Category Archives: News

05.14.13
by

With Trask gone, who will carry torch for Raiders’ stadium?

Less than two weeks ago, Amy Trask came on The Game’s morning show to talk about the Raiders’ ticket donation program. While there she talked up the Coliseum as the best location for a future stadium and defended Raider Nation to the hilt – as she has done frequently. So it came with some surprise that Trask resigned her CEO post over the weekend. She went out honoring the team and its fans. She could easily write a book on her 25-year tenure as a rare female executive in pro sports. Chances are that she’ll write a paean about her experiences with the Raiders instead.

Under the surface it seemed Trask’s days were numbered. With Reggie McKenzie handling the football side and Dennis Allen as his coach, Trask was marginalized to the role of figuring out the Raiders’ future stadium situation. Even then, the team got little momentum on that front as its lease was renegotiated and running towards its end. According to Tim Kawakami, at first Trask pushed for a stadium-sharing model with the 49ers, a move that would’ve been highly practical. As the 49ers pushed forward in Santa Clara, any murmurs about sharing died, replaced by a renewed push for something new in the East Bay. Mark Davis made calls to folks in the Tri-Valley about Camp Parks while Trask emphasized that the Coliseum was the best spot. Davis is working in conjunction with the NFL on the Raiders’ spot within Coliseum City, a less showy vision than what Oakland pols are promoting.

Now that Trask is gone, it’ll be up to Davis and a hired gun to sell the prospects of a new stadium at the Coliseum. Rumors abounded during the offseason that a new team president would be hired. There was even talk that Davis would give the reins to Jon Gruden, which went nowhere. It would seem that Andy Dolich would be a natural fit since he performed that kind of role for the 49ers and he’s perhaps Oakland’s biggest booster outside of the city limits. Yet Dolich took a job with recruiting firm Odgers Berndtson instead. Perhaps Davis wants to go with someone younger or someone not previously associated with the 49ers. Whatever the reasoning, it’s a puzzling non-move.

Successful stadium/arena campaigns are usually the product of a solid public-private partnership. The Giants had Larry Baer, Peter Magowan, and Willie Brown pushing for a ballpark. The 49ers had Jed York go door-to-door and two mayors, Patricia Mahan and Jamie Matthews. The Earthquakes had Lew and Keith Wolff, David Kaval, and Chuck Reed keeping San Jose’s bureaucracy from getting in the way. Miraculously, Kevin Johnson had no help from a team owner, but KJ had a history and reputation as a great NBA player to help himself within the NBA. Let’s assume for the moment that Jean Quan, Larry Reid, and Rebecca Kaplan can capably lead the public side. Mark Davis isn’t going to do the heavy public campaign himself, will he? It’ll be up to the new President/CEO/COO or whatever the proper title is to pound the pavement, rally the sponsors, gather the votes. Without that effort there’s little chance Coliseum City will get the necessary support behind it to be successful.

05.08.13
by

Levi Strauss snags 49ers stadium naming rights deal (Updated 1:45 PM)

If there’s one significant takeaway from the 49ers/Levi’s press conference today, it’s this: the “SF” on the Niners’ helmet remains a very strong symbol.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee deflected a question about the stadium being in Santa Clara instead of the city proper, talking about moving forward with the stadium as a regional solution. But it was 49ers owner Jed York and Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh who repeatedly emphasized the historical ties between the 49ers and the City, going back to the Gold Rush days. It’s a brand synergy that can only be borne of history, one that may not have been possible if the 49ers dropped the “SF” on the way south. This affirms Levi’s position as a strong sponsor of San Francisco teams – first with the Giants in 2006. That deal, which featured the prime arcade wall (replacing Gap’s Old Navy) marked the start of a growing presence in the sports world for Levi Strauss. Previously under the Haas family, Levi’s sports presence wasn’t nearly as large even though Wally Haas owned the A’s. So it’s somewhat ironic that Levi’s aggression in the market came after the Haases gave up prominent leadership roles in company, the company choosing to go with outsiders (Bergh is from Proctor & Gamble, Phil Marineau came from Pepsi) as debt and a changing market threatened the company’s very existence.

