players happens this week, a clearer picture of stadium financing has also emerged. Last week, Tim Kawakami wrote about so-called stadium credits that would be available for cities that embarked on building new venues. Now, thanks to further digging by the Chronicle’s Kevin Lynch and by Niners Nation, the mechanism makes a lot more sense.

In the previous CBA, owners took $1 billion off the top for stadium expenses. This time, the players wanted a piece of the whole pie. To make that happen, they had to agree to share the burden of stadium construction costs. That means cutting their share of the new revenue pie from 50% to 47-48%. Up to 1.5% of total revenue will be set aside as a credit for new stadia. If the total revenue for the 2011 season were $9 billion, the credit would be worth around $135 million per year.

The credit is much like a tax credit a person would get for buying an electric car. It’s only available once the vehicle is purchased. Along those lines, the stadium credit would only be available once a stadium broke ground.

It’s important to note that the credit is league-wide. It’s also meant to cover loans much like the G-3 program did under the past CBAs. For the 49ers, the credit reflects basically the expected amount they’d get from a league loan. A similar amount would also be available to the Raiders. While it’s a big, reassuring step for the 49ers, all it really does is erase the uncertainty surrounding stadium financing going into the CBA negotiations. There’s still a big gap that needs to be covered, and I don’t think it gets covered without the Raiders being as committed to Santa Clara as they can possibly be.

Update 12:39 PM – Tim Kawakami has more from a discussion with Jed York.

07.25.11
by

CBA Talk: The impact of the NFL CBA on MLB

While the media has been vigilant in its reporting of the NFL collective bargaining travails (sometimes to its detriment), reporting on the NBA has been scarce for the first month of the hoops lockout. And unless you asked around, you’d have every right to think that MLB’s own CBA was not expiring after this season ends.

All of the leagues and players unions like to think they have the best deals for their constituents, and are generally immune to effects from the deals struck by rival leagues. However, it’s clear now that the NHL CBA, struck in 2005 after the loss of an entire season, has shifted the landscape for the NFL and will do so in even an greater fashion to the NBA. Salary rollbacks and harder salary caps are the rule of the day now, with the economic downturn providing significant ammunition to the leagues. The pendulum has swung back, though it’s thought that when the NHL redoes its CBA after next season, a market correction towards labor will be due.

MLB remains on a different plane due to its lack of a salary cap and extensive revenue sharing. The “guaranteed share” measuring stick used by the other three leagues to determine what is fair for the players doesn’t exist in baseball, and it’s safe to say that it won’t for a long time. As long as the biggest stars keep getting nine-figure deals in free agency, MLBPA is perfectly content with the cost controls currently in place (service time + arbitration for young players).

That brings the comparison between the NFL and MLB down to one key item: the length of the agreement. MLB has usually done 4-6 year deals to allow for economic shifts – especially among individual teams. The NFL just blazed a trail by putting together a 10-year deal with no early opt-out by either signatory. Will Selig or the owners push for a longer deal? MLB is not as dependent on national TV money as the other leagues. Yet all of the network deals (Fox, ESPN, TBS) expire after the 2013 season. With networks pushing for more “sure things” in terms of programming, it’s not hard to see MLB trying to get up to 10 years out of each contract if they can.

Generally, leagues try to have some amount of overlap among the agreements with players, networks, merchandisers, etc. That way they don’t have to follow up one length negotiation with another. If MLB/Selig are influenced to push things out a little, it could mean that the next CBA could end anywhere from 2018 to 2021. If not, the CBA will probably expire in 2016 or 2017. Either way, there should be some kind of resolution to the A’s and Rays’ stadium situations. If not, well, I give up.

