Category Archives: Oakland

09.05.12
by

News for 9/6/12

Update 9/6 10:30 AM – Several items added.

Not much to celebrate on the field, so we’ll focus off it.

  • Sure, the A’s didn’t draw well Tuesday and Wednesday. Neither did the White Sox, Nationals and Braves. Yet league attendance is up 3% over last year. Nothing changes overnight.
  • Brodie Brazil wrote a goofy column about stuff that should carry over from the Coliseum to a new A’s ballpark. [CSN Bay Area]
  • Good to see that the regular media (Merc, NBC BA, KQED) picked up on the recent S4SJ lawsuit activity. I’ve heard that S4SJ is expected to respond with its own motion by Monday 9/10, followed by another response by the City by 9/14. If nothing else it keeps the case in the news.
  • Forbes NFL team valuations are in right on schedule. #1 is the Cowboys at a whopping $2.1 billion, followed by the Patriots and Redskins. The 49ers are at #9 with a $1.175 billion, thanks to the team’s playoff run and the start of stadium construction. The Raiders came in at #30 with a $785 million valuation, and were one of two teams to have an operating loss (according to Forbes). [Mike Ozanian]
  • We’re 9 days from the NHL’s lockout deadline, and there’s no telling what will happen. The two sides are reportedly very far apart. [SB Nation DC/Ted Starkey]
  • With ESPN’s TV deal signed, MLB may be looking for $800 million per year for the combined Fox/Turner schedules. Combined with ESPN, MLB would net $1.5 billion per year, translating to $50 million per team. Add other central revenue to that (merchandise, MLB AM, XM, etc.) teams should be able to get $70 million in national revenue every season starting in 2014. That figure doesn’t include revenue sharing (local redistribution). [Sports Business Journal/John Ourand]
  • So I guessed wrong on 95.7 The Game getting the Warriors and switching to NBC Sports Radio. The station stayed with Houston-based Yahoo! Sports Radio, and the W’s chose to renew their deal with KNBR, apparently feeling that the signal coverage was worth the third-tier status on the stations. That’s a bad loss for Entercom, though it highlights the biggest problems with The Game: its ratings aren’t going to get much better until they get more local pro teams and boost the station’s signal. The new deal runs through the 2015-16 season.
  • The good news for The Game is that the station posted a 1.1 rating for August, the highest since the programming change. The A’s haven’t moved the needle at The Game for well over a year. Perhaps this is a sign that now they are effecting change. [BA Sports Guy/Scott Willis]
  • Legislators are attempting to bring back redevelopment through various bills that have just reached Governor Brown’s desk. I won’t give the bills much attention unless Brown signs them into law. In the meantime, some groups are applying for federal tax credits to help foot the bills for projects. [ABC 7/Kendall Taggart; 10 News San Diego]
  • Save Oakland Sports has a profile in the Tribune. When talking about the upcoming fundraiser, co-founder Jim Zelinski said, “A cynic might laugh … but it all adds up.” Sure it does. Fundraisers like this, which has no set fundraising goal, can help – about 1 PSL’s worth at a time. [Oakland Tribune/Matthew Artz]
  • The federal government will lose up $4 billion in tax revenue ($146 million annually) thanks to tax-exempt bonds used on many stadia, including the Coliseum and the new 49ers stadium. [Bloomberg Businessweek/Aaron Kuriloff and Darrell Preston]

More as it comes.

08.30.12
by

News for 8/30/12

Here we go. We’ll start off with some minor league news.

  • The Santa Cruz Warriors continue to work with the City of Santa Cruz to get their tent arena built in time for the 2012-13 D-League season. Final approval hasn’t happened yet, let alone construction, so the D-League put the Surf W’s on a loooo-o-ng road trip before the team’s first home game around Christmas. That gives the two parties 16 weeks to get the arena approved, built, and buttoned up. No pressure. The Surf W’s could play on the road for additional games until the project is completed, or if there are extensive delays or the project isn’t approved, hopefully there’s a backup plan like the San Jose Civic Auditorium. Cost for the downtown arena have already ballooned from $4 million to $5 million because of foundation issues that were identified. Ticket prices have also been released. [Santa Cruz Warriors; Santa Cruz Sentinel/J.M. Brown]
  • Head north on Highway 1 and you’ll eventually get near the Cow Palace, where the San Francisco Bulls are quietly fixing up the old arena. $2 million of updates will be paid for by the team, including a center-hung scoreboard, a first for the Cow Palace. A schedule and ticket prices have also been announced. I may have to ring up the Bulls to see if I can get a sneak peek of the place. [CSN Bay Area; SF Bulls]
  • The first debate for the at-large seat on the Oakland City Council happened last night, and the two main candidates, incumbent Rebecca Kaplan and challenger (and current D5 council member) Ignacio De La Fuente both had something to say about the tenant teams at the Coliseum complex. [East Bay Citizen; Steven Tavares]

On the issue of the city’s professional sports teams, Kaplan and De La Fuente differed, if not, in terms of their priorities for retaining the A’s, Raiders and Warriors in Oakland, with Kaplan being more optimistic. “Let’s face it, the A’s don’t know the way to San Jose,” said Kaplan, and adding the current Coliseum City proposal will bring shop owners, bars and restaurants to the city along with fans and conventioneers to the area, said Kaplan, while also creating jobs.

