Category Archives: News

03.25.12
by

Moorad stepping down means Padres are for sale

Remember those groups that were rumored to be interested in buying the A’s, even though the A’s aren’t actually for sale? They may have a more realistic target now that Jeff Moorad has stepped down from his Padres CEO post. Although Moorad will stay on as a Vice Chairman, the new role appears to be little more than a placeholder as still-majority owner John Moores figures out what to do next.

The circumstances for Moorad’s departure are shrouded in mystery. It’s possible that, after all this time, enough owners had a grudge against the former agent that there was no way he’d get the gig. If so, that’s a cruel joke to play on the man, considering they and Commissioner Selig set in motion the “layaway” plan in 2009 that allowed Moorad to believe he’d buy the team in the first place. Another reason for getting rid of Moorad may be the allegation that he was looking to use upfront from the new Fox Sports San Diego-Padres broadcast rights deal to pay down debt, Frank McCourt-style.

At Gaslamp Ball, there’s a post with the notion that Moorad wanted to accelerate the sale so that Moores couldn’t get a taste of the new TV money, and when Moores found out how much that was, he suddenly wasn’t in such a hurry to sell the team. The new revenue stream should help Moores net a higher sale price than the $530 million negotiated in 2009. $600 million, anyone?

For now it appears that Moores is not in a hurry to sell the team. He’s got a nice new revenue stream, better profitability for the team and for himself, and he’s clear of his ugly divorce. He’ll meet with the minority partners, including Bob Piccinini, and tell them what his plans are, whether it’s to encourage them to bring in a new managing partner candidate or to sell their stakes back to him so that he can resell the team whole later. It’s clear that he’s done running a team, so a sale can be expected sooner rather than later.

That provides an opening for the many bidders who’ve lost out out on the Dodgers. The bidding list in LA is down to three, with no bid lower than $1.4 billion. The Dodgers will be a $300+ million annual revenue team once their next TV deal is made, whereas the Padres should be a $200 million revenue team with their new deal. Even at $600 million, the Padres look like a far better deal than the Dodgers, unless a bidder absolutely has to have the Dodgers or the team’s brand cachet. One of the parties supposedly interested in the A’s was an LA financier involved in the Dodger bidding, so it seems natural for him to turn his attention two hours south instead. (If you’re wondering, I don’t know who the second interested party is – yet.)

The Padres aren’t the only team up for sale. A rumor emerged last month that Peter Angelos was looking to offload the Orioles. Angelos is in the catbird seat there, as he has the $360 million guaranteed sale price for the franchise and ownership of MASN, the area’s regional sports network that carries both the O’s and Nats. He can sell either or both. If he sells only the team he should get $500 million. If he sells both he could get up to $1 billion. The team has denied the rumor.

Anything is potentially for sale for the right price, including any baseball team. It’s easy to say you’re interested in a team or to enter bidding. Getting a sale consummated? With the incredible amounts of money at stake, it’s a lot easier said than done.

03.24.12
by

Rosenthal calls “stAy” crowd flat-earthers

Another week, another media morsel. If it’s not the Giants leaking information out or Larry Baer defending the Giants’ territorial rights claims, it’s a national sports writer pleading Lew Wolff’s case or Lew himself answering questions. To me, it feels more like slow-motion tennis than baseball, and while I like tennis, this has gotten repetitive and tiresome.

This time it’s Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal again with a plan to resolve the A’s-Giants impasse. Rosenthal thinks that the Giants should be guaranteed a minimum revenue amount against potential losses incurred from an A’s-to-San Jose move. He cites the O’s-Nats deal as an example. However, while Peter Angelos got a $360 million sale price guarantee and $75 million to start up MASN, I don’t believe that he got an annual revenue guarantee ($130 million) as Rosenthal suggests. There’s a good deal of conflicting information on this. It’s sort of a moot point because the O’s cleared the supposed minimum in the first year of the agreement, 2005, and haven’t looked back. Forbes’ estimated revenue for 2011 was $179 million.