07.20.11
by

49ers, Raiders put heads together on stadium

The Chronicle’s Raiders beat writer Vittorio Tafur has a pretty big scoop: the Raiders and 49ers have been in talks about sharing a future Bay Area stadium. Tafur goes on to mention where the Niners are regarding the Santa Clara stadium concept, but mentions nothing about the new Coliseum proposal for the Raiders. At this point it makes the most sense to consider Santa Clara Plan A simply due to the work that has already been done to date. The Coliseum is still in its initial study phase. Speaking of which, as much as I harp on Oakland rushing through the Victory Court EIR process, the new Coliseum was supposed to have its EIR completed in as little as 15 months. Yet here we are, about 9-10 months in, and not a peep.

Fortunately for both teams, the NFL has taken their situations into account and may be ready to lend them a hand. Tim Kawakami notes that as part of the new CBA, the Bay Area has been identified as a place that could receive a loan from the NFL for stadium building.

It’s complicated, though. The CBA designates “stadium credits” for three locations — Los Angeles and presumably the Bay Area are two of them — but not specific teams, the source said.

The “credits” are a precursor to the NFL setting up a formal stadium-loan program, another league source said Tuesday. So, yes, the Raiders could be involved in anything the 49ers try to do, possibly in a shared-stadium venture, as the NFL has encouraged for years.

That isn’t ideal for the Yorks, of course. But at least they know the money could be there, and that means they can keep churning toward their end goal.

Without the NFL loan option, the churning would have been mostly over right here and now.

Initially, a big sticking point in the CBA negotiations was the NFL’s protection of funds for stadia, previously known as the G-3 loan program. The players wanted a piece of the entire pie. While ratification hasn’t been completed, it looks like the players will get a piece of the entire revenue pie, albeit a smaller percentage than what was prescribed in previous CBAs (60% of a smaller pie). Now that it appears that a successor to G-3 is part of the possibly 10-year deal, the prospects should be looking up for the 49ers in terms of getting their funding.

Now let’s take this a step further. Should Santa Clara be the final site for both teams (with the Raiders signing a long-term lease), that should presumably open up the Coliseum for the A’s, right? Yes and No. True, the tenant that destroyed the Coliseum for the A’s would be gone, but they’d be leaving behind $100 million in debt service for Oakland and Alameda County to pay for. There’s no chance that the A’s or MLB will bite on paying off that debt, yet the city and county would need to figure out a way to service it somehow. That could pave the way for the reuse option I drew up last year, but that’s a risky proposition in and of itself. Any reuse of the old Coliseum would require new revenue bonds from the Authority, and I doubt it would politically popular unless it was true slam dunk proposal. Plus there’d be the stink of the Raiders coming back less than 20 years earlier, not selling the place out as advertised, destroying the Coliseum for the A’s, successfully suing Oakland/Alameda County, then negotiating an early end to their stay and finally leaving again.

Finally, there’s A’s ownership’s role in this. Surely, they’d much rather be in control of their situation instead of picking up other teams’ scraps. Revenue generation will be limited at the Coliseum, and the market for ancillary development around the Coliseum is weak. Moreover, redevelopment’s death takes with it any project money for the area, as noted in Oakland’s declaration of support for the Monday lawsuit. The A’s will be funding a greater percentage of their venue privately than either football team, so they should have more say in where they go. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, you can’t always get what you want.

06.29.11
by

Onus

Update 4:50 PM – The League of California Cities, a redevelopment and city lobbying group, is going straight to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of the new laws.

Update 2:40 PM – Governor Brown has signed the twin kill redevelopment bills.

Reminder: Lew Wolff will be on The Chris Townsend Show (95.7 FM) at 5:30 PM today.

At the end of Howard Bryant’s first column on the state of the A’s, it might have been easy to lose track of something Lew Wolff said.

Though the clock is ticking on the A’s, sources also say the committee has not expressed any time pressure to present Selig of its findings.

“That’s very true,” Wolff said. “The pressure isn’t on them. It’s on me.”