De La Fuente was less sanguine saying he would only turn his attention to the Coliseum once crime in Oakland is sufficiently quelled. “I learned from my mistakes,” he said, referring to the botched return of the Raiders in 1995. “They are in the business of making money,” De La Fuente said, believing the public sector should no longer have a role in financing stadiums.

  • The Earthquakes announced their general seat pricing and posted a seating chart. The big ticket item is the establishment of a 1,400-person supporters section in the closed end, which will have its own bar and storage area for the flags and banners they use during the game. Interestingly, the language is “1,400-person”, not “1,400-seat”, which leads me to believe that this area will be a standing terrace. That’s fine since fans in the supporters sections are expected to stand anyway. I’m pretty sure it’s the only to fit 1,400 people in what looks like a pretty small space between the elevated seating bowl and the pitch. [SJ Earthquakes]
  • The Quakes also announced today that they are negotiating with three Fortune 100 companies on naming rights for their 18,000-seat stadium. Fortune 100, eh? Club president said that some of these companies are tech or Silicon Valley firms. Recently, new MLS stadia have netted $2-3 million per year in naming rights, which if matched by the Quakes would go a long way towards paying off the stadium. FWIW, I don’t think any local tech company should be ruled out, including Cisco (and no, that doesn’t mean Cisco is dumping the A’s). [SJ Mercury News/Elliott Almond]
  • On Saturday I’ll be in Berkeley for the first Cal football game at the rebuilt Memorial Stadium. I’ll be sure to get there early to take lots of pictures and document the experience. Somehow I was able to buy one of the last available $19.32 tickets for the opening game. I’ll be in the south end zone, a mere 5 rows up. As an aside, I was somewhat surprised at how many tickets remained for the game. I expected a sell out long ago. One thing to consider is that we’re the only market with three FBS (D-I) college football teams. Combine that with small or not-terribly-fervent fanbases and two NFL teams, and it’s easy to see why our general reaction to college ball is a collective “Meh.” [UC Berkeley]
  • On a related note, the Pac-12 Network launched two weeks ago and is still negotiating carriage deals. Comcast is not an issue since the cable provider is a partner. The issue is working out a deal with DirecTV, which is not only the provider with the most regional sports and college networks, but also the provider of choice in most bars throughout the country thanks to NFL Sunday Ticket. DirecTV purportedly rejected a deal of $0.80 per subscriber/month, leaving many fans up and down the left coast without many opening week games. Dish Network, Verizon FiOS, and AT&T U-Verse customers are also affected. [SF Business Times/Eric Young]
  • The State Controller reversed a slew of land transfers between the cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill, and their respective (and now defunct) redevelopment agencies. That doesn’t bode well for the Diridon ballpark land transfer, though it has to be pointed out that the Controller has already ruled once in San Jose’s favor, saying that Santa Clara County went to far in holding tax increment funds that were due to the City. [Merc /Tracy Seipel]

Finally, I have to thank a reader out there for giving me four prime tickets behind the A’s dugout for Wednesday’s day game against the Angels. I’m only going to use one, so if anyone’s interested in joining me and talking baseball and ballparks or economics, reply with a comment or send me a tweet.

More tomorrow.

08.29.12
by

About Oakland….

I was born in Oakland. This simple fact means that I will always have a fascination with the city. It also means that I will always root for good things to come Oakland’s way.

I regularly visit Oakland. My favorite thing to do in Oakland is impossible to say because there are so many things I love to do in Oakland. I love to see my daughters laugh and have fun at the Oakland Zoo, for example. I enjoy strolling up and down College Avenue and eating at the Crepevine. It goes without saying that I really enjoy spending time at the Coliseum Complex (be it A’s, Raiders or Warriors games). And Rudy’s Can’t Fail‘s $5 shot and PBR isn’t all that bad either (except the whiskey tastes like gasoline, but what should I expect for $5?).

So folks who prefer Oakland stay the home of the Athletics long term, let’s start from a position here of “We agree, Oakland is a nice place.”

