Category Archives: News

07.10.10
by

OT – The Lebron Show

In an episode of the first season of Mad Men, ambitious account man Pete Campbell finds some potentially damaging information about his boss, Don Draper. Feeling spurned over not being offered the “Head of Account Services” position, Campbell decides to use this information to blackmail Draper into giving him the job. Campbell tries to spin the threat as an opportunity for Draper to see that Campbell truly deserves the position, dismissing the blackmail threat entirely. He even pleads with Draper that he deserves the job, even though it is abundantly clear that he is too green, too spoiled, and far too entitled to have earned it.

That scene took place in a somewhat romanticized version of the early 60’s, when men were men and they drank like fish at work. It’s not hard to see something like that having played out for real in cutthroat Manhattan, during an era when America and Americans were feeling their oats, Ayn Rand style. So it’s not illogical to believe that in roughly 50 years, treachery and egotrips by the spoiled have progressed to the farce seen Thursday at a Boys and Girls Club in wealthy, suburban Greenwich, CT.

Looking back on it now, “The Decision” starring Lebron James was no more than a meant-to-be dramatic climax to an elaborate ruse set up by James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and their respective handlers and agents. There were clues in the interview with Wade and Bosh 24 hours prior, when Bosh was asked about what James would do and Bosh nearly blew the whole thing, laughing as he wished his friend luck. Another hint came when various reporters, trying to sniff out the story, found out that Wade was travelling to various suitor teams as a spy for the Miami Heat, meeting with the other teams to gauge their situations instead of truly making himself available. Then in the final hours before the hourlong farce, stories were unleashed about a full-page ad welcoming the trio in the Miami Herald that was put up and taken down (call it a crossover move), along with rumors about Lebron renting several cabanas on South Beach for his triumphant arrival.

The point of this very long con? To keep the league from thinking the trio’s actions were collusion. It’s one thing for teams to act in a collusive manner, since they toe that line on a regular basis. For three of the game’s best players to do it and believe that they could pull it off is a caper unlike any since the Lufthansa heist – and better, it played out (mostly) publicly. If David Stern had known early on that this was possible, he would’ve put the clamps on it early on. Now that it’s happened, he’ll probably just spin it into some kind of leverage in the NBA’s upcoming collective bargaining sessions.

It used to be that when playing a team sport, you danced with the one who brought you. That meant fealty to a team that drafted you, paid you your first pro salary, and if the team was run correctly, surrounded you with the necessary talent to make your own talent shine. The collective decision of James, Wade, and Bosh was an effective “SCREW YOU” to the system, redefining forever what it means to be a free agent. Not only did the players decide together where they’d play, they have also become their own team general managers in the process. As brilliant as Pat Riley is, he and his staff have been reduced to being accountants, merely clearing cap space for the stars, while the stars are in turn refocusing their efforts on recruiting near-retirement veterans and other castaways to “share the sacrifice for a greater goal.” Defenders point to the fact that James and his cohorts took less money to make the deal happen, but they all will get recompense from Florida’s lack of state income tax and their own early opt-outs in only four years.

It’s ironic that the seed for this collusion germinated at the Olympics in Beijing, where the Redeem Team truly put individual statistics aside to win back the hoops gold medal. At some point between then and Thursday, James decided that he could no longer trust either Cleveland’s management (or another team’s) to risk his prime years wasting away on a team that just fell short of the brass ring. He took the if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em approach, which has disappointed more than a few old-school players and legends. It’s unfortunate that Lebron, sensing his career clock ticking louder with each passing day, chose to compromise instead of carving out his legacy on only his terms. The strange thing is that the compromise is being done to push for multiple championships – and in the NBA that doesn’t mean a mere two or three, but rather five, six, or more – a number that would catapult him into a discussion with the greatest: Russell, Jordan, Magic, Kareem. Bird, and in the future, Kobe.