Starting today, the pressure will definitely be on Wolff – despite the fact that this pressure will come from circumstances beyond his control. At the Capitol, Republicans briefly delayed the inevitable passage of the budget, which was constructed from a combination of realignment and suspect revenue projections. The final package includes the two redevelopment bills (one to kill, one for ransom/rebirth) that were passed by the legislature two weeks ago. Cities throughout the state are lawyering up, though it’s hard to see what settlement could arise since any compromise on the state’s part would have consequences for the budget.

Legal challenges or not, all cities have to deal with the repercussions of the budget passage. Redevelopment advocates have called the twin bills little more than an extortion scheme to allow them to continue to work, and they’re not wrong. As mentioned last Tuesday, here are the amounts that would have to be paid for cities and counties to keep their RDA’s functional:

  • Alameda County: $7.7 million
  • Fremont: $9 million
  • Oakland: $39.7 million
  • San Diego: $69.8 million
  • San Francisco: $24.6 million
  • San Jose: $47.6 million
  • Santa Clara: $11.4 million

The figures are the extortion amounts. See how the Oakland amount is nearly as high as the San Jose amount even though it has less than half the population? That’s because so much land in Oakland (most of the flats) is in one redevelopment zone or another. Oakland North reports that the ransom payment won’t be factored into whatever budget is passed by the City of Oakland, which is understandable since it’s such a recent happening. As of this writing, Oakland is still choosing one of several budget proposals to approve, with the tough battle to gain union concessions won by Mayor Jean Quan. For Oakland, the issue with redevelopment becomes a matter of what they’ll be allowed to do once October 1 hits. Unlike San Jose, Oakland hasn’t gone to the trouble of winding down ORA’s activities, which makes extracting ORA from City Hall difficult. Currently, 17 police officers have their salaries paid by ORA, as well as half the salaries of the mayor and city council (who serve on the ORA board). As they scramble to figure out how some of those needs will be met, it’s not hard to see how actual projects which haven’t started in earnest could fall by the wayside.

Worse, not operating a RDA doesn’t mean that the state won’t get its pound of flesh. It’ll still entitled to the $40 million, only it gets to decide at a later point how it will extract the money from the city. If a city decides it can “play ball” it can pay the vig this year and a smaller amount for next three years, and whatever’s leftover can be used for RDA uses by a successor agency, or as I called it previously, “Son of RDA”. If a city decides it can’t play ball, a successor agency will be created for them, much the same way a defendant can get a court-appointed public defender. That agency’s sole purpose will be to tally up and distribute tax increment as it comes in, none going to new projects. Most importantly, in the can’t-play-ball scenario cities won’t be able to issue new debt. That’s a killer for Oakland, which was counting on being able to tap into new bonds to pay for some of the Victory Court project (land/infrastructure) cost. It’s even more important now that ORA had to absorb some of the city’s budgetary cost by acquiring HJKCC. Without that ability to issue new debt, Oakland’s liable to say, at “Our hands are tied, sorry we couldn’t do more.” And they’d be perfectly within their rights to do so. Thanks for killing the A’s again, Governor Moonbeam.

Then again, there may be a loophole, one that some of the largest RDA’s have been looking to exploit – and one that may have the biggest legal test. When Oakland initiated $100 million in property transfers from ORA back to the city two weeks ago, my response was, “What took so long?” Los Angeles transferred $1 billion worth of assets in a similar fashion in January. While these transfers may have occurred before the 2011-12 fiscal year begins, language written into ABX 26, the redevelopment killing bill, allows state-appointed auditors to determine if any transactions done January 1, 2011 or later (effectively after Brown took office) to be reviewed. What that means for those assets is anyone’s guess at this point, and probably will be the focus of more legal wrangling should the state start looking to liquidate assets to get its revenue.

