Category Archives: Legal

10.04.13
by

Wendy Thurm’s live tweets from antitrust hearing (Update: link to Fangraphs article)

UPDATE 10/5 9:45 AM – Thurm put out an analysis of the hearing and potential steps forward at Fangraphs. I concur with everything she wrote.

—–

Fangraphs’ Wendy Thurm will have an article on this morning’s hearing soon. For now, this Storify recap will have to do.

My initial thoughts are that Judge Ronald Whyte was very thorough in picking apart arguments from both sides. He raised the lingering issue of standing for the City of San Jose, and openly questioned the purpose and efficacy of MLB’s long-held antitrust exemption. There’s a sense that Whyte may rule to dismiss the lawsuit based on standing, which would force the City to appeal. If the suit is dismissed, Whyte could choose to leave the matter for a state court to decide, or determine that his ruling covers both state and federal courts. A decision could come around the end of the month.

[View the story “San Jose vs. MLB Antitrust Hearing 10/4/2013” on Storify]
10.03.13
by

Hearing and Noise

Got some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that due to some scheduling conflicts I won’t be able to attend Friday’s antitrust hearing in San Jose. Stuff happens. Fortunately, Fangraphs and Sports on Earth’s Wendy Sturm (also a lawyer in a past life) will be covering the hearing. Judge Ronald Whyte isn’t expected to rule from the bench, so we probably won’t hear anything right away. Instead, expect to get top notch coverage from Thurm and from a Merc reporter, either John Woolfolk or legal affairs writer Howard Mintz.

The good news is that I will be doing some additional noise measurements while in the Coliseum for Game 1. Unlike last time, when I used a mixture of smartphones and phone apps, I’ll be mostly using a handheld sound level meter. One thing I noticed about using smartphones is that their sensitivity peaks at around 100 dB, making measurements above that level difficult to capture. That’s why I decided not to publish my findings from the final home game of the regular season.

That doesn’t mean that the data isn’t valuable. I’ll run a phone in parallel for logging purposes, and I have a decent idea about how to adjust measurements based on how the meter and phone/app differ.

This is where you get involved. Some of you have been asking to do your own measurements. If you’re going to attend either or both games, I can use your data. The methodology is simple.

  1. Download either Decibel 10th for iPhone or Noise Meter for Android to your phone. Both are free.
  2. Familiarize yourself with your respective app before the game if you get there early. Both have simple interfaces for turning both monitoring and logging on and off.
  3. Send me a log from the ceremonial first pitch. Both apps have direct email capability. Send the log to newballpark at gmail.com.
  4. Send a log from the first A’s rally with at least two runners on.
  5. Send one from the first A’s home run (if that happens) if you can capture it.
  6. Send one from the end of the game.
  7. In the email containing each log, include information about your location in the Coliseum and your phone (model, operating system, app calibration if you chose to use it).

As much as I’d like to get many different data points, I don’t want to stop you from cheering on the A’s. Making sound measurements is not conducive to multitasking, and rooting loudly or clapping can skew results (since you have a microphone right in front of you). If you can, restrain yourself a little. I know, not fun. That’s why I’m not asking you to log a dozen or twenty points. I’m also not asking to log the entire game, as it will most assuredly will kill your phone’s battery. It comes with the territory.

Throughout the night I will tweet readings I get. If I can I’ll post them in a new blog thread as well. Compare and send me tweets if you like. I hope to compile the results and plot them sometime next week.

If you’re interested in participating, reply in a comment here or via Twitter. I’ll try to give whatever support I can. Have fun, and go A’s!

—

Note: My meter uses A-weighting for its measurements. Your app should as well. If you’re using your own sound meter and it logs, send me the logs if you can. Please note which make and model meter you’re using.

09.27.13
by

Governor Brown signs streamlining bills for Sacramento, SF arena projects

You can’t say Jerry Brown doesn’t like sports now, folks. No sir.

The Governor signed two bills to help with environmental review for separate arena projects championed by the Kings and Warriors. SB 743 (Steinberg, D-Sacramento), for the Kings, made incremental changes to how traffic and parking studies will be done, but fell short of the sort of sweeping CEQA changes desired by Republicans and the Governor. Much of the streamlining in SB 743 benefits the Kings arena specifically by creating a time limit for lawsuits and allowing for eminent domain proceedings while the project goes through the EIR process.