There are other things we agree on, as well. One is that Oakland some times gets short shrift in the local papers. Some times the headlines get a little gratuitous (when was the last time you noticed a positive headline?). We all know that Oakland, being the 46th largest city in the country and like many other medium sized and large cities, has certain neighborhoods with crime problems. That has nothing to do with whether the A’s should continue to play in Oakland, it has little to do with quality of life for the city as a whole and repeatedly pointing it out is tantamount to taking “pot shots” at the city.

So, let’s set that aside too. We agree that Oakland sometimes gets pot shots lobbed in its direction and they aren’t always fair.

Now can we have an honest discussion about the things we don’t really agree on? Let’s keep in mind that there is a difference between legitimate critiques and having “a bias against Oakland.” There is a difference between asking fair questions and casting aspersions toward the Bright Side of the Bay. In short, pointing out obvious challenges is not that same as leveling baseless attacks at Oakland or its citizens.

In the early part of this season I read a letter written/signed by some fans dedicated to keeping the team in Oakland and I had to shake my head. The very first point they made about off the field issues (the East Bay has traditionally supported the team by regularly drawing in excess of 2M fans) was an intellectually dishonest statement and symptomatic of the spin campaign that has been waged by Oakland advocates. This is not to say I don’t appreciate their passion, or that I have a personal hatred for them.

“Intellectually dishonest” can come off as fighting words, I agree. So let me clarify. First, by being imprecise with the English language and using a qualifier such as “regularly,” the Oakland boosters allow themselves wiggle room. How do you quantify “regularly?” For me, and I’d argue for most people, that word means “usually.” Which is to say, “often.” How many times have the A’s drawn in excess of 2M fans? If it’s regularly, it has to be at least more than half right? The A’s have been in Oakland for 44 seasons. They have drawn in excess of 2M fans 11 times. I don’t think it is a stretch to call it “intellectually dishonest” to tout something that has happened 1/4 of the time as “regularly.”

And further, who decided that 2M fans was the threshold for “strong support?” That is an arbitrary number. I have been consistent in arguing that the real measure of successful attendance is “How did a given team perform against the MLB median in a given year?” I’ll agree, this is also imperfect. It doesn’t directly account for how wins and losses impact attendance. It doesn’t account for the fact that baseball stadiums come in various shapes and sizes. However, it is a heck of a lot more objective and accurate than picking an arbitrary number. For the record, 2M fans in the current day and age is in the bottom third of all of MLB attendance, below the MLB median. How does that equate to “strong support?”

Many folks in the pro San Jose camp point to things that happened when Jerry Brown was Mayor, or that didn’t happen when Ron Dellums was Mayor, as evidence of historical failures. I agree with you Oakland boosters that these failures are ancient history and irrelevant to the current state of stadium hunting affairs. However, the “slam dunk” you were all heralding at Victory Court turned out to be vaporware without a single peep about how you had been bamboozled. The grand “plan” of Coliseum City worked to convince the Warriors to leave Oakland (“We’ve met with Mayor Quan on numerous occasions,” Warriors owner Joe Lacob said. “We’ve not gotten any definitive proposals from her.”). Next up is the many times visited, and previously rejected, Howard Terminal.

And let me be clear… It is not unfair to point out that Victory Court, once heralded as a viable site, turned out not to be. It isn’t a pot shot at Oakland to point out that Coliseum City (touted as the mega development that would convince the A’s, Raiders and Warriors to stay) is reportedly supported by a single sports franchise, provided the excuse for one to leave and was considered and rejected by the other long ago. It is also not a shot at Oakland to point out that Howard Terminal was the most expensive proposition in 2001 (which means it is still expensive) and has numerous hurdles before it can be built. Pointing these things out doesn’t mean that Howard Terminal couldn’t house an aesthetically pleasing ballpark. Pointing these things out is accepting reality. And really, that’s my biggest gripe with the “Keep the A’s in Oakland” movement, in general.

When is the “look in the mirror” moment? When do the people who want to keep the A’s in Oakland stop with the PR and start with the doing? Where is the outrage and indignation towards the Oakland City Leaders over the whole kabuki theater around an EIR for Victory Court that never happened? How does  whole group of people get so invested in a potential site and then not even make a peep when it comes home to roost that the site was as unrealistic as many critics pointed out? When do the Oakland proponents start pushing the City to begin an EIR for Howard Terminal? When do folks start to actually question if Howard Terminal isn’t just another Victory Court? Why is it the City leaders get a free pass?

Let’s get real. When folks point out that there are many more corporate/business customers available in Santa Clara County, in San Jose or within 21 miles of the proposed Cisco Fields site… Those aren’t attacks at Oakland.  Cisco pledged $120M over 30 Years for a Ballpark in Fremont. Are we really supposed to believe they wouldn’t offer something similar in the heart of their base of operation? No company has made a similar proposal publicly for a stadium in Oakland. Are we just supposed to believe that there is some mythical company that has this covered? 75 CEO’s signed a letter of support for the A’s potential move South and sent it to Bud Selig. Those 75 CEOs were writing on behalf of an organization that represents $3 Trillion to the world’s economy. Conversely, Don Knauss had 11 other companies (some of which are huge and some which haven’t turned a profit) with him at his press conference. It isn’t just a matter of perception. The business customers in San Jose are far more plentiful than in Oakland. Ditto the South Bay as compared to the East Bay.