What’s disappointing is that everyone in pro sports gets to a point where he is presented with a fight-or-flight opportunity, and it’s how he reacts to that situation that establishes his legacy. Lebron’s response was clearly flight. In the other major sports, there are too many dependencies to create this kind of situation frequently. In baseball, a hitter may have 25-35 plate appearances during a series. A quarterback may drop back 40 times in a playoff game. A soccer striker may have only a couple of shots at the goal in a match. In basketball, a scorer will get perhaps 150 field goal attempts per series and easily double or triple the number of possessions.

Strangely, I am more fascinated with the NBA’s offseason machinations than MLB’s. The NBA’s soft cap makes the disparity between haves and have-nots less striking than baseball. Unlike MLB, in the NBA teams can trade just about anything: players, picks, draft rights, even cap exceptions. I love “caponomics” more than I love sabermetrics, which makes me a bit perverse, I know, and this charade has only fed my hunger in a terrible, guilty pleasure manner. Still, I can’t help but be bothered by the idea that what these three players have done has served to reduce competition. These players (yes, Wade and Bosh are both guilty too) have chosen to share the burden, which is admirable in a way, but to not have the will or fortitude to carry the burden on their own for a little longer is more than a little disappointing. In a sport where The Man carries the team and cries out for help when needed, it’s hard to claim that you are The Man when you are, in effect, The Help.

07.06.10
by

Let’s pool money and buy the Rangers

If, unlike me, you have nine figures burning a hole in your pocket, you may be interested in participating in a July 16 auction for the mired-in-bankruptcy Texas Rangers. The neverending saga of the Rangers sale may be finally coming to a close, as the frontrunning Greenberg-Ryan group has its price established at $502 million, with any new auction bids required to be greater by at least $20 million.

The interesting backstory is that a previous suitor may reemerge in the group fronted by Houston trucking magnate Jim Crane, who actually outbid Greenberg-Ryan. From the Dallas Morning News article (link up top):

Lenders also claimed that Houston businessman Jim Crane had been the highest bidder last winter, but that baseball commissioner Bud Selig forbade negotiations with Crane.

Instead of the Rangers’ “pre-packaged” bankruptcy plan sailing smoothly through bankruptcy court in Fort Worth, Bankruptcy Judge Michael Lynn appointed William K. Snyder as the team’s chief restructuring officer. Last week, Snyder recommended a new round of bidding.

If anything, this appears to be a last-ditch attempt to wring out more money to creditors than anything else. The Greenberg-Ryan group’s bid, in combination with $75 million guaranteed by previous owner Hicks Sports Group, would get the number just over the $576 million that is owed.

Though the Rangers are doing well on the field right now, it’s clear that the team is struggling to make ends meet. Capmaker New Era claims that the Rangers are over $100k in arrears, and that the bankruptcy could wipe out the bill. I’ve got a solution: Make the Rangers play without caps for the rest of the season! That’ll go over well during the coming oppressive Texas summer heat (mitigated by the high percentage of night games played).

07.03.10
by

The day has come… for a proxy fight

It’s too bad that per the ML Constitution, teams and owners aren’t allowed to sue each other. They’re not even allowed to have open sniping in the local papers or even a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Instead, we have Bill Neukom sending lawyers down to San Jose to fight for the Giants (big and little). For the A’s, it’s County Assessor Larry Stone penning an op-ed in today’s  edition of San Francisco’s paper.

In Stone’s plea to Neukom to call the dogs off, he mentions that the A’s have proposed their own solution for determining compensation for South Bay territorial rights.

As I understand it, the A’s have agreed that following the opening of a San Jose ballpark, the Giants would have the right to ask Major League Baseball to arbitrate any damages to their fan base or revenue that were caused by the new stadium. Neukom has apparently rejected this fair and simple approach, most likely because projections conducted in a fair manner just might show that the San Jose ballpark would have a positive impact on the orange and black.