AB 1273 (Ting, D-San Francisco) sought to bypass the State Lands Commission so that approval of the project rested with the City/County of San Francisco. That provision was stricken, neutering the bill rather severely. However, the EIR process now inserts SF and the BCDC to manage the process, allowing them to head off any red flag issues that the SLC could use to deny approval of the project. One key win for the Warriors was the granting of a development permit at Piers 30/32 to the BCDC, which should help advance to process of determining the proper (read: low) amount of parking to be built in concurrence with the arena.

The W’s arena should also benefit from some of the new provisions in SB 743. Piers 30/32 most certainly qualifies most certainly qualifies as an urban infill project, considering its near-transit location and dilapidated state.

Now that the legislative endaround has been successfully executed for both arenas, it’s only a matter of time to get their EIRs completed and approved. Sure, all sorts of challenges will occur in the meantime, but these actions are big if they’re to have any hope of being open by 2016 (Sacramento), or more likely, 2017 (SF). It’s just too bad that the legislature couldn’t properly fix CEQA for everyone.

09.21.13
by

MLB makes final filing for antitrust hearing, includes ML Constitution

Two weeks ago the City of San Jose made its final filing for the October 4 hearing. Now it’s baseball’s turn to file, making its own submission yesterday. Now that we’ve had the initial filings and the rebuttals, we can see how the two sides are formulating their arguments. Yesterday’s filing continues to assert the antitrust exemption over all, that the Piazza decision was flawed, that the City’s interpretation of the Flood case is too broad, and that MLB can take as much time as it likes to determine where the A’s should or shouldn’t relocate.

The big reveal was that a second document accompanied baseball’s reply brief: the MLB Constitution. PDF links are listed below:

In the City’s original complaint, it argued that MLB’s Constitution expired at the end of last year, which I thought preposterous. Baseball had to approve the Astros’ move to the American League, and some covenant had to reflect that. The new Constitution does show the new divisional arrangement, and continues to show the same territorial assignments as the previous one, with no change in language.

San Francisco Giants: City of San Francisco; and San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin Counties in California; provided, however, that with respect to all Major League Clubs, Santa Clara County in California shall also be included;

…

Oakland Athletics: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in California;

If you’re wondering what the shared two-team market definitions look like, here’s an example:

Los Angeles Dodgers: Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties in California; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim franchise in the American League;

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties in California; provided, however, that this territory shall be shared with the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise in the National League;

Even if City’s tactic was simply to get the Constitution out in the open, it’s a good thing. It’s not like they were going to win or lose the case based on this.

One thing to consider is the three-fourths rule commonly cited when it comes to franchise relocation. 3/4ths of the owners (23) need to approve any franchise move, whether it’s 30 miles or 3,000. Just as important is that 3/4ths of the owners are needed to do any number of other changes:

  • Control person owner change (ex: Lew Wolff for the A’s, Larry Baer for the Giants)
  • Franchise termination – some may associate this with contraction
  • Expansion
  • Realignment
  • Revenue sharing changes for individual clubs

Keep in mind that the A’s future could include any or all of the above remedies. Sure, I’m referring to mostly extreme, batshit crazy possibilities, but at this stage, I suppose anything’s possible. If the pro-Oakland folks want to get a new ownership group in or depose Wolff, 3/4ths. Want to contract and expand the team a la the Expos/Nats? 3/4ths. Got a unique way of compensating the Giants for giving up the South Bay or the A’s for giving up the Bay Area altogether? 3/4ths. Commissioner Bud Selig’s is supposedly retiring, so it’s unlikely he’d take on such difficult machinations during his lame duck senioritis period. He took care of a bunch of to-dos like replay and an expanded drug testing program in the last year.

Chances are that Selig’s successor will inherit this mess. If there is some jockeying for the job instead of a Selig “appointment” it could be interesting to see if the A’s and Giants try to lobby for one individual over another.

09.11.13
by

Roger Noll declaration

Economist and Stanford Professor Emeritus Roger Noll made a declaration in support of the City of San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit against Major League Baseball. He also provided a (presumably paid for) analysis of the issues at stake. The following is Professor Noll’s complete statement. A PDF version is available here.