Rendering of Levi's Stadium with logo atop scoreboard

Rendering of Levi’s Stadium with logo atop scoreboard

Bergh also mentioned off-hand that the scoreboards, on which enormous Levi’s logos will be placed, will be 190 feet long. That’s 10 feet longer than the frame I informally measured a couple weeks ago. Interestingly, the logo may be slightly taller than the rim of upper deck. Couple that with the gaps in the upper seating bowl, and the logo should be plainly visible for miles around, especially at night when it is lit up.

At $220 million over 20 years, the revenue the 49ers and Santa Clara Stadium Authority will realize is very solid, behind only MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. That stadium is home to two teams. It’s less than the in-limbo Farmers Field deal, but that was also for two teams and would’ve involved more uses as a retractable domed facility. All in all, Levi’s is setting the bar for the Bay Area, including new venues for the Raiders in Oakland, Warriors in SF, and the A’s deal with Cisco. Cisco’s deal, negotiated in 2006, was for $4 million per year over 30 years in Fremont.  The argument that the A’s should get more with a San Jose ballpark is only strengthened by the news of the Levi’s Stadium deal.

=====

Original post

The 49ers and Levi Strauss have scheduled a 11 AM press conference outside the jeansmaker’s San Francisco headquarters. While both sides are mum for now, multiple outlets are reporting that during the presser the two parties will announce a naming rights deal for the 49ers’ Santa Clara stadium.

According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal’s Lauren Hepler, the City of Santa Clara, which has to approve the naming rights terms, will make those terms public at 4 PM today.  The City Council/Stadium Authority Board is expected to discuss the terms in a special session tomorrow.

The presser will be streamed at 49ers.com/live at 11. This post will be updated as appropriate.

Update 10:45 AM – The Mercury News’ Mike Rosenberg has tweeted that the deal is $220 million over 20 years.

05.06.13
by

Ranadive-Mastrov group to pay dearly to keep Kings in Sacramento

No one to date has ever confused Sacramento for a big market. Thanks to a promise made by potential Kings buyer Vivek Ranadive, Sacramento may be treated like one.

The Sacramento Bee’s Dale Kasler wrote today that Ranadive pledged to take the Kings off the NBA’s revenue sharing plan if he and his group were allowed to buy the franchise. It’s no small amount, thanks to terms negotiated as part of the NBA’s 2012 collective bargaining agreement. According to a 2012 Sports Business Daily article, the revenue sharing receipt for a small market team such as the Kings or Milwaukee Bucks was worth as much as $16 million per year. The scheme is similar to MLB’s plan, except that teams in the NBA share 50% of local revenues (as opposed to baseball’s roughly 40%). A ramp-up period was imposed so that the scheme won’t fully take effect until the 2013-14 season, the same time extremely punitive repeat luxury tax penalties will also start being levied.

The Kings will face their own transition to being net payers, as Ranadive has even agreed to receive reduced revenue sharing for the remaining years at Sleep Train Pavilion. The exact amount isn’t known, but even if it were 50% of $16 million, the Kings would be hard pressed to make up the rest of that revenue solely by selling out the arena for the next two NBA seasons (my estimate of increased revenue: $8.8 million). While Sacramento is a top 20 media market, the Kings don’t get TV revenue from Comcast as a bigger market should. Either Ranadive will have to negotiate seriously lucrative increases (2X at least) or the Kings will be a very revenue-limited team.

Ranadive will have one other constraint that doesn’t hamper poor baseball teams – a salary floor. In the NBA, teams have to spend at least 85% of the salary cap. For the 2012-13 season that translated to more than $49 million. The Maloof-owned Kings spent $54 million on payroll during that period. Revenues should be a good deal higher with a new arena and increased goodwill from the community, but the fact remains that Sacramento simply isn’t a big market. It’s not going to surpass Phoenix or the Twin Cities because the population is simply not big enough, and teams like the Orlando and Cleveland will continue to get the competitive benefit of revenue sharing, plus a ton of upcoming draft picks to help their rebuilding efforts. Even Oklahoma City and Memphis, playoff teams with no need for help, will benefit at the expense of Sacramento because they’re small markets.