Obviously, Neukom would reject such a deal as it doesn’t involve a massive upfront payoff, the kind many believe it would take for the move to happen. However, by continuing to take such an intransigent stance, Neukom risks allowing Bud Selig and his committee to dictate compensation terms. Here’s are the four main tenets I expect to be the framework regarding the committee’s report:

  • The A’s hurt the Giants when they moved to Oakland in 1968 because it split the market in two.
  • The Giants hurt the A’s when they moved to a downtown SF ballpark in 2000 because they suddenly had a new venue that was more accessible to everyone in the Bay Area.
  • Trading the higher population of the East Bay and access to the North Bay for the South Bay’s corporate money and lower population is essentially a wash.
  • San Jose’s progress in terms of getting pieces of a stadium deal in place put it in advantageous position.

That last part is not to say that Oakland isn’t making its own progress as it formally acquired the OFDT site from CEDA, but as long as there’s no EIR or negotiations with private landowners it’s well behind. That said, what would you consider fair  compensation given the four points above? Is it at all clear cut?

06.21.10
by

Rays expand search to entire Tampa Bay region

The writing was on the wall when in March the ABC Coalition recommended looking outside St. Petersburg (PDF) for the Rays’ future home, so it’s not surprising that Rays owner Stuart Sternberg agreed with the opinion in a Monday press conference. Sternberg took it a step further by ruling out downtown St. Pete, and likely St. Pete altogether.

The city is not considered an option due to its low population and lack of convenience. Imagine having the A’s in a city the size of Fremont, only that it’s surrounded on three sides by water. Or a 1/3-size San Francisco. That’s St. Petersburg. Instead, several groups are jockeying for position with possible land deals in the city of Tampa. One wants to build out the Florida State Fairgrounds (doesn’t that sound familiar?). Another wants the Rays downtown. Reports from the local media are as follows:

The SPTimes report adds a bit of intrigue:

Sternberg arrived at City Hall in a silver sport utility vehicle. He entered through a side door, avoiding contact with media. Reporters were kept in the lobby.

About an hour later, he left through a back door with Rays president Matt Silverman.

Foster held his own news conference after Sternberg’s announcement. Foster described their meeting as “very cordial,” and then said he was surprised by Sternberg’s announcement.

“Quite frankly, the content of the press conference was different than my meeting,” he said.

The other sites outside St. Petersburg weren’t covered in his meeting, but they “resonated in the press conference.”

This could get messy.

The Times also has a graphic containing dual timelines, showing how events could unfold in terms of getting something built. In either case, a new ballpark doesn’t open for at least a decade from now.

If I’m a Rays fan and I want outdoor regular season baseball, I’m not holding my breath that it’ll happen in Tampa Bay anytime soon. If you’re looking for a parallel with the A’s, it’s this: both the A’s and Rays need to pay off someone to move where they want. In the A’s case, it’s the Giants. In the Rays’ case, it’s St. Pete. Different legal machinations, but both potentially ugly payouts (or not).

06.15.10
by

Liveblog from 6/15 SJ City Council Session

Lots of stuff on the agenda. The pertinent item tonight is 11.6: Administrative Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to certify:
(A) The City Council has read and considered the Final Supplemental EIR; and
(B) The Final SEIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA; and The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San Jose; and The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall transmit copies of the Final SEIR to the Applicant and to any other decision-making body of the City of San Jose for the project.

7:18 PM – After a few ceremonial items, Council is mercifully doing item 11.6 first.

7:24 PM – Public speaker time. Two appellants: Stand for San Jose and Marc Morris (who tool issue with the traffic analysis from the original ballpark EIR).

Attorney Michael Buskirk (Stand for San Jose) is explaining his client’s objections to the SEIR. Essentially, he’s saying that the parking analysis is flawed considering the lack of info for the 6-7 PM weeknight hour.

Marc Morris refers to the Sharks objections, which have been withdrawn. Citizens from Shasta-Hanchett are holding up blue signs in unison.

Thanks to gojohn10 for holding up the sign.

Susan Hammer and Michael Mulcahy are speaking in favor of the project.

Interestingly, at least two speakers want more traffic downtown because it’s an indicator that downtown is thriving.