DECLARATION OF EXPERT WITNESS ROGER G. NOLL

1. My name is Roger G. Noll. I reside in Palo Alto, California. I am Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where I am Co-Director of the Program on Regulatory Policy. My educational background includes a B.S. in mathematics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. My complete curriculum vita is attached as Appendix A.

2. My primary area of scholarship is the field of industrial organization economics, which includes antitrust economics and the economics of specific industries. I have taught antitrust economics at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I am the author, co-author, or editor of thirteen books, and the author or co-author of over 300 articles. Many of these publications deal with antitrust economics. I also have published extensively on the economics of sports, including Sports, Jobs and Taxes, co-edited with Andrew Zimbalist, which deals with the economic impact of sports teams and facilities and for which Professor Zimbalist and I wrote a chapter on the implications of the economic impact of teams and facilities for antitrust policy.

3. I have served as a consultant in antitrust litigation, including matters pertaining to sports. I have served as an economic expert for the players’ association in all major U.S. team sports (baseball, basketball, football, hockey, and soccer) on the economic effects of restrictions on competition in markets for the playing services of professional athletes, including testimony at trial in Freeman McNeil, et al., vs. National Football League (U.S. District Court, Minnesota) and John Mackey vs. National Football League (U.S. district Court, Minnesota). In Bernard Parrish, et al., vs. National Football League Players Association (U. S. District Court, Northern District of California) I testified on behalf of the players’ association about the value of licensing rights for retired NFL players.

4. Other cases in which I have testified at trial in recent years are the following:

• In re Application of MobiTV Related to U.S. vs. ASCAP (U.S. District Court, New York City);

• Reggie White, et al., v. NFL: Lockout Insurance & Lockout Loans (U.S. District Court, Minneapolis);

• SmithKlein Beecham d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline vs. Abbott Laboratories (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland);

• Novell vs. Microsoft (U. S. District Court, Salt Lake City);

• DVD CCA vs. Kaleidescape (Superior Court, San Jose); and

• In the Matter of Adjustment of Rates and Terms for Pre-existing Subscription and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (Copyright Royalty Board, Washington, D.C.).

5. In addition to the cases in which I have testified at trial, I have submitted expert reports and/or been deposed in numerous matters. I have also testified before the U.S. Congress on antitrust and sports matters on numerous occasions.

ASSIGNMENT

6. Attorneys for Plaintiffs have asked me to analyze Plaintiffs’ allegations in this matter to determine the economic evidence and analysis that would be used to prove liability in support of their claims. In undertaking this task I have read the Complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2013. I also have read Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 7, 2013. Finally, I have made use of information that has been collected from other public sources and my four decades of research on the economics of sports.

7. The purpose of this Declaration is to provide a preliminary analysis of the economic issues in this litigation before discovery has taken place. Hence, I reserve the right to revise my analysis and amend my conclusions on the basis of new information that has not yet become available. In particular, I understand that this Declaration is being submitted in connection with settling of the pleadings and that I am not being asked to opine on the merits of the claims. I would like to have the benefits of the complete discovery record before reaching my conclusions on the merits.

ANALYSIS

8. The objective of an antitrust economics analysis of liability is to determine whether conduct by Defendants caused harm to the competitive process. Ultimately, harm to the competitive process means harm to consumers, in this case sports fans. My main conclusion is that preventing the Oakland Athletics baseball team from moving to San Jose causes harm to competition because relocating to San Jose would substantially increase the potential fan base and attendance of the team.

9. Major League Baseball (“MLB”) is made up of thirty teams. These teams are economic competitors in many markets, including markets for players, coaches, regional television rights, and product licenses. If teams are geographically close, they also compete for attendance among sports fans in a local area. Presently MLB has local teams that compete for attendance in Baltimore-Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and the Bay Area.

10. Economics research and prior litigation have concluded that each major professional sports league in the U.S., including MLB, possesses market power in the provision of major league games in its sport in North America. Among the ways that MLB exercises its market power is by controlling the number and geographic location of major league baseball teams in North America. MLB has adopted rules that define the “home territory” of each team in the league and that place restrictions on franchise relocation. For now irrelevant historical reasons MLB has placed San Jose in the home territory of the San Francisco Giants, even though a team in San Jose would be less of a direct competitor to the Giants than is a team in Oakland because San Jose is much further than Oakland from the Giants’ home stadium.