Combine this difference in corporate sponsorship opportunities, with the paltry attendance numbers and there are legitimate concerns about privately financing a stadium. That isn’t an attack on Oakland. It is a legitimate concern. There has been one fully, privately financed stadium built in MLB since the influx of stadiums began in the 1990’s: AT&T Park. 48% of that private financing depended on advanced ticket purchases and naming rights. To get more granular, 20% of AT&T Park was financed by PSL’s and 28% was financed by a lucrative naming rights deal. Another ~48% was provided in the form of a loan by Chase Bank.

What I am saying is that if you want to get something done, you need to address the actual challenges, not fight perception. Making statements about how great attendance has always been, in the face of evidence to the contrary, won’t get a stadium built. Getting commitments from guys like me, or the 51,000 folks on the LGO Facebook group, to buy season tickets for a brand new Oakland ballpark will.

Arguing with folks that Cisco won’t sponsor a stadium in San Jose, when we all know they will, won’t get a new stadium built in Oakland. Getting Chevron, or Clorox, or some other very large company to agree to a naming rights deal that pays $4M a year over 30 years (and having them shout it out publicly) will.

These things won’t get you all the way there, Oakland proponents. But they can get you 48% of the way to paying for it and that’s a whole lot closer than you have come to date.

 

08.27.12
by

“Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” Pep Rally

Let’s be clear about one thing. This was a pep rally. No more, no less. Rick Tittle set the tone as the emcee, talking about how teams are private entities, yet fans can make their voices heard through rallies like this. True to form, no official representatives from any teams were on hand. Tittle did his best to gin up the 200 or so people in attendance, talking up how Oakland is the only city in California with NFL, MLB, and NBA franchises. He also taunted a little, getting the crowd to respond when asking if certain other cities were “big league” (hint: one of them has the initials S.J.). Tittle finished his opening remarks by rattling off the names of numerous political and community leaders that were at the rally.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan announces the upcoming “Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” week of events

The podium was handed off to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who started off by giving a non-update on talks between the City and teams/leagues, not that anyone expected an update. She then talked about the “Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” week, which will start with the Raiders’ home opener against San Diego on 9/10, a Monday Night Football game. The bookend event is the 9/14 A’s game against Baltimore, which is both the Star Wars fireworks night and an A’s blogger night set up by the team’s media relations department. Quan encouraged fans to sell out both events, which given the circumstances, should not be too difficult. During the week will be other events, including a fundraiser. Curiously, the Warriors were only mentioned in passing by Chris Dobbins and perhaps one or two other speakers, and none of the new signage (see pic above) references the W’s. This may have something to do with how the W’s preseason doesn’t start until October. Yesterday’s revelation of the team hiring an architect for their dream SF arena probably doesn’t help. Still, the W’s are the one team whose practice facility is located in downtown Oakland. You’d think there’d be more than a token mention.

A number of others took the podium, including City Council member Rebecca Kaplan and a person from Rep. Barbara Lee’s office. Throughout the 40-minute rally, there were frequent mentions of Coliseum City and how the project can help revitalize Oakland. Strangely, I didn’t hear a peep about Howard Terminal. Now that the Port is onboard, I was surprised that Howard Terminal wasn’t discussed even a little bit. Maybe I missed something while I was tweeting during the event, but “Howard Terminal” is a phrase that would’ve gotten my attention. (Ed. – I did miss Kaplan’s Howard Terminal reference while I was tweeting.) Now that I think about it, no one from the Port was there either. In the grand scheme of things the omission doesn’t matter much, yet it remains notable. It seems as if the two efforts, such as they are, are running in parallel and there’s no effort to unite them. It sends a mixed message.

Since we’re talking about mixed messaging, I got something else from the tone of the event. On one hand, Oakland supporters talk about how devastating losing the sports teams would be, how much of an impact they make economically, civic pride, etc. At the same time the City is treating the W’s somewhat cavalierly and the A’s in a standoffish manner. It’s what a jilted lover sounds like, and it makes little sense. Don’t get me wrong, events like this and the upcoming weeklong affair are important to elevate the topic among civic discussion. There’s a feeling that this is more of the same, wake me up when you have something new.