Guaranteeing revenue for the Giants is a different matter. According to Forbes, the Giants haven’t been below the $200 million revenue mark in three years. Last year the Giants were in the top ten at $230 million, whereas the average revenue was $211 million (median: $201 million). I have to think that MLB, in its desperation to get some kind of deal done, has floated a revenue guarantee number to the Giants, to which Baer has balked. I’ve argued frequently for some kind of compensation plan that includes revenue, but a revenue guarantee of $230 million gives me pause, so I imagine it gives Bud Selig and the other owners pause as well. Then again, Wolff is projecting a bump from $150-160 million to $230 million for the A’s, so for baseball the result should be a net positive.

Rosenthal also talked to Tulane law professor Gabe Feldman about the prospects of an offensive antitrust lawsuit against baseball. Feldman characterized such a suit’s chances as very slim, a “real longshot”. Also ready with a quote was San Jose City Councilman and future mayoral hopeful Sam Liccardo, who may see all of this baseball posturing end up as part of his election platform if the saga continues at its current pace.

The sucker punch is saved for the end:

Only a few hardy souls — a latter-day version of the flat-earth society — believe the Athletics still can make it in Oakland. San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area. A new ballpark in the city not only would transform the Athletics’ business model, but baseball’s as well.

There will be some Oakland defenders who say things like, “If you tell a lie long enough people believe it”. No, that’s not it. Sometimes a spade is a spade. If it wasn’t the case, Oakland wouldn’t be pinning its urban revival hopes on a pie-in-the-sky plan like Coliseum City. If it wasn’t truthful, Signature wouldn’t be trying to offload O29 on any Tom, Dick, or Harry who might be interested in land. It’s telling that one of the chief pro-Oakland arguments is that baseball doesn’t have the wherewithal to change T-rights on Wolff’s behalf. That’s all well and good, but how is that confidence-inspiring for Oakland?

03.22.12
by

Baer reaffirms T-rights claim

On a panel at the 2012 IMG World Congress of Sports, Giants CEO/President Larry Baer continued to flog the idea that the Giants own Santa Clara County. Via Sports Business Journal:

During a panel discussion, he cited a “territorial grant” that allows the Giants to market to Santa Clara County. Baer said the Giants franchise depends on revenue derived from there, with 35 to 45 percent of its market coming from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

I thought the number was 50%? Now it’s 35-45%. Two weeks ago it was 43% from Santa Clara County alone. No wonder we can’t keep these numbers straight. Baer can’t either.

Baer went on to cite how the Giants got it done with good ole’ sweat and gumption. He conveniently forgets one tiny little detail: When it comes to having billionaires ready to coalesce and save the franchise, Oakland is no San Francisco. The two groups that reportedly want to buy the A’s? Not from Oakland. Bob Piccinini? Not from Oakland. If the team is going to be saved in Oakland, someone will have to step up from Oakland. It’s one thing to talk about civic pride, another to have the means to act on it.

03.21.12
by

Forbes has Giants twice as valuable as A’s

Forbes came out with their annual overview of The Business of Baseball, and if you’ve followed this site or other sports economics sites much you won’t be surprised by the results. The A’s, stuck in limbo, have the lowest valuation of any of the 30 MLB franchises at $321 million. The figure hasn’t quite caught up with Forbes’ pre-downturn, 2008 valuation of $323 million (which may have factored in a future in Fremont). Despite this, the number is up 5% over last year. Some other numbers and extrapolations:

  • The Yankees are worth the most at $1.85 billion, followed by the Dodgers at $1.4 billion (based on current franchise bids).
  • The Angels ($656 million) and Giants ($643 million) follow the Dodgers as most valuable on the West Coast.
  • Aggregate value of all franchises is $18.1 billion. The A’s account for only 1.77% of this total currently.
  • A’s revenue is estimated at $160 million, roughly in line with last year’s amount. This includes revenue sharing, if you’re asking. (I assume that Lew Wolff may quibble with the figure a bit.)
  • Player expenses for the A’s are listed at $81 million, slightly more than the 50% “salary cap” that we frequently discuss here.
  • The blurb on the A’s page questions what team president Michael Crowley does. Besides saying no, I wonder that myself sometimes.

A closer look at how the valuations for the Giants and A’s breaks down yields some additional insight.