11. One domain of competition in MLB as well as other professional sports is competition among cities to attract or to retain a team. Economics research shows that the financial success of a baseball team depends on the economic and demographic characteristics of its home territory, the quality of its home stadium, and the financial terms and other arrangements concerning the stadium. Cities actively compete for baseball teams on the basis of agreements that they offer to a team concerning a home stadium. The alleged anti-competitive conduct in this case is Defendants’ inhibition of competition and restraint of trade through the application of restrictions on team relocation which are preventing the City of San José from competing with the City of Oakland for the Athletics Baseball Club (Athletics).

12. Economists who have studied the location of teams in a league have concluded that in some circumstances a league has a reasonable business justification for restricting relocation. In particular, because the success of a league depends on the financial success of each team, leagues have a valid interest in assuring that each team will enjoy sufficient popularity in its home territory to be financially viable. This pro-competitive justification does not apply to MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to move to the City of San José.

13. San Jose is much more attractive than Oakland as a home location for a baseball team for several reasons. First, San Jose has a much larger population base, and so substantially greater potential home attendance for a local team. Second, San Jose is located in the Silicon Valley, which is the corporate home to many of the world’s leading high technology companies. This feature of San Jose is important because an increasingly important component of the revenue of a major league sports team is the sale of luxury boxes and other reserve seating to corporations, law firms, and wealthy individuals. Third, San Jose has identified and made available to the Athletics a location for a new stadium that will be a substantial improvement over the facility and location where the Athletics currently play. For these reasons San Jose is a much more attractive home territory for the Athletics than Oakland. Moreover, relocation to San Jose is financially attractive to the Athletics precisely because it increases total economic output, which in sports is the number of fans in attendance.

14. Competition in the local market for major league baseball would be enhanced if the Athletics relocate to San José. By increasing the potential revenue of the Athletics, relocation to San Jose would increase the financial incentive of the Athletics to field a team of higher quality. Making the Athletics more competitive would intensify competition between the Athletics and the San Francisco Giants, the other Bay Area major league baseball team.

15. MLB has not yet set forth its complete business justifications for preventing the movement of the Athletics to San Jose, so a full analysis of this issue is not feasible at this time. In antitrust economics, a restriction on competition can be justified only if it is reasonably necessary to achieve a pro-competitive objective, which is defined as an improvement in performance that benefits consumers. Given that San Jose is substantially more economically attractive than Oakland as a home location for the Athletics, the only plausible reason for preventing relocation of the Athletics to San Jose is to protect the Giants from more intense competition from the Athletics.

16. Protecting an incumbent firm from losing business to a more efficient competitor is never a reasonable business justification for a restriction on competition. In this instance, such protection is especially unwarranted. Since moving to their new stadium in downtown San Francisco, the Giants are among the most successful teams in MLB. Indeed, the success of the Giants since relocating to a new and much superior stadium illustrates why the quality and location of a stadium is extremely important to the success of a team. While the Giants will experience more intense competition from the Athletics if the latter move into a much better stadium in San Jose, historical experience with stadium improvements demonstrates that increased attendance at home games of the Athletics will not come at the expense of the Giants, just as the Giants’ improved attendance since relocating to downtown San Francisco has not come primarily at the expense of the Athletics.

I declare that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on September 6, 2013 at Stanford, California.

ROGER G. NOLL

09.07.13
by

In final pre-hearing response, San Jose takes full aim at MLB’s antitrust exemption

Friday was the last day that the City of San Jose had to file a response to MLB’s filing from a month ago. And so they did, as Joe Cotchett went after baseball’s antitrust exemption. He also brought renowned sports economist Roger Noll to back him up.

The thrust of Cotchett’s argument is that the ATE is limited to the reserve clause and goes no further, citing the Flood, Piazza, and Federal Baseball cases. Naturally, that runs counter to MLB’s argument back in August that the exemption was enshrined by virtue of its long standing and couldn’t be changed except by an act of Congress. What view Judge Ronald Whyte takes when the first hearing is held October 4 is unclear. I’m eager to find out.