The Kings’ roster is made up of players without the talent or leadership ability to deserve max contracts, so for the next few years this shouldn’t be a big deal. If the team can make the right moves to have a competitive team built and timed to coincide with a new arena, all will be well. If not, even the solid ticket-buying support by Kings fans will be tested. Ticket prices are sure to be a good deal higher at the new arena, and with that comes higher expectations for success. Even if the team is successful and has multiple max-deserving players, they could be more quickly stuck in a situation like the Thunder and Grizzlies, who had to give up critical players in order to keep their payroll in line.

Sacramento backers framed their argument to keep the team in the Capitol with the idea that unlike Seattle’s competitive multi-sport market, the Kings are the only game in town. By virtue of last week’s relocation rejection, the owners are taking that to heart. Sacramento asked to be treated like a bigger market, and by golly they will be, whether they like it or not.

05.05.13
by

Warriors revise and scale down SF arena with public feedback

Finally! The Warriors released detailed images of their planned arena at San Francisco’s Piers 30/32. In doing so, developers Snøhetta and AECOM made changes to the scope of the arena. Least noticeable is a proposal to reduce the height of the arena from 135 feet to 125 feet. The kayak ramp planned for the south end has also been removed, replaced by the cruise ship terminal fought for by the Port and the ILWU.

2013-05-03-Warriors-Boards-14

View from NW corner looking at northern façade

To minimize the visual impact of a 12-story tall structure, Snøhetta is breaking up the façade on all four sides in different ways. Along the north side there’s some terraced landscaping along with a two-level peripheral building which will serve as additional retail or arena support space. Streetside (west) has its own retail buildings and an upslope to the arena’s main level. The south side is marked by a long exterior ramp that leads to a balcony on the east that looks into and out of the arena, which is something I hoped for from the beginning. The ramp divides the space in such a clean way that it looks as if God could reach down and pry the arena open along that “seam” with one hand. The bowl’s curtainwall façade will be made of clear glass, mounted in a slightly diagonal fashion.

2013-05-03-Warriors-Boards-7

Interior of arena with new open peek out to Bay Bridge also provides limited views of action from outside

2013-05-03-Warriors-Boards-11

A look inside the arena from publicly accessible exterior ramp is reminiscent of AT&T Park’s knothole area along promenade

2013-05-03-Warriors-Boards-8

View of south façade is perhaps the most monolithic. Exterior ramp helps break up the look.

2013-05-03-Warriors-Boards-9

Night view from afar exposes arena as a more traditional venue than previously suggested

2013-05-03-Warriors-Boards-10

View from South Beach towards arena and Bay Bridge gives arena a crystalline look

An overhead view shows the arena as an assymetrical oval

An overhead view shows the arena as an assymetrical oval

The original plan called for 630 parking spaces on site. The revised plan and Matier and Ross note that spaces will be reduced to only 500. There are no plans to build additional parking anywhere else close to the site. While the changes being proposed are meant to satiate some critics of the plan, the most strident opponents are steadfast in their belief that the site is simply not the right place for an arena due to the visual and traffic impacts. These new changes are typical of the CEQA process, which factors in feedback from citizens and interest groups during community meetings. More are likely to come, though no one should expect any major changes from here on out.

05.04.13
by

Dolphins stadium bill dies in Florida House

Get ready to roll out the red carpet in Santa Clara, because Super Bowl L (2016) is coming. Florida legislators and lobbyists have been working overtime to get a state funding component for Dolphins Stadium through the legislature. The package was sneakily amended to a transportation bill in the Senate and passed, but didn’t even come up for a vote in the House. With that non-action, the entire package can’t come up for a referendum in Miami-Dade County unless the Governor calls a special session to take up the issue.

The NFL will decide between Santa Clara and Miami in three weeks, and if Miami doesn’t have its ducks in a row Santa Clara is expected to win by default. The loser is expected to “compete” with Houston for Super Bowl LI. At this point it’s unclear if the Dolphins would go back to the drawing board or resurrect the deal in the next legislative session. Still smarting from the defeat, stadium boosters blasted lawmakers in Tallahassee.