Other neighborhood advocates are asking for a more comprehensive TPMP in conjunction with the ballpark. Some are concerned about emergency response due to drop in level of service to certain key intersections.

8:08 PM – Public comments over. Staff-council Q&A starts. Already covered ground regrding parking, BART and HSR development.

8:19 PM – Mayor Reed notes that since the A’s aren’t the applicant yet, there’s no one to negotiate a TPMP with. If/when the applicant is able to apply, there will be additional environmental review, which could take the form of an amendment or another supplemental EIR. Reed mentions the negotiating principles that have been set since last year.

Councilman Sam Liccardo puts forth a motion to deny the two appeals and certify the EIR, which was seconded. Vote coming after other council members’ comments.

8:38 PM – Unanimous approval. That’s a wrap. Time for a beer.

06.15.10
by

Odds and ends for June 13

Stadium news from all over.

  • For some reason there are lots of empty seats, even sections, at World Cup matches. It may be a distribution problem. Or no-shows.
  • Dave Newhouse reminisces about the Coliseum’s birth. Frank Deford’s piece from 40 years ago is more comprehensive.
  • SJ Mayor Chuck Reed is encouraged by the Santa Clara measure victory while Roger Noll considers trading the East Bay for the South Bay a wash (I agree).
  • The Merc’s editorial page continues its outlook of cautious optimism.
  • Worried about TV blackouts – in New York, no less – the Jets have cut some PSL prices.
  • Speaking of the Meadowlands, online adultery site AshleyMadison.com is offering $25 million for five years of naming rights for the new stadium. The company has been engaging in various kinds of publicity seeking activities recently, and this is obviously one of them.
  • With all of the big sports events happening over a the last month (World Cup, NBA/NHL finals), it may have been easy to overlook the Miguel Cotto-Yuri Foreman fight held at Yankee Stadium two Saturdays ago. The ring alignment was unusual as it was tucked into the rightfield corner, preserving the infield. The fight itself was also one of the better matches of the year so far, with a wholly unusual ending.
  • In case you’re wondering, the Coliseum is the worst ballpark in the bigs for home runs at exactly 1 HR per game. MLB ballparks usually average 2 HR/game. It doesn’t help that the A’s are 13th in the AL in the category.
  • 6/15: Ann Killion has an Inside Baseball article for SI.com. It attacks A’s ownership and praises the 49ers even though they are at different stages and have different business models. It also doesn’t provide a hint of a solution, though you could go with the “If only they hadn’t alienated/victimized Oakland angle.” Astute analysis? I think not.
  • 6/15: Dave Newhouse hails his old boss at the Trib, George Ross, who helped foster the sports scene in Oakland. Interestingly, they have different stances on the A’s moving south:

    Because Ross worked aggressively to get the A’s, is he upset by the idea of their moving?

    “Professionally, no,” he said. “Because when they built the Coliseum (in 1966), they didn’t built it for either occupant. Al Davis prevailed on them to convert it for his needs, and baseball is less at home there than it should be.

    “If the team moves and stays in the Bay Area — in Contra Costa County, Fremont or San Jose — it will still be part of the Oakland-area sports (scene).”

    This is one time I must disagree with the brainy boss who hired me in 1964. The A’s must remain in Oakland, which should make sure that they get first priority on a new place to play over the Raiders, who were rewarded with a renovated Coliseum, at the A’s expense, upon returning to Oakland in 1995.

    The Raiders left town; the A’s didn’t — not yet. Make sure they don’t, Oakland.

    The difference between the two men appears to be a matter of influence. George Ross could exercise it in a fledgling market with a still influential paper, Newhouse is basically left to plead for action while to some unknown hero while writing for the same paper, which 40 years later is a watered down version of its former self.

On a side note, it is a treat to be able to watch WC matches while I’m eating breakfast every morning. Then I can watch American sports in the evening. Totally rad.