In addition to the attack on the ATE, Cotchett argues that the motion to dismiss the case should be denied, because the plaintiff’s claim is ” ‘plausible’ in light of basic economic principles.” Now remember that the original claim was that MLB colluded to prevent San Jose’s competitive bid to get the A’s. The case essentially rests on this particular argument. If Judge Whyte believes the argument is plausible, the case moves forward. If not, the City goes back to square one.

MLB claimed in its filing that the San Jose’s assertion that California’s Unfair Competition Law wasn’t violated because it the supposed violation was an antitrust violation, but because of the ATE, there is no violation. San Jose countered Friday that this ignores the UCL’s additional definitions of “unfair”. Historically, state courts have had difficulty properly codifying what “unfair” truly means, making this yet another test. It’s that very test that should push the case forward, according to Cotchett. Moreover, a chronology of actions/non-actions that have led up to this point was provided. They outline the various stalling measures MLB and the Commissioner’s office have taken to prevent a timely decision regarding an A’s relocation to San Jose, including Commissioner Bud Selig asking San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to delay a stadium vote.

Cotchett also brought out California Business and Professions Code section 17204, which especially points out unfair competition against cities whose population is larger than 750,000. Of course, that means the statute only applies to four cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. All other California cities have less than 500k population. Does that mean anything? We’ll see.

Finally, Stanford professor emeritus Roger Noll provided a declaration of support for the lawsuit. While it probably won’t have any material bearing on whether or not the case will go to trial, Noll’s presence could become important as a witness if the case does go to trial. Noll’s quote:

“there is no pro-competitive justification for MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to San José…There is no conceivable economic justification for protecting the market for one of MLB’s most successful teams (the San Francisco Giants) at the expense of one of the MLB’s least successful teams (the Athletics).”

Noll is referring to the teams’ off-field and box office success, not their respective on-field exploits. I’d like to see which sports economists MLB brings out to argue for the preservation of the antitrust exemption. Then again, even if the case goes to trial, it seems more likely that MLB will be forced to make a deal, instead of the alternative of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and threatening the ATE in earnest. Whoever wins, I’m excited for October 4. It’s a step, even if it’s a halting one.

Armchair antitrust experts, have at it.

08.07.13
by

MLB asserts antitrust exemption in filing motion to dismiss San Jose lawsuit

MLB filed a motion to dismiss San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit today. The 32-page filing claims that the City’s only agreement with the A’s is the land option on the Diridon ballpark site, and nothing else. This was to be expected.

Perhaps more interestingly, MLB asserted the very thing being attacked, baseball’s antitrust exemption, in the motion. It didn’t have to do this, yet it did and in the process, kind of rubbed the City’s face in it. From page 13:

To withstand a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must plausibly demonstrate that Defendants committed an act that is “proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.” Id. at 1159. Here, the only independently wrongful act that Plaintiffs have asserted is an antitrust violation. Since Defendants are exempt from antitrust regulation here, there is no “independently wrongful act.”

In addition, MLB says that it is no “stranger” to the relationship between the A’s and San Jose because of baseball’s covenant including the member clubs. One of the key claims is that since San Jose is not a part of MLB, only a city hoping to host a MLB club, the City has no standing. Consider what that message effectively says to all cities: The teams matter, you don’t.

The motion reads as a pretty vigorous defense of MLB’s business practices, and shows that baseball is intent on not allowing those practices to be changed. Plaintiffs will have a chance to respond before the initial hearing, and just like this filing and the initial filing, it promises to be juicy reading.

I’ll let the armchair legal experts sound off in the comments. The best ones will be added to this post.

08.02.13
by

Stand for San Jose launches second lawsuit against City of San Jose

Earlier this week I added a section to the sidebar called Lawsuits so that people could easily find references to the ongoing legal battles among the City of San Jose, MLB, and the Giants. Little did I know at the time that the section would have to be expanded. Yet here we are with now a third lawsuit to keep track of. This time it’s between the same Giants-lawyered astroturf group that filed the first lawsuit, Stand for San Jose, and the City of San Jose.