Throughout much of the event, there was a protester on the other side of the still-fenced off Frank Ogawa Plaza who was decrying the event, yelling, “Save Oakland, Not The Raiders!” The undercurrent of protest remains, even as the City announced this event on a Friday and held it at 11 AM the following Monday. What would happen if a rally like this were held on Monday during rush hour, with Occupy protesters ready to go? I can’t imagine it’d be pretty. As much as the City keeps claiming that these new sports investments (that’s what they are) won’t require voter approval, they are kidding themselves if they think the City’s residents won’t put serious pressure to put any stadium project to a vote. That’s why this stage is so easy and positive. There are no details. No costs. No sacrifices to make. Unfortunately, the placards and pom-poms have to be put away at some point. Quan ended her remarks referring to her attendance at the recent 15-inning game saying, “It may take a while, but we’ll win in the end.” If I’m a league commissioner in a New York high-rise, I can’t think of a more confidence-inspiring message.

08.24.12
by

Port gives Howard Terminal thumbs up, warns of hurdles

The Trib’s Matt Artz wrote today that the Port of Oakland is “very interested” in converting Howard Terminal into a ballpark/commercial site. That’s a big step. Having the Port and Matson onboard is a good start. Now Oakland boosters have to get SSA Terminals onboard, which is suing the Port over contract terms. I wrote about that and other challenges two weeks ago. It’s worth a read if you hadn’t seen it it.

Artz also brilliantly sums up Oakland’s broader challenge at the moment.

With A’s owner Lew Wolff determined to move his team to downtown San Jose, Oakland needs to show baseball officials that it too has a viable site for the team that could persuade baseball owners against pursuing the very touchy subject of rescinding the San Francisco Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose.

Viable, unfortunately, is a term that is prone to subjectivity. Knowing that, let’s try to break it down into what MLB’s goals are in its neverending exploration:

  • Can the site be acquired cheaply and quickly? That’s an unknown as long as the SSA issue remains in litigation. Otherwise, it’s a site that can be configured and prepped fairly quickly, as long as cleanup isn’t too lengthy or expensive.
  • Overall, is it cheaper to pursue this site than to build in San Jose and compensate the Giants? Another unknown. The only thing we have a decent idea about right now is what it will cost to build in San Jose (including remaining land acquisitions). There’s still much to determine regarding Howard Terminal. Will infrastructure costs be borne by the club, the City, or some combination of the two? Will the cost be too expensive for either to bear, as was apparently the case with Victory Court? Plus we have no idea what proper compensation is for the Giants.
  • Will the risk that comes with Howard Terminal be too great or manageable? It’s unfair to Oakland, but when you combine the lackluster attendance history with the poor corporate base compared to San Jose, it has to be asked. How can an individual team such as the A’s pull this off, especially if they are not expected to get significant monetary help from either MLB or the City, County, or other public entity?

In the end, it’s all a big cost-benefit analysis. And if it means Oakland, I’ve gotten accustomed to taking the Capitol Corridor train to day games. It’s no sweat off my back. This is when we find out if and how Oakland can put together a good deal for the A’s and for MLB. This is how we define viable.

08.21.12
by

“Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” Press Conference on 8/27

Post to the Save Oakland Sports Facebook page earlier tonight – The City of Oakland is putting on a press conference/rally in Frank Ogawa Plaza on Monday, August 27 at 11:00 AM. Here’s the description of the event:

Mayor Quan – joined by regional elected officials, business leaders and sports fans – will share details on the “Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” Week.

The “Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” Week will salute the Oakland A’s and Oakland Raiders for being irreplaceable civic treasures that add significantly to the economy, identity, pride and culture of Oakland, Alameda County and the entire East Bay region.

Gotta show the teams some love, especially when both have leases that run out after their respective 2013 seasons. The blurb is right about one thing: the teams are irreplaceable.

Note – It appears that I have been taken off the S.O.S. email chain. Perhaps they chose to close ranks.

08.20.12
by

I want to go to there

…

I could stay here forever. Or at least until the sprinklers come on.

So there I was lying on the Coliseum grass, just beyond the infield rim where Jemile Weeks normally mans 2B. The fog had invaded, covering up any stars. I saw closeup how well Clay Wood and his staff covered up all of the evidence of a football game just five days prior. Temperatures had dipped below 60 and the breezes were starting to kick up. At least a thousand fellow A’s fans were assembled on the field, most with blankets, some clutching cups of coffee. It was 10 o’clock, and we were waiting for Moneyball.

The movie itself was introduced by Scott Hatteberg, and just as we did in the pregame ceremony several hours earlier, we cheered players as they were announced or as they appeared on the smallish portable screen. Sound bounced off the still concrete bowl, creating an eerie, unintended echo effect. The stadium lights darkened, and for a moment everything was still, everything was perfect.