06.13.10
by

Survey from SJ Booster group shows strong ballpark support

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reported Saturday about results from a new survey commissioned by SJ booster group Pro Baseball for San Jose. The survey did not use a simple yes/no question, instead it gauged support for the ballpark on a 1-10 scale based on the way the project was presented.

  • 77 percent rated the statement, “The A’s will pay the entire cost to build the stadium” an 8 or higher.
  • 72 percent rated the statement, “The plan will not require any tax increase, bond issue, or any money from the city’s general fund” an 8 or higher.
  • 70 percent rated the statement, “The ballpark will be highly connected to transit, with current stations for Caltrain and light rail and future stations for BART and high speed rail all located next to the stadium” an 8 or higher.

The survey had just over 400 respondents and we don’t know much more about the methodology, so it would be foolish to conclude that a November ballot measure would be a slam dunk. Still, it’s another indicator that, outside of a couple of groups opposed to the certified EIR for completely different reasons, the ballpark project does not face heavy opposition and hasn’t for some time.

Tuesday, the City Council will determine the language for the measure. It’ll also tie up the Sharks’ arena operating amendment and new development plan. Assuming that both of those get approved, the next four months will be largely a focused (and potentially expensive) campaign effort. Back in March I did some quick math to determine the likely number of Yes votes the City would need to win in November: 110,793. Boosters will undoubtedly be looking to figure out the best way to secure that number of votes, plus a healthy cushion just in case.

06.10.10
by

Let’s play a game of word replacement

Several Measure J postmortem articles have been flying around the internets over the last 24 hours. The tone of the newest article by SFGate’s John Wildermuth may have the most foreshadowing, since in five months we may be seeing déjà vu. Incredulous? Take a look at the following paragraphs:

But Mayor Gavin Newsom and other supporters of a proposed San Francisco home for the 49ers said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $4 million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a 69,000-seat stadium as part of the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the 49ers flee to the South Bay.

“When the Santa Clara plan falls apart, San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home,” Newsom said. “But we will not wait forever.”

Now let’s take out the proper names.

But Mayor ___ and other supporters of a proposed ___ home for the ___ said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $__ million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a __-seat stadium as part of the ___ redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the ___ flee to the South Bay.

“When the ___ plan falls apart, ___ stands ready to welcome its ___ home,” ___ said. “But we will not wait forever.”

See, SF and Oakland? You aren’t so different after all.

06.09.10
by

Measure J passes, what’s next?

Update 3:45 PM: The Trib’s Chris Metinko covers prospects for a Raiders move to Santa Clara. For now, the Raiders are dealing solely with Oakland/Alameda County. If you want to read into the situation, you can gather that the Raiders are – at least until their lease expires – in the catbird seat. They don’t have to commit to anyone for some time to come. Best of all, if the 49ers and Santa Clara come up short into terms of fundraising goals, the Raiders’ contribution could come in and salvage the project. However, you can bet that the Raiders will use that leverage to extract the very best deal possible. Only the NFL could make the Raiders come to the table sooner than they’d like.

Also: the 49ers have launched a new stadium website. It has a bunch of dead links and nothing but Flash-based content right now (sorry iPad users). It’s safe to assume that more content will be added in the coming months.

Today the world is a little different. The 49ers now have a stadium site, an approved EIR, and the approval of Santa Clara voters to build a stadium next their practice facility and Great America. On Gary Radnich’s radio show today, he and reporter Dan Dibley are having a lively debate about stadium options. Dibley pretty much nailed the sentiment on the skeptical side when he said that the NFL will not give the lion’s share of funding ($490 million) to a single team’s stadium. If the NFL holds the purse strings (which is not quite a given because of the ongoing CBA talks), it makes little sense for the league to throw $1 billion combined at two teams. The practical path is for Roger Goodell to urge the Raiders to move to Santa Clara along with the Niners. It would make the revenue projections much more reasonable.

One thing I’m curious about is if the NFL forces the issue, how will it determine revenue sharing for the second team? While the term sheet is written to make it appear that the Niners are taking the risk, in reality it’s the Stadium Authority that will have the most risk of revenue shortfalls.