Santa Clara Superior Court Case 1-13-CV-250372, filed Wednesday, seeks to challenge the transfer of the Diridon ballpark site [thanks John Woolfolk of the Merc] to the Successor Agency (SARA), whose oversight board is composed of San Jose and Santa Clara County representatives. In March, the State Controller ruled that the transfer of the Diridon parcels to the separate Diridon Development Authority was not allowed, which forced the City to hand over the properties to SARA. At the time, SARA had its own objections to the ruling, namely that it felt it had a deal with A’s ownership by virtue of the option inked in November 2011. The Controller ruled that the November deal came after the cutoff date proscribed by AB 1X26, whereas the City said that the date was meaningless. Naturally, the Controller stuck with its original ruling, which led to the June transfer of the land to SARA.

Keep in mind that the land wasn’t transferred or sold to the A’s. It was only moved from one governmental body to another as defined by the new law. The option was signed by the A’s, with the only obligation within the first five years being that the A’s pay a nominal annual fee.

S4SJ’s argument is that the option isn’t valid at all because of the ruling. It’s a strange set of circumstances because in the other lawsuit, S4SJ is challenging the entirety of the ballpark deal on three issues:

  • The EIR was “incomplete” (despite having been certified for two different-sized stadia and with updated traffic studies)
  • The deal would take funds away from schools and city services (hard to argue because per the terms of the AB 1X26, city/county/schools have to be made whole)
  • The deal was done without a public vote (City was dissuaded from holding a referendum by Bud Selig).

Now S4SJ is going after the SARA transfer, but what they’re really after is the option. The option is a basic tenet of San Jose’s lawsuit against MLB, and if S4SJ can disarm that threat the antitrust suit would take a big hit. The argument is that there’s no option because the Controller ruled against the transfer to DDA. But that’s as far as the Controller’s power goes. Once the land ends up in SARA’s hands, it can dispose of it as it sees fit, including to the “late” A’s. The Controller and SARA went back and forth after the final ruling. From the Controller’s final ruling:

The City feels that this finding is “simply form over substance and wastes valuable time, energy and resources to arrive at the same result;” however, the legislation is clear that the oversight board shall have the authority to dispose of all assets and properties of the former redevelopment agency (Health and Safety Code Section 34181 (a)). Any attempt to deny the oversight board its rights would be thwarting the intent of the legislation.

SARA’s argument is that the deal with the A’s was going to happen with either DDA (transfer upheld) or SARA (transfer rejected). Which is exactly what happened. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed telegraphed the strategy at the time. Did the deal not count because the Controller ruled it was late? Is it a deal because of the technicality the City is trying to argue? Or is it a deal regardless?

The real question is, How quickly can S4SJ get a ruling on this? I have no idea how this lawsuit would proceed through the system, especially because it has a related case just starting its trial phase in the fall. S4SJ attorney Ronald Van Buskirk indicates that the two S4SJ lawsuits will be combined, likely creating further delay. Importantly, the new suit names SARA as a party. SARA didn’t exist when the original lawsuit was filed.

Woolfolk notes that the San Jose Giants aren’t a plaintiff/petitioner, which would presumably protect the lawsuit from the discovery actions taken by the City last summer. Still, it’s clear that the SF Giants are behind the whole thing since this move was timed a few weeks after the antitrust lawsuit – just as the S4SJ lawsuit was filed a month after the A’s option deal was struck. At this point, all of the players must have a good idea what moves can and will be played by their counterparts.

Armchair legal experts, have at it.

—–

P.S. – I have a request or two. Please try to stay on topic, and also try to stay away from the usual “XXXX Sucks” type of discourse. If all you’re going to do is vent, I’ll probably delete it. Bite a towel or something.

07.03.13
by

News for 7/3/13

There’s a lot of news during this holiday week. I figured it would be best to drop it all in here. First up, A’s news.

MLB announced today that it has retained John Keker of SF firm Keker & Van Nest to represent baseball in the San Jose antitrust lawsuit. Keker has a long and colorful history as one of the country’s top trial lawyers, and would be a formidable opponent for Joe Cotchett if the suit ever went to trial. Or, as a former partner at KVN, Wendy Thurm (@hangingsliders), put it:

Keker’s first statement about the case description of himself as a frequent defense lawyer is also colorful:

Keker also has his hands full defending Standard & Poor’s in the federal government’s lawsuit over allegedly fraudulent practices. Let the games begin, I say.