There’s also the case of San Jose’s newly and hastily created SJ Diridon Development Authority. All thats missing from the name is “Re”. The whole affair seems like an overreaction to Brown, though there may be some hidden wisdom in there somewhere. Regardless of whether work is done through the skeleton crew at SJRA or SJDDA, at some point San Jose will also have to decide if it wants to pay to play. Recently, Mayor Chuck Reed and Lew Wolff have been adamant that they will find the necessary funds to cover the rest of the ballpark land acquisition and infrastructure change, $27+ million total. However, San Jose will also have to pay its $47 million soon if they want to be clear of the state’s reach. That would preclude merely piecemealing the remaining land sales/buys, as they have suggested. Instead, the onus may be on Wolff to deliver on the $89 million price of the Airport West (Earthquakes Stadium) land renegotiated last December. That money isn’t due until 2015, yet here we are with pushed up deadlines thanks to the death of redevelopment. $89 million would provide enough cash for SJ to complete its work and fund other infrastructure in the area it wants to be known as Silicon Valley’s Times Square (I thought it was Grand Central?).

Soon, a coalition of the ten largest cities in the state (including SF, SJ, and Oakland) will put together a lawsuit to vigorously challenge Brown’s redevelopment pay-to-play-or-die scheme. Their case is supported by the passage of Proposition 22 last November, which prohibits state-based redirects of property taxes. Legal murkiness started during the gubernatorial transition when Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown signed off on declaring a fiscal state of emergency, which set the framework for the redevelopment reform bills. Which has greater precedence, a new law or an even newer declared state of emergency? That’s what the courts will have to decide.

06.21.11
by

News for 6/21/11

The NFL and NBA are going hot and heavy with CBA discussions.

  • Latest proposal from the NFL (which has yet to be voted on by the owners) would guarantee a straight 48% share to the players, and would create a system in which all teams’ payrolls would approach the salary cap amount every year. The straight percentage is different from the previous system, which had the teams take $1 billion off the top for stadium expenses.
  • The NBA is proposing a “flex cap” which has a salary floor, max, and a sort of “supermax.” Previously, that upper limit was the luxury tax threshold, which if breached would require a dollar-for-dollar tax on additional payroll. The players consider the as-yet-not-enumerated upper limit a hard cap, since it provides a payroll ceiling. The two sides are early in their discussions.

Governor Brown is expected to announce an alternative to the budget he vetoed last week. Plans may include a revised (or not) take on redevelopment.

The California Redevelopment Association released a spreadsheet detailing the amounts that would have to be paid by various redevelopment agencies if AB 26 and 27 were signed into law by Brown:

  • Alameda County:  $7.7 million
  • Fremont:  $9 million
  • Oakland:  $39.7 million
  • San Diego:  $69.8 million
  • San Francisco:  $24.6 million
  • San Jose:  $47.6 million
  • Santa Clara:  $11.4 million

Remember that if the cities are not able to make these payments, they would not be able to issue additional bonds or otherwise acquire debt.

As initially reported by Rich Lieberman, KTRB is switching to a Spanish sports radio format, courtesy of ESPN Deportes. Once fresh capital is put into transmitter maintenance and facilities, I’d expect the 50,000-watt station to go after the… Giants. The Giants have Spanish broadcasts split between a 5 kW station in Pittsburg and a 10kW station in SF that drops to 500 W after sunset. Assuming the station got enough care and feeding, it could be a formidable player.

 

06.19.11
by

Sorry Harold Camping, armageddon is actually in 2014

I’m amused reading Ray Ratto’s Twitter feed this morning. He’s fielding questions about the A’s stadium situation, perhaps in response to Chronicle Sports Editor Al Saracevic’s column on the front page of the Sporting Green today (paper/iPad app only until Tuesday). Ratto’s staying consistent in his belief that the Wolff/Fisher group doesn’t have the money to build in San Jose, making it the only reason the move hasn’t happened. As far as I can tell he’s the only media guy who has this particular opinion, though that shouldn’t discount it. It’s simply one of many takes on the subject.