ARTICLE 16. SECOND TEAM

Section 16.1 Second Team. 49ers Stadium Company will have the right to enter into a sublease with a second NFL team (“Second Team”), on terms and conditions consistent with and subject to the Stadium Lease to allow the Second Team to play its home games in the Stadium, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Repayment of Upfront Investment. Prior to the date that the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium, the Agency will receive an amount equal to the Agency Upfront Investment, which, as provided in Section 7.4 above, is estimated under current economic conditions to be approximately Twenty-Eight Million Dollars ($28,000,000).

(b) Repayment of Advance. 49ers Stadium Company will pay to the City or Agency prior to the date that the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium an amount equal to all the tax increment previously paid to 49ers Stadium Company as payment on the principal amount of the 49ers Agency Advance.

(c) Forgiveness of 49ers Agency Advance. From and after the date the Second Team plays its first home game in the Stadium, 49ers Stadium Company will have no further right to receive tax increment and will forgive all principal and interest of any outstanding 49ers Agency Advance.

(d) Additional Fixed Ground Rent. Commencing in the first year the Second Team plays its home games at the Stadium, the Stadium Authority will pay to the City, as additional Fixed Ground Rent (“Second Team Fixed Ground Rent”), One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per year. Beginning in the eleventh year of Second Team occupancy, the Second Team Fixed Ground Rent will equal One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) per year, and such amount will, provided the Second Team continues to play its home games at the Stadium, increase One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) every five (5) years thereafter during the initial term of the Stadium Lease. For each extension of the Ground Lease, the Second Team Fixed Ground Rent payment will increase by Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000) for the term of the extension. As Second Team Fixed Ground Rent will be included in Fixed Ground Rent, such amount will be taken into account in calculating Reimbursable Expenses as provided in Section 12.1(i) above, and a portion thereof will be credited against Performance-Based Rent as provided in Section 4.3(b)(i) above.

(e) Reimbursement of Developer Fees. 49ers Stadium Company will reimburse the Agency for the share of development fees paid by the Agency to the City’s enterprise funds as of a result of the construction of the Stadium as provided in Section 6.4 above, estimated to be approximately One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000).

(f) Capital Costs. 49ers Stadium Company will be responsible for all additional capital costs and additional Reimbursable Expenses required to accommodate a Second Team, except that the Capital Expenditure Reserve may be used to the extent consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan. There would be no additional investment required by the City or Agency.

(g) Additional Capital Expenditure Reserve Deposit. As provided in Section 14.1(c) above, each year that a Second Team plays its home games in the Stadium, the Stadium Authority will fund, as an additional Stadium Operating Expense, the Second Team Capital Reserve Deposit in the initial amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), escalated at the rate of three percent (3%) per year thereafter.

From this, we can see that both the 49ers and the Stadium Authority (by extension the City) have incredible incentive to lure the Raiders south. But as usual in the lead up, we have no idea what the actual revenues to the either team would be. What would the Raiders’ lease look like? Surely the 49ers, in getting the deal done, would win a controlling share of revenue. How attractive would the lesser share be for the Raiders? There has to be a sliding scale from which the Raiders would view a stadium-sharing situation in Santa Clara, and it’s expected that there’s a threshold that they wouldn’t cross, lest it be a bad deal for them. That’s where it would make sense that the NFL steps in to make the whole thing square for both teams. If history’s a guide, the Giants and Jets have a 50-50 split at the new Meadowlands stadium to open this fall, and the negotiations were particularly contentious. I would be surprised if Al Davis took being a tenant to a 30-year-old landlord easily. Then again, he doesn’t have many choices, does he?

06.04.10
by

Obligatory Pre-Election 49ers Coverage

Not much new commentary here from me, I think we’ve already covered the Niners with sufficient depth. Our past posts on the Santa Clara Stadium situation:

More analysis comes from all over the place.