Besides MLB announcement, if you were worried that the lawsuit would leave the news cycle, there are new articles from the LA Times and Forbes covering the matter. In other news:

  • Members of the ILWU (Longeshoremen’s Union) are opposing the SSA settlement, which would close Howard Terminal and potentially convert it to a ballpark site. The union’s complaint is that the net effect of the settlement and consolidation is the loss of union jobs. This contention has evidently forced the Port of Oakland to again delay voting on the settlement to July 11.
  • BART’s still on strike. Last night’s announced attendance was 17,273, the smallest crowd since the end of May. Tonight’s a fireworks game with the 4th tomorrow, so crowds should be hefty despite the lack of BART.

—–

Away from the A’s…

  • The City of Glendale, Arizona, approved a 15-year lease deal to further subsidize the Coyotes NHL club, keeping them in town until at least 2018. The team has an out clause after only five years if they demonstrate they’ve lost $50 million over those first five years. In return, the team will be renamed the Arizona Coyotes. While the NHL continues to own the team in the interim until a purchase is finalized by Renaissance Sports & Entertainment, a new arena operator has been found in titan Global Spectrum.
  • Folks in Seattle were following the happenings in Glendale closely and were ready to pounce if no agreement could be made. Now the Emerald City and Chris Hansen are officially 0-for-2 in attempts to lure franchises to Puget Sound.
  • The City of Anaheim and the Angels are jointly funding a study to determine the cost to keep Angel Stadium up-to-date. Initial estimates have the cost to renovate Angel Stadium at $120-150 million. After the Dodgers spent $100 million to renovate clubhouses and scoreboards, I’d be surprised if the Angel Stadium tab was only $150 million.
  • As the cost to build a AAA ballpark in El Paso rises, the new owners of the franchise backed away from giving $12 million in personal guarantees towards the project.
  • Curbed has a neat pictorial retrospective on the various ballparks that have called New York home over the decades.

And a quick announcement: I plan to be in New York for a few days around August 24-25 Labor Day weekend. I’m still locking down the plans. The Yankees are in town that weekend and the Mets prior to that. I’m working to take in games at both ballparks, and some US Open tennis action if I can fit it in. If you’re there at that time, drop me a line (email, Twitter) and we can have a chat and/or take in a game.

06.28.13
by

Oakland’s Port settlement gamble: Short-term pain, long-term gain

The Port of Oakland’s board ended today’s session without a decision on the SSA settlement, pushing the matter to a special session next Tuesday. Thankfully, the Port also released the upcoming meeting agenda, which includes summary of the settlement terms this afternoon, allowing the public to review the settlement.

At no point in the document do the words “Athletics”, “stadium”, or “ballpark” show up. While anyone following recent news could divine Oakland’s purpose for Howard Terminal, no pro sports (or any other development) are associated with it. For now. Instead there’s a pretty level-headed analysis of the pro’s and con’s of settling SSA’s lawsuits against the Port, repurposing Howard Terminal for non-revenue uses, and the broader effects on overall Port operations.

As part of the settlement, SSA would cease operations at Howard Terminal on behalf of Matson, and would move down the harbor to Berths 60-63, where they’d take over for Eagle Marine Services (who chose SSA to succeed them). SSA, which was complaining about higher fees compared to competitors, would starting running the new terminal under the same fee structure as EMS. In exchange for the lower costs, SSA has agreed to drop its lawsuit against the Port.

If Howard Terminal is vacated, the Port assumes that it will lose $10 million per year in revenue, minus any offsetting revenues gained by SSA’s consolidation and costs associated with the lawsuits (I pointed this out last year).

While the settlement is driven by Port’s desire to get rid of the lawsuits while consolidating facilities, the ballpark push looms in the background. There’s no amount of ballpark activity that can pump $10 million per year into the City/Port, but that’s a moot issue since there’s no way a ballpark would be ready anytime in the next four years. The big gamble is what happens to Howard Terminal if MLB doesn’t like the site, or if MLB approves the A’s move to San Jose? What to do with land that has to be regularly monitored that has limited use?

Assuming that the settlement is approved as expected on Tuesday, the City is showing that it’s making an effort towards providing a proper ballpark site away from the Coliseum. That may be just as well, since former Coliseum JPA board member and current Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid said this towards the end of City budget discussions tonight:

Ah, but will Oakland and Alameda County spend many, many more dimes to get Howard Terminal spiffed up?