Stadium and brand make up most of the difference

The big takeaway is that for the first time, the Giants are considered twice as valuable as the A’s. It’s reflective of the constraints the A’s are under, as well as the team’s lack of promotion within the market(s). To their credit, the A’s have a much more permanent media presence than they had in the last 20 years. It’s still a long climb out of the cellar. The team’s stadium value would probably be double in a sold out new ballpark, and the brand value could see a similar increase. Sport would see a drop due to less reliance on revenue sharing. Market’s a tougher question. Clearly, that number could double if the A’s were allowed to build in San Jose, but it should also go up appreciably if they built something new in Oakland. Some back-of-the-napkin math has me estimating the team’s value in a new ballpark in Oakland at $400 million, San Jose at $450 million.

 

03.20.12
by

Dominoes are falling

One by one, the various ownership crises facing baseball and Commissioner Bud Selig are being resolved. Yesterday, the Mets settled with a trustee in the ongoing Madoff suit for at most $162 million, probably less when the final bill comes due. Compared to the threat of a $1 billion judgement against the team, it’s a bargain. They’ll get even more of a reprieve by not having to make any payments for four years.

The Mets managed to pay off $65 million in short-term debt, thanks to a $240 million selloff of minority shares in the team (8 x $30 million). While Sandy Alderson will have to run the team on the lean side for at least this season, prospects for a rebound are decent.

On the other coast, MLB and Frank McCourt have narrowed down the lister of bidders for the Dodgers to four groups. MLB’s favorite appears to be the group headed by Magic Johnson and former Nats president Stan Kasten, largely because the bid is local. McCourt’s favorite may be the bid by New York hedge fund magnate Steven Cohen. The Cohen bid boost may have gotten a boost thanks to Patrick Soon-Shiong, an LA billionaire whose sudden presence as a minority partner gives Cohen some local bonafides. Unlike the Johnson-Kasten syndicate bid, Cohen was going solo (until Soon-Shiong) and is ready to post an incredible $900 million cash as part of his $1.4 billion (not highest) bid. Ironically, Soon-Shiong picked up Magic’s minority share of the Lakers last year. Magic vacated that share and his executive position within the organization to get his ducks lined up for the Dodgers bid.

The other two bids are by Rams owner Stan Kroenke and a joint bid by possibly outgoing Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley and LA financier Tony Ressler, who initially headed separate bids. By the terms of McCourt’s divorce settlement, he must pick a winning bidder and close the sale by April 30 so that he can make a massive $131 million payment to his ex-wife, Jamie McCourt.

All of this movement should put the A’s situation truly on the front burner, press release wars and gossip aside. That doesn’t mean that Selig will be able to come to a mutually beneficial agreement for the A’s and Giants – for some time my argument has been that this is the obstacle, not gathering votes or self-serving agendas. With the next owners meetings coming in mid-May, perhaps this is the chance to truly address the issue once and for all. Selig deserves as much blame for allowing the Mets and Dodgers to fester as he gets credit for saving them from the financial disaster, but from both quantitative and qualitative measure both teams are worth more (and deserve more attention) than the A’s and Giants’ squabble. Let’s hope, then, that he’ll be able to muster enough resources to resolve the A’s problems once and for all, instead of playing the perennial game of kick-the-can with the green and gold. Seven years is long enough.

03.18.12
by

Ellison in talks to buy Memphis Grizzlies

Oracle CEO and billionaire Larry Ellison has been getting some sun down in Indian Wells, where one of his sports properties, the BNP Paribas Open tennis tournament, has been going on for the last two weeks. That hasn’t stopped him from accelerating his quest for an NBA franchise. The basketball fan almost bought the New Orleans Hornets with the possible intent to move the franchise to San Jose. After those overtures were denied by the league, he’s back to buy another Southern team, the Memphis Grizzlies. CSN Bay Area’s Matt Steinmetz reports that Ellison has a “handshake agreement” with current Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley to acquire the franchise.

The Grizzlies are locked into a lease at FedEx Forum through at least 2017, so there’s no chance of Ellison being able to relocate the franchise immediately (if he wanted to). The Merc notes that Heisley’s asking price is $350 million, a $40+ million premium over the franchise’s most recent Forbes valuation. That figure is also in line with the amount the NBA is looking to get for the Hornets, who are expected to be sold to a consortium headed by LA businessman Raj Bhathal sometime in the next few weeks.