The House’s reticence can be blamed on the stench that continues to emanate from the Marlins Ballpark swindle, which remains fresh on Floridians’ minds. One has to wonder how much a similar sentiment may hurt the prospects at Coliseum City. Many are still aware of how bad a deal Mount Davis was, and some local pols are hesitant to move a plan forward without a better understanding of the public cost.

May 21 is the date of the owners’ vote on the site of Super Bowl L. The vote is expected to be little more than a formality at this point.

05.03.13
by

Might as well dream big

Coliseum City strikes me as the City of Oakland’s equivalent of playing a big lottery like Mega Millions or Powerball. The chances are infinitesimal at best, yet they can’t win if they don’t play. So they’re putting in a few million dollars to get some studies done in hopes of a lot of circumstances falling very neatly for them to keep the three current tenants at the Coliseum complex.

Never was this more evident than in the Oakland Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, when the City gave more details on the plan. It’s expansive, to put it mildly.
  • 68 – 72,000 seat NFL stadium with 1.8-2.2 million square feet of space, covering 12.6 acres
  • 35 – 39,000 seat ballpark with 1.2 million square feet of space, covering 12.3 acres
  • 18 – 20,000 seat arena with 850,000 square feet space, covering 5 acres
  • 14 million square feet of office, R&D, commercial, and retail space
  • 6,370 housing units
  • 15,000 parking spaces at Coliseum site (mostly through garages, existing site has 10,000 spaces)
The word expansive is often trailed closely by the word expensive. At a conservative $150 per square foot, the non-parking buildout alone hits $2.1 billion, closer to $3 billion when including the additional stadium development costs. Either is an astounding figure, and for anyone who actually operates in the commercial real estate development world or has even basic knowledge of the Oakland market, a truly puzzling one. This is redevelopment era thinking in a post-redevelopment world.
Coliseum City Specific Plan

Coliseum City Specific Plan

The facilities described in the project summary would be among the largest and most expensive in the nation respectively. The football stadium would rival Cowboys Stadium in scope, and while there’s no mention of a dome, there’s no way to get the kind of flexibility the City is aiming for without a dome. Cowboys Stadium was built with a $300 million loan from the City of Arlington, yet City Administrator Fred Blackwell “defiantly” stated that the era of publicly financed stadia was over. All Mayor Jean Quan talks about so far is EB-5 funding or grants to provide infrastructure. Infrastructure will probably end up being 10% of the cost of the project in the end. From the looks of things that will include:
  • A new transit hub, including a widened, more pedestrian-friendly bridge from the BART station to the stadium complex
  • Two additional bridges that span I-880 to the arena and greater development west of the freeway
  • An elevated, landscaped public space that connects everything
  • A revitalized Damon Slough
  • A new water inlet leading from San Leandro Bay to the arena
  • Many new garages
Just this list of items is going to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s a lot of new concrete construction – particularly the bridges, plus land acquisitions, and reshaping of waterfront areas. And let’s also consider the whopping 6,310 housing units. That’s twice as big as the finally reborn Brooklyn Basin project and nearly two-thirds of the way to Jerry Brown’s famed 10k plan, which was largely done under redevelopment. And note that in the map there’s a Ballpark District, which contains housing. Any chance of that getting built if the A’s aren’t there? Not likely.
Furthermore, how on earth is any of this going to be paid for? Something has to drive private development to gamble its own money on the other 90%, and it’s not clear what that is. East Bay Citizen noted that a meeting of East Bay business luminaries will be held to assess corporate capabilities in the region for the Raiders stadium. That’s a start. The stadium will be at least $1 billion to construct. Understand, however, that the East Bay alone isn’t going to cut it. Anyone without blinders on knows that the East Bay’s corporate strength is not a strong suit. Similar to what Kevin Johnson did in Sacramento, East Bay interests need to attract a lot of money from within the Greater Bay Area and outside it to convince anyone that the stadium is feasible. It’s going to be even tougher because the stadium will be twice as expensive as the planned arena.
Some on the Planning Commission rightly asked about how anything would be paid for, a question that went without a real response. Oakland officials can keep talking hope and pie-in-the-sky concepts as much as they want. They can only duck behind that for so long. Eventually they’ll need to reveal the price tag. When they do, they’ll have no place to hide.
05.01.13
by