I’ve probably seen Moneyball seven or eight times now (three in theaters plus I own a Blu-ray combo pack), so the movie itself wasn’t the attraction. I didn’t go to the red carpet premiere at the Paramount, so this was as much about community as anything else. Yet I distanced myself from people and stayed way back, in an open spot as close to the cordoned off infield as possible. Every so often I would stand up and look back at the old seating bowl, where the safety lights were on and the media had cleared out of the press boxes. For better or worse, this is my second home, I said to myself.

The infield and warning track were off limits to the faithful. From what I could see in fans’ faces, no one cared.

As the movie ended, I gathered all of my things and, mindful of how long I had been there and how emotional the day was, felt absolutely exhausted. Many friends who I had seen in the Coliseum had left long ago. In light and in darkness Mount Davis stood, impressive in scale and magnitude. For once I didn’t hate the edifice. It was just sitting there, alone and somewhat forlorn, no lights on. As I started to walk toward the stairs I thought to myself, I wish one of those suites was my apartment so that I could head up there and go to sleep instead of driving home.

If I had the money and someone built it, I’d live in an apartment or condo overlooking an A’s ballpark. Not one with a postage stamp sized view like in San Diego, detached from the action. A place that was as far as the upper Mt. Davis suites are now, with a balcony. I could wake up, observe the grass get cut and the mound manicured over a cup of Aeropressed coffee. Watch as tour groups came through and wave to them in my robe smoking jacket. Head downstairs, where there would probably be some retail component, for a sandwich or pastry. And watch the game from the balcony, or head down to one of the field box seats that were mandatory to buy with the apartment lease or condo purchase.

None of this is possible at the Coliseum, of course, for myriad reasons. The Raiders need those suites to be used as suites. Mt. Davis was never built with this kind of mixed use in mind. It’s something I can still dream about at a new ballpark. Given the cost of developing a park these days, it’s not a bad way to help with the financing. Follow me on this.

When NASCAR was at its peak before the crash, several tracks built condo complexes that overlooked the action. Most often, it was rich racing aficionados who bought up the units, forgoing an RV weekend in the paddock for an pied-à-terre above the track. To me that sounds crazy, considering that most tracks will get one or two races a year plus various minor events. It doesn’t compare with 81-82 games plus concerts and whatever else the team can attract to a stadium. Yet the closest thing to a residential component we’ve ever seen is the hotel at Rogers Centre (formerly SkyDome), now a Marriott Renaissance property. Lew Wolff once had an interest in it, so he should know quite well how it’s run.

20120820-200104.jpg

Bay Street in Emeryville, a mixed residential/commercial development

If someone were to experiment with this kind of feature, one can’t expect a big, 400-foot long apartment building with 200 units facing the ballpark. There’d probably be a “boutique” style building with no more than 40 units, 20 facing the ballpark, 6 stories tall, roof deck with a pool on top. How would they be sold? Upfront as condos with high HOA dues, or extremely expensive apartments? Maybe fans who aren’t one-percenters could enter a lottery for one or two units, or perhaps for a year-long lease. 25 years ago the apartments on Waveland and Sheffield outside Wrigley Field could be rented by an average family. Now they’re all corporate suites, better than the ones inside the park. In either condo or apartment form the units could provide a not-small financing piece, up to $30 million towards the ballpark’s total construction cost after factoring in overhead. That’s about as much as anyone could expect from a seat license sale, and it wouldn’t come with the uncertainty or negative vibe associated with PSLs.

Taken as part of the growing number of luxury options, these could be considered as either complementary or competitive with regular suites. The biggest difference would be the view and the access, since suites are not normally available 24/7 the way a housing unit has to be. One could even see a player or two take advantage of the convenience, though he’d have to make sure his curtains are drawn at the proper moments. That is, unless he likes the attention.

08.17.12
by

The other kind of walkoff

The A’s made hay in July via a series of walkoff wins. It’s fitting that the team is capitalizing on a phenomenon coined by former Athletic Dennis Eckersley, almost karmic (I’d rather have won the ’88 WS). The A’s soccer brethren, the Earthquakes, have also gotten into the act, stringing together several winning and tying goals in the waning moments of numerous games this season. Let’s just say that the organization is no stranger to theatrics.

That comes in stark contrast to the neverending ballpark struggle, which has entered its 41st month according to our counter, but really has gone on for more than twice that long if you count back to when the Wolff/Fisher group took ownership. And if you believe Jayson Stark’s take coming out of the owners meetings this week, there’s no end in sight:

For about the 78th consecutive meeting of baseball’s problem-solving owners, there was no resolution this week of the A’s-Giants standoff. But if it wasn’t clear before now, it’s more obvious than ever that, in the words of one baseball official, that moving the A’s to San Jose is, most likely, “never going to happen.”