Saracevic laments the possible loss of all three teams currently playing at the Coliseum. The A’s would leave for San Jose or Las Vegas (we’ve gone over that). The Raiders would be lured south to Los Angeles again, whereas the Warriors would head back over the bridge to San Francisco. The 49ers deal in Santa Clara will fall apart, forcing the team to work with SF again. The column is mostly prognostication without much depth, so like any opinion (including mine), take it with a grain of salt.

Howard Bryant mistakenly claimed that the A’s lease runs out after the 2012. In actuality, they could leave after the 2012 if they had a place to play. Since they won’t, they’ll be playing at the Coliseum through their last extension year, 2013. The Raiders’ lease also ends following the 2013 season. What happens in 2014? Jeffrey, Doug Boxer, and I puzzled over that question a few weeks ago. It’s been brought up in the comments with greater frequency recently.

With multiple tenants comes moving parts for stadium deals. When the Raiders sat down with the Coliseum Authority and hammered out their new stadium plan, the assumption was that the A’s would leave after the 2013 season for either downtown Oakland or San Jose. We’re now at the point were no permanent new home could be opened until 2015 at the earliest in either city due to the political process.

Oakland has 50% power in the Coliseum Authority relationship, and other than rejecting Lew Wolff’s most recent request for a lease extension, the city tends to rubber-stamp whatever the Authority does. By supporting what will probably be a $1 billion stadium at the Coliseum complex (plus carried over debt from the old Coliseum), nearly half a billion for Victory Court, and silently pushing for a new Oakland-friendly owner to take over should Wolff/Fisher give up the San Jose project completely due to frustration, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. Honestly, who could blame them? No private interests have ever invested a combined $2 billion in Oakland in this manner.

The harsh reality is Oakland will be fortunate to get $500 million in these economic times. (So would San Jose.) Both the A’s and Raiders projects will require varying amounts of redevelopment money, which as I’ve written several times, is near extinction. These projects have become much riskier and harder to pull off than ever before. It might be best if Oakland were to focus on one project it can really do well, instead of two in which having fewer resources available for both makes it more likely to half-ass both. The Raiders have a leg up in that the Coliseum Authority has its own ability to raise bonds, and with a few changes to the city charter could be given redevelopment powers over the complex. That isn’t possible at Victory Court, since Oakland is carrying the burden alone. Eventually, Oakland and the Authority are gonna have to make a decision about who to extend, whether for one year or several. Given their track record, it looks more likely that someone or something will make the decision for them.

As for the A’s, 2014 is a particularly dicey situation. Other than AT&T Park, there is no MLB-ready facility in the Bay Area if the Coli were taken away (natch). I went to a San Jose Giants game last week and tried to envision it with 10,000 extra seats so that it could host some MLB games. It didn’t work. I suppose Wolff could build a temporary facility alongside the Quakes stadium at Airport West and move some of the materials over when the time comes, but it seems like a logistical nightmare. If Bud Selig can’t convince the Coliseum Authority to re-up with the A’s for one year, we may see the A’s in some kind of yearlong barnstorming tour, a la the 2004 Expos.

05.16.11
by

News for 5/16/11

The Houston Astros and current owner Drayton McLane have announced that the team is being sold to Houston businessman Jim Crane for $680 million. Approval should take 30-60 days. Among the hangups were discussions over the Astros’ share of a new regional sports network to be shared with the Houston Rockets.

The Maloofs have agreed to share the Sacramento Kings’ financial data with pro-arena interests in the Capitol. This is a departure from other teams in other leagues who are generally reticent to share such data. As part of ongoing CBA discussions, owners have similarly shared data with the players’ union.

George Vukasin, Jr. of Peerless Coffee alerted me to this editorial in the Trib about eminent domain. A bill passed in 2007 tightens controls over how eminent doman can used to the point that “blight” has to be more clearly defined than it has in the past. Both Oakland and San Jose could be affected by these restrictions enough that land acquisitions could be further delayed or even stopped altogether.