Coliseum lease negotiations stall over parking taxes

It was bound to happen. As the Coliseum JPA and the A’s got further into lease extension talks, they were sure to hit a snag. KTVU reports that after year of ongoing dialog, talks halted last week over the requirement for the A’s to pay $7 million in parking taxes. (Note: Six weeks ago, Matier & Ross had the number owed at only $3 million.) The issue goes back to when Oakland, looking for a way to boost tax revenues, started to enforce a 18.5% parking levy in 2009. All three tenant teams boosted rates to cover the tax, including the A’s charging $17 instead of the $15 they had charged previously. Unlike the Raiders and Warriors, the A’s pocketed the hike while the City and Alameda County fought it out over how much money the two parties and the JPA should get.

The Authority has been asking the A’s for the money for a few years, with Lew Wolff focused chiefly on plans to move to San Jose, only in the last year or so turning towards an extension at the Coliseum. Both sides indicated that discussions were going well, but it’s probably difficult to come to an agreement over $7 million when that’s more than the A’s have paid in rent the past five years. The A’s say that they don’t owe money but will pay the tax moving forward, which sounds thoroughly disingenuous considering they raised the parking rate in response to the imposition of the tax.

The County wants a bigger cut of concessions revenue, which was practically signed away to the A’s when the team and the JPA settled their post-Mount Davis lawsuit. The A’s were also burned by the JPA when they chose to take money meant to replace scoreboards and rerouted it towards the Coliseum City study.

For their part, the A’s will only say that “The disputed items are subject to arbitration or possibly incorporated in a new five-year lease extension.” Arbitration could easily put the A’s on the losing end, paying the full $7 million, but if they’re aware of that and they could somehow get less through negotiation or arbitration, holding out is not a bad tactic. They know that the City’s and County’s stance is to go ofter them hard as the A’s have really nowhere to go while a move to San Jose sits in limbo.

The A’s abruptly cut off talks for now, which itself may be a negotiation tactic of sorts. Is Wolff willing this to go straight to arbitration, or does he want to wait until after the baseball ends to pick up talks again? If they, it’s not likely that everyone at the table will suddenly become nicer.

—–

P.S. – I did some quick and dirty math on this. The City imposed the tax start in July 2009. That left 3.5 years of tax accrual before the start of the 2013 season. 5000 spaces * 3.5 years * 82 games * 18.5% = $4.5 million. Not $3 million, not $7 million. Free Parking Tuesdays and last year’s playoff parking revenue are not accounted for.

05.01.13
by

Falcons stadium concepts blow everything else away

And it’s not even close. 360 Architecture released two visions for the stadium that will eventually replace the still-young Georgia Dome. As Jason Kirk wrote in SB Nation, the whole thing is insane. Two concepts are being considered. The first is a fairly common stadium design called the Solarium. The catch is that instead of have the roof move on tracks to open a small sunroof, the roof and exterior walls are on hinges (with supporting tracks on the ends) that pull back to open a much larger area to the elements. The stadium also has a trick seating bowl where some of the corner sections collapse, allowing the end zones to be pulled in for a “tighter” basketball bowl.

The second concept, named Pantheon, is much bolder in terms of design, with numerous triangles that, when put together, resemble a very ominous spaceship. Key to the mindblowing nature of what 360’s done is that the roof opens like an iris. It’s beautiful to watch and at the same time very scary. Who’s coming in through the open iris, God or our new alien overlords (who I, for one, welcome)?

Either roof design presents some new practical challenges. Can the hinged roof reliably provide a weatherproof seal? That might be tough. And the iris design is completely new, novel, and unproven. It’s composed of eight separate triangular roof elements that overlap and appear to have their own motors and tracks. That’s an engineering challenge to put it lightly. 360 explains that this roof has smaller, lighter elements that move shorter distances, which should in theory make it cheaper to build and operate. Who knows, maybe it’ll work well? Then again, maybe it’ll work like the The Big Owe or the initially problem-plagued system at Miller Park.