One sports attorney who has looked into this told Rumblings that the Giants have “a hell of a case” — centered around a document signed by the commissioner defining their territorial rights to include San Jose. And that’s critical, because any move by the A’s, or by the sport, to ignore or override those territorial rights could open a messy can of larvae for baseball.

How? Well, if the Giants’ territorial rights were suddenly deemed to no longer apply, it could set a precedent that might inspire some other team to attempt to move to New York or Southern California, by arguing the territorial rights of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers and Angels were no longer valid, either.

So if the A’s aren’t bound for San Jose, what is likely to happen to them? Behind the scenes, baseball people are predicting they’ll eventually have to give up on this battle and settle for a new, Pittsburgh-size park in Oakland — and then do their best to beat up on the Giants in interleague play.

Stark didn’t articulate how this ballpark would be paid for. It’s a legitimate question. Oakland isn’t alone here. Field of Schemes’ Neil deMause pointed out in a recent Slate article that Seattle is facing the same dilemma.

Stanford economist Roger Noll pegs the operating profits of a typical arena at somewhere between $20 and $30 million a year. That could be enough—barely—to pay off $400 million or so in arena debt. But then Hansen and his as-yet-unnamed investors will still need to put down a huge amount of money to purchase an NBA franchise to play there. If every penny of revenue is going to pay off construction debts, that will leave nothing to offer his moneymen as return on their investment. “The gross revenues of an NBA team in Seattle could not possibly be sufficient,” says Noll, to cover the costs of both building an arena and buying a team.

Replace Seattle with Oakland and “NBA team” with “Athletics” and you have the first half of our local quandary. The crux of the argument to keep the A’s in Oakland is that some sugar daddy ownership group (Don Knauss & Co.) will swoop in, buy the A’s from Wolff/Fisher ($500 million) and pay for a new ballpark ($500-600 million). Using deMause’s corollary, which we’ve espoused here repeatedly, how does this new ownership make money, or even prevent themselves from being buried in debt? Even in San Jose a $500 million ballpark will require tons of upfront commitments to ensure that Wolff/Fisher aren’t leveraged to the hilt.

Moreover, this ongoing stalemate does no one any favors except the Giants, who must love the status quo – except for that pesky drug suspension thing. If the other big market teams are truly afraid of breaking precedent, then the naysayers are right, there is no way to San Jose. We’ve never heard anything directly from any owner to confirm this, so it’s just more grist for the mill. Funny thing is that there are protections in the Major League Constitution to keep the two-team markets safe. From Doug Pappas’ old article dissection the Major League Rules (emphasis mine):

Under Rule 1(c), either league can move into a territory belonging to a club in the other league, so long as (a) 3/4 of the affected league’s teams consent; (b) the two parks are at least five air miles apart unless the two clubs mutually agree otherwise; (c) the newcomer pays the existing club $100,000 plus half of any previous indemnification to invade the territory; and (d) the move leaves no more than two clubs in the territory. This provision dates to late 1960, when it was adopted to establish the terms for the expansion Los Angeles Angels to play in the territory claimed by the Dodgers in 1958.

That leaves Boston and Philadelphia as the only “vulnerable” markets, and any move to either city would face just as many political and logistical obstacles as the A’s face going to San Jose, if not more. Even with that technicality out of the way, the big market owners may be looking at T-rights as sacrosanct and untouchable, nevermind the actual language.

Bringing us back to Stark’s blurb, what can Wolff do? He seems content to play the nice guy role among the owners and not push the matter. If the Giants are lined up looking to sue, the A’s can do the same. San Jose is putting together its own legal resources should a decision come down not in their favor. But there is one maneuver, one trump card that Wolff can play that we’ve only skirted around, and it’s fairly simple.

Wolff could refuse to negotiate a Coliseum lease extension.

Fitting that this last bit of “inaction” could finally force action. It worked for the Minnesota Vikings. It most certainly won’t get the kind of results Zygi Wilf got (a publicly financed stadium), but it would at least force the powers that be to act. It would absolutely burn the last bridge Wolff had with Oakland and would be the worst PR move ever on top of many other missteps, but as we’ve seen in the Vikings’ case, it’s practically standard operating procedure for owners looking to get new stadia. Oakland pols have bragged that the A’s have nowhere to play besides the Coliseum. Do they really want to make that bluff?

Wolff’s refusal would create a nightmare for MLB. MLB could proceed one of two ways, either A) rule once and for all on the T-rights matter and let the franchise move forward, or B) try to assume control of the A’s by alleging that Wolff was not acting as a proper caretaker of the franchise in the market. The A’s can’t be contracted through the rest of the current CBA. Two teams would have to be contracted as a matter of practice and the Rays are locked into their lease, making contraction impossible in the near term. If MLB rules for the Giants, then at least Wolff would be able to decide if he wants to build in Fremont or give up completely and sell the team. And if MLB rules for the A’s, then Wolff will have gotten what he wanted, although he had to be a dick to Selig and the Lodge to make it happen, and Selig would have to deal with the Giants’ legal onslaught.