Sacramento’s Matthew Mahood was named CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce. As for whether this will make a difference for San Jose’s pursuit of the A’s, Mayor Chuck Reed said this:

“The issue of the A’s stadium is way beyond what the chamber president can do,” Mayor Chuck Reed said. “It’s all between Lew (Wolff) and Major League Baseball.”

April’s radio ratings are scheduled for release today. We’ll get to see how the KBWF and KTRB shakeups have affected the Bay Area’s sports radio landscape. Update 2:17 PM – And they’re out.

As long as KBWF’s only permanent host is Chris Townsend, KBWF will struggle to gain listeners. Hopefully they can get that straightened out in short order. It’s a long game, and if the first goal is to supplant 1050, mission accomplished. I know that many have been clamoring for Rick Tittle to take the 10-1 slot. I’d rather him take a night slot with a more established name at midday.

Update 3:30 PM – ESPN is reporting that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the NFL owners a stay in the lockout, meaning the lockout is still on. They have also asked the owners to submit a new proposal to the players. The two sides are in mediation today and it looks like the session will be extended several hours longer to accommodate the new proposal. Retired players rep Carl Eller said on SportsCenter that progress is being made, which could be very promising. Both the NBA and MLB are watching these talks carefully (NBA moreso).

Added 5/17 11:15 AM – From Baseball San Jose (via LoneStranger), San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed sent a letter to Bud Selig asking for a decision.

Governor Jerry Brown sent out his revised budget proposal for May, which continues to include a call to dismantle all redevelopment agencies despite growing revenues statewide.

05.10.11
by

Dueling Vikings stadium proposals

The competing stadium proposals by the City of Minneapolis and the Vikings/Ramsey County can be summed up this way:

Two football teams are tied 0-0 late in the fourth quarter. Despite the fact that neither team is behind, both offenses decide the best way to score is to repeatedly throw hail mary passes until they have to punt.

The first salvo came from Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. His $895 million retractable dome stadium on the site of the Metrodome would contribute $195 million via the extension of an existing sales tax (0.15%) used for convention center upgrades. If you’re wondering why that percentage looks familiar, that’s because Target Field was partly funded using an 0.15% sales tax hike. That’s not where the similarities end, though, as Rybak is trying to muscle the tax extension through without requiring a vote, just as was done with the ballpark. Apparently funding referenda for sports facilities have no teeth in the Twin Cities. While the replacement stadium was being built, the Vikings would spend three years at TCF Bank Stadium, home of the U. of Minnesota. Oh, and they’d have to spend $400 million on their own plus forego revenues by playing the interim at a smaller stadium.

Naturally, the Vikings aren’t too keen on Rybak’s proposal so today they’ve put out their own. They’re partnering with neighboring Ramsey County (Saint Paul) to build a 200+ acre stadium, training facility, and ancillary development at the abandoned ammunition plant at Arden Hills, 10 miles north of either of the Twin Cities’ downtowns. The Arden Hills plan would cost $1.2 billion, including up to $200 million in new roads and infrastructure. Arden Hills would require a substantially smaller contribution from the team, though they won’t say how much. Ramsey County would pony up its own large amount via its own 0.5% sales tax hike (yikes). Besides the lower contribution, the team would also not have to play at TCF for three years since the Metrodome would remain intact until the new stadium opened.

Not to be forgotten is the last line item in the above table. Somehow Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor got his own renovation of Target Center as part of the Minneapolis deal. The plan would add several club facilities, a club level, and renovate existing concourses. The T-Wolves would pay $60 million to keep Target Center “up-to-date.” I can see why Taylor would want this. The T-Wolves aren’t a big revenue team so every additional bit of new gate and arena revenue can help. But they’re pushing this as if there’s a need for two ultra-modern arenas in a market with population of 3.2 million. That’s more than a bit much.

Both of the stadium proposals have a very short time for approval, two weeks at best. Only one can pass because both require a $300 million state chunk, which is not politically popular at this juncture. If neither passes? I suppose that the sides will have to draw up better plays.