Both Heisley and Ellison were expected to be bidders on the Dodgers. Only Heisley submitted a bid. Frequently criticized for being cheap in his tenure as Grizzlies owner, Heisley managed to end up on the short list of Dodger bidders, making it past the first two rounds after he teamed up with Tony Ressler.

The $350 million sales price appears to be the key for Ellison, as he bid lower than Joe Lacob and Peter Guber when the Warriors were put up for sale. That’s the same amount he bid on the Hornets in late 2010. Still, the franchise is in Memphis and is not going to move for a while if at all. With his interest tied up in the ongoing America’s Cup defense and running a NASDAQ-100/S&P 500 company, you have to wonder if Ellison would end up being something of an absentee owner. An hour jet ride to Palm Desert once a year is a lot more manageable than frequent four-hour trips to Memphis. Despite that “hardship” it’s clear that Ellison wants in on owning an NBA franchise, which is more than I can say for his supposed interest in baseball.

03.12.12
by

Two groups express interest in A’s

UPDATE 6:40 PM – Lew Wolff responds, reiterating that team is not for sale. From the article, Andy Dolich was contacted and denied that he was one of the “suitors” interested in the A’s. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said that if the team were sold to a more Oakland-friendly group, the Victory Court site may be considered again. There may even be a third group interested.

The A’s are not for sale, at least from everything I’ve read and heard. That hasn’t stopped two groups from expressing interest in buying the club, according to Matier and Ross.

Let’s play this little hypothetical out: If Bud Selig can’t broker a deal to get the A’s territorial rights to San Jose, then it would seem that Lew Wolff’s next step may be to put the team up for sale. Such a sale probably couldn’t be completed until 2013 at the earliest, which coincidentally is the same year the A’s lease ends at the Coliseum.

Forbes valued the A’s at $307 million last year, and should have a similar valuation this year. The going trend for franchise sales would have the team sell for a significant premium over that valuation.

Recent MLB franchise sales prices compared with Forbes valuations

The environment during which a hypothetical sale of the A’s occurs is much different from 1995, when Wally Haas sold the A’s to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann, or even 2003, when Schott sold the team to Wolff and John Fisher. Nowadays, Bud Selig is pushing hard to get the biggest possible sale price for outgoing owners, even rogues like Frank McCourt. Given the trend, I can’t see the A’s selling for less than $400 million on the open market, especially if there are competitive bids. This would happen even if the A’s low-revenue problems show few signs of improvement anytime soon.

Of course, after soon comes 2016, which is when the new CBA expires. There’s also that CBA provision in which teams in the largest markets become ineligible for revenue sharing. The Oakland situation is odd in that the A’s are supposed to be exempt from that rule as long as they’re stuck in the Coliseum. There’s still a little confusion on this which probably won’t be resolved until we actually see the document in final printed form, and that hasn’t happened yet. Here’s my guess as to why the A’s situation is so foggy:

  1. As long as the A’s only have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as their defined stadium territory, MLB has an excuse to consider them a low-revenue franchise despite the broad NorCal TV territory.
  2. If the A’s go to San Jose, it’s likely that Wolff will have gotten his wish that the Bay Area will become a shared territory (though I would expect the City of San Francisco to remain strictly with the Giants). If that shared territory deal occurs, the A’s would become a large market team by CBA definition.

The trouble facing any prospective buyer is that he’d be paying for the team in situation #1, with limited opportunities for growth. $400 million for just the franchise, perhaps more given that Wolff will want something for all of the headaches he’s gotten in pursuing a ballpark deal. Unlike the Haas-Schott sale, there are no hometown discounts anymore. The obvious revenue growth prospect is a stadium at Coliseum City, which by the time it could actually happen would cost at least $500 million. But, as we hammered here repeatedly, there’s a lot of doubt about the ability for the A’s to pay for a ballpark in Oakland. If the A’s pre-sold $100 million of the $500 million ballpark thanks to naming rights and such, the remaining $400 million converts to a $30 million annual mortgage payment over 30 years. Matier and Ross indicate that the 1990 record of 2.9 million in attendance is proof of the support, but that’s not the concern. The concern is what happens when the A’s are losing and fans don’t show up? The A’s recent revenue sharing receipts have been in the $30 million range. If the revenue sharing receipt effectively gets transferred to a bank to pay for the ballpark, it doesn’t solve the A’s competitiveness problems since they’d remain a poor team, in this case “house poor”. That’s a terrible investment on the owner’s and league’s part. I’m also skeptical that, with Selig’s focus on incoming owners’ liquidity, such a plan to keep the A’s in Oakland would pass muster. Selig or his successor isn’t going to sign off on Oakland becoming another Pittsburgh: great stadium, poor team.