Other innovations are being considered, such as movable walls that can allow suites to be resized on demand, and a club concept called “The 100 Yard Bar” with a display (and bar) that runs the full length of the field. (Check out the Georgia World Congress Center’s site devoted to stadium development for presentations by the GWCC and 360.)

No, this doesn’t change my mind that the Georgia Dome doesn’t need to be replaced. It’s still a perfectly good football and basketball venue. Of course, if either the Solarium or Pantheon get built, I’ll definitely hop on a Delta flight to Atlanta to bathe in the new ambience.

04.29.13
by

NBA relocation committee votes against Kings move

Just in: the NBA’s relocation committee voted unanimously to reject a relocation of the Sacramento Kings to Seattle. This preliminary vote is meant to be a recommendation to the greater Board of Governors. Given that it was a 12-0 vote, the decision effectively kills any chance of the sale and relocation being approved. It’s possible that Seattle’s Hansen-Ballmer group could launch a lawsuit against the NBA, but that would interfere with any future consideration for either an expansion franchise or another potentially relocated franchise such as the Milwaukee Bucks.

Now it’s up to Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson and the “local” ownership group headed by Vivek Ranadive and Mark Mastrov to pull through with the money parts of the deal. KJ and the City Council have to get an EIR passed, put up $250 million in arena bonds, and work out the financial details, which aren’t yet finalized. As for the “whales”, they have to put up their half of the arena through realized pledges from the community. After years of Maloof-caused turmoil, Kings fans can for once breathe easily. The Capitol will keep its team. I can practically hear the cowbells from 90 miles away.

04.25.13
by

Raiders moving to The Game starting with 2013 season

The Raiders and A’s share a stadium. Now they’ll also share a radio station. It took a couple years, but the Silver and Black will finally start having their games broadcast on 95.7 The Game starting with the upcoming 2013 NFL season. It’s a move that has been speculated since the station launched as the A’s flagship.

While the Raiders’ coverage will decrease in comparison to former home KSFO on the AM side, the sports radio station’s programming is far and away more compatible, especially because play-by-play man Greg Papa is already a fixture in The Wheelhouse’s noon timeslot. Non-game coverage will expand, with the Raiders displacing the 49ers in the Monday themed day, good for armchair QB-ing and GM-ing. Previously the Raiders’ day was Friday.

In the event of a conflict with the A’s, Raiders broadcasts will be on 102.1/98.5 KFOX, home of the Sharks and Entercom stablemate. KFOX has a better coverage footprint than KGMZ (The Game), which leads me to think that the Raiders actually negotiated this provision knowing that it was available via Entercom.

Potential for some conflict is high, though not so much in head-to-head timeslot situations. Mostly it’s a case of an A’s game finishing just before the start of a Raiders game during preseason or early during the regular season.

Overlap in A's and Raiders schedules. Raiders games will be broadcast on KFOX-FM (102.1/98.5) in case of a conflict.

Overlap in A’s and Raiders schedules. Raiders games will be broadcast on KFOX-FM (102.1/98.5) in cases of conflicts.

Since the Raiders are expected to have full pre and postgame coverage for each game, it’s likely that all of the weeks above will be on KFOX, with the exception of the 8/29 game against the Seahawks.

Eventually, fans may clamor for more games on KFOX due to the better distributed signal. Of course, that will run into further conflicts with the Sharks, whose season starts in October as the baseball season ends. The 2013-14 NHL schedule, which will be the first under the new realignment scheme, has not yet been released.

Conflicts or not, it’s good that the Raiders are back on a sports station, which they haven’t been since they left 1050 years ago. Whether this will turn The Game into a proper East Bay-focused station is up to Entercom, whose station management has been careful to cater to all Bay Area fans much to the dismay of A’s and Raiders fans. In turn, the Raiders may have to beef up their affiliate network to compensate for The Game’s less signal.

To kick off the new relationship, Raiders draft day coverage is being held today on The Game.