Selig could try to buy Wolff’s silence by subsidizing an East Bay stadium (also unprecedented) or having the other owners buy out the Wolff/Fisher group, which won’t be cheap. Wolff/Fisher are in a strong position in that they don’t have to sell, at any price if they don’t like.

Now, if MLB were to try to wrest control of the A’s from Wolff, the league would land in litigation hell. Wolff could easily point to Selig’s committee’s 41 months with no plan or decision, and it would drag out for a long time. Unlike the McCourt-Dodgers fiasco, the Wolff/Fisher group are more than solvent (underneath it all A’s ownership is the 4th richest in baseball). T-rights would finally be dragged out into the open, in court. Meanwhile, MLB would have to step in and negotiate lease terms with Oakland/Alameda County for some unknown period. They can’t go around Wolff to negotiate a lease while he’s still the franchise’s control person, since he still has to sign on the line which is dotted. MLB can’t get an injunction on Wolff not doing something. Can they force him to negotiate a lease? We’ll see. Beyond the Bay Area, there will be at least one mayor who’ll look at the ending lease and make a play for the A’s, even if the resources aren’t there. Effectively the A’s would turn into the Expos, a team in limbo for an indeterminate period.

All of that’s possible from Wolff making a simple declaration. He doesn’t have to make it now. He could wait until the end of the 2013 season if he likes. The chaos would put a great toll on the franchise and the fanbase, and you’d have to wonder if, in the end, it’s worth it. Walking away from the lease could be the first domino. At least someone would be playing. We’ve been talking about post-2013 for a while now. The closer we get to that point without a resolution, the more likely someone’s going to make a move out of desperation. Often large bureaucratic organizations don’t make moves until things reach crisis mode. If Selig wanted to end his tenure without drama, this definitely wouldn’t be a way to do it.

08.16.12
by

Oakland, Raiders, NFL have their own secret meeting

The Trib’s Matthew Artz reports that Oakland had another secret meeting, this time with the NFL about a new Raiders stadium in the Coliseum complex. Unlike the MLB-Oakland meeting, team ownership was on hand in the form of Mark Davis. Not much was revealed about the nature of the meeting, though we can guess that the NFL wanted to know more about how the feasibility study is going. The Raiders have chosen to be the only team to sign on with the Coliseum City project, which the City is pushing as a second downtown, anchored by one or more sports franchises.

Coliseum City/Oakland Live!

Coliseum City/Oakland Live!

What I’d like to know is how much the City and the Raiders are on the same page. Mayor Jean Quan seems to be pushing for a stadium-cum-convention center, with the stadium part possibly having a retractable roof. Does Davis also want that, or does he simply want an outdoor football stadium? The latter would presumably be much simpler to accomplish. The former would be much more expensive and risky, though it sets up the possibility that there could be more revenue streams to help pay off the new complex.

The NFL is no stranger to this process, as anyone who’s followed the exhausting saga of the Minnesota Vikings can attest. They hold the purse strings, and while I’m doubtful that the league will hand Oakland a fat nine-figure investment for a second Bay Area stadium, the NFL and the Raiders are at least going about their due diligence. We won’t know anything substantial until the feasibility study is released, which probably won’t happen until the end of this year or after the football season.

Another thing I’m interested in is how Raider fans feel about the team playing inside a retractable dome. I’ve seen 4 NFL games in domes, including one at Cowboys Stadium while the roof was closed. Even if the roof is open, it doesn’t feel like an outdoor game. And being in an enclosed space doesn’t guarantee that the stadium will be noisier. Arrowhead Stadium is one of the loudest stadia in the NFL and it’s almost completely exposed to the elements. Raider crowds at the Coliseum are among the most boisterous in the country, and the “sealed” environment of a dome can sometimes sap that energy. At other times a dome can enhance crowd noise (New Orleans). It’s one of the many issues the Raiders and Raider fans will need to discuss going forward, as the team and the league have made it clear that the Coliseum as it stands is not a long-term solution.

P.S. – Artz mentions that the Coliseum complex is 750 acres. It’s actually 100 acres plus the Home Base and Malibu lots, pushing the publicly-owned stadium complex to more like 120 acres. 750 acres is the size of both “redevelopment zones” on either side of 880, including the Coliseum complex.

08.16.12
by

Nothing to see here, move on

The owners meetings came and went with barely a peep. The only major news was the slam-dunk approval of the Padres sale. A single, solitary update on the state of the A’s came via MLB.com’s Barry M. Bloom:

 

That’s it, as expected. Good thing the game starts in a few minutes.