A few months ago, some pro-Oakland. keep-them-at-the-Coliseum interests called Wolff to see if he was interested in selling. He confirmed that he wasn’t. So it’s funny, though not surprising, that the interests mentioned by Matier and Ross are from Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, not Oakland or the East Bay. With the A’s ongoing presence in Oakland precarious, it would seem better to have some kind of homegrown ownership group, lest an incoming group be called carpetbaggers all over again. If either of those groups were to go in, they’d invest at least $400 million in the team and $500 million in the stadium, with no guarantee of a great sales price once they feel like selling. That’s a tough proposition for any prospective buyer, and just one of the endgame scenarios Selig has to consider when deciding the A’s fate.

03.09.12
by

News for 3/9/12

Feels like we need this since the week has been dominated by the PR war.

  • The A’s announced today that they will have a private entrance for season ticket holders. The terms are that you’ll need the credential from your season ticket book along with your ticket to use the entrance. In addition, for any extra tickets you buy for a particular game, those holding the extra tickets won’t be able to use the entrance. It seems like this was done to reward STH during bobblehead and other high-demand giveaway games, though the FAQ emphasizes that distribution of giveaways will be proportional. The entrance will be next door to Ticket Services.
  • Jeff Moorad withdrew his application to become the “control person” of the Padres, leaving John Moores as the control person for the time being. The move is considered a procedural one, with the need to consummate a TV deal between the Padres and the new Fox Sports San Diego channel first. Moorad’s deal to acquire the team from Moores was constructed so that Moorad could stretch the timeline out to four years if necessary, though his intent was to acquire controlling interest sooner than that. MLB had raised concerns that Moorad might take a lot of the Fox money upfront and use it to buy out Moores or to pay down debt, instead of putting it into the franchise (the McCourt-Dodgers TV problem). It’s a smart move by MLB, because if the rumor had some merit it could’ve sapped some $10 milion per year in revenue from the team. Now the Padres are Exhibit A in how to pull off a sale that puts the team on the best financial footing. If anything, it looks like Moorad was putting the cart before the horse. And this article from the SD Union-Tribune sheds light on the group of owners set in opposition to Moorad. There’s a big difference between that and the supposed foment against T-rights changes that Lew Wolff faces.
  • In Miami, the 5,700+ parking spaces at the Marlins ballpark are proving to be a logistical nightmare, not like we didn’t see that coming. The suggestion: buy pre-paid parking or else you’re taking your chances finding a spot on someone’s lawn.
  • As he is wont to do, Peter Hartlaub went into the archives and found a concept for a huge, multipurpose stadium on what looks like Laney College. The year: 1960. 80,000 for football and 48,000 for baseball? Not without a lot of Astroturf.
  • MLS Commissioner Don Garber really wants a stadium and team somewhere in the five four boroughs of New York City. Sorry, Staten Island.
  • Bruce Jenkins has a few words about the A’s-Giants tete-a-tete. Surprisingly, he wants the Giants crushed and calls them bullies. Sounds good to me.
  • There’s a movement afoot to get rid of the television blackout once and for all.
  • Robert Gammon considers Coliseum City the last, best chance to retain Oakland’s teams. Sad then, that Oakland’s announcement was drowned out by the A’s-Giants drama. There was a press conference on Wednesday, though no representatives for the three teams showed up to provide support.
  • Tim Kawakami thinks Joe Lacob and Peter Guber should announce where they intend to settle by next year sometime. That might be a little premature. If the Giants were to build an arena in time for the 2017-18 NBA season, they wouldn’t have to break ground until summer 2015. That puts EIR and related prep work at the beginning of 2014. Even then, if there were some snags the Coliseum Authority isn’t going to say no to a year-to-year lease, since the debt service on Oracle Arena runs through 2027.
  • BTW – Yoenis Cespedes is expected to play his first MLB game ever on TV tomorrow against the Reds (CSNCA, Noon). Don’t miss it.

One more thing about the Giants’ press release: They implied that Wolff/Fisher got a no-San Jose discount when the A’s were purchased for $172 million in 2005. What then, do they say about Arte Moreno, who bought the Angels for $185 million in 2003? He didn’t have any territorial restrictions that called for a discount, and that was for a much larger market. Weak sauce Gigantes. Maybe if some of The Game’s and KNBR’s radio talent actually did some fact-checking they’d know this stuff.

Added 2:50 PM – The field is almost done!

03.08.12
by

San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo talks nuclear option

An updated version of Mark Purdy’s column from earlier today has an interesting quote from San Jose Council Member Sam Liccardo. Liccardo, whose District 3 includes downtown San Jose and borders the ballpark parcels, is a staunchly pro-A’s-to-San Jose.

Meanwhile, officials in San Jose said Wednesday they remain planted firmly in wait-and-see mode. However, Councilman Sam Liccardo, who represents the downtown area, for the first time raised the possibility of governmentally addressing MLB’s unique antitrust exemption, which permits the league to control franchise movement in ways other pro leagues cannot legally do.

Liccardo said that if the antitrust exemption comes to be viewed as an impediment to free-market competition and economic progress, perhaps it should be challenged.

“The Giants should have nothing to fear to see the A’s compete for fans in San Jose,” Liccardo said. “May the best team win. That’s the American way.”

I’ve written in the past that an actual legal challenge to the Giants’ territorial rights wasn’t in the cards because of the cost of making such a move and the City’s constant fiscal difficulties. On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council passed a controversial motion to put pension reform on the June ballot. Earlier today, I saw what appeared to be public employees picketing along West San Fernando and Almaden Blvd. There’s a new twist to the story, in that the City may run a surplus for the coming fiscal year. Even though the surplus may be a result of major cutbacks, it’s still easier to make legal moves in that environment than it would for a city running eight-figure deficits on an annual basis. It’s far too soon to tell whether or not to take Liccardo’s threat seriously. The way MLB jealously guards and protects its antitrust exemption, it could easily dig in for a protracted battle. Then again, it may run screaming from a fight and push the Giants to accept a payoff if that threat proves a little too real. There’s only one way to find out, I suppose…
03.07.12
by

A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

Update 9:38 PM – the Giants’ statement:

Statement from the San Francisco Giants Regarding Territorial Rights
March 7, 2012

The Commissioner has asked us to refrain from discussing the territorial rights issue publicly. Out of respect for his request, we will limit our response to setting the record straight on the history of territorial rights.

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions. Most significantly in 1994, Major League Baseball conducted a comprehensive review and re-definition of each club’s territories. These designations explicitly provide that the Giants territory include Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties and the A’s territory included Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The MLB owners unanimously approved those designated territories and memorialized them in the MLB Constitution. Since then, the MLB Constitution has been re-affirmed by the MLB owners – including by the A’s – on three different occasions (2000, 2005 and 2008), long after the Giants won approval to build AT&T Park. Mr. Wolff and Mr. Fisher agreed to these territorial designations and were fully aware of our territorial rights when they purchased the A’s for just $172 million in 2005.

The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory. Upon purchasing the team 20 years ago, our plan to revive the franchise relied heavily on targeting and solidifying our fan base in the largest and fastest growing county within our territory. Based on these Constitutionally-recognized territorial rights, the Giants invested hundreds of millions of dollars to save and stabilize the team for the Bay Area, built AT&T Park privately and has operated the franchise so that it can compete at the highest levels.

Update 5:40 PM – John Shea has reaction from the Giants:

This just came in a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

Media Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 7, 2012

STATEMENT BY OAKLAND A’S OWNERSHIP

REGARDING A’S AND GIANTS SHARING BAY AREA TERRITORY:

Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A’s cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A’s share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.’

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A’s do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants were unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants’ great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A’s.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.

Discuss. The emphasis is in the original release.

Added 10:29 AM – Susan Slusser has some musings.

Added 10:51 AM – Nina Thorsen is present at (and reminded me of) Oakland’s press conference regarding Coliseum City.

Updated 10:56 AM – Release updated to correct typo (“were” instead of “we”)

Updated 1:15 PM – Mark Purdy gets quotes from Wolff.