Category Archives: Owners

03.14.11
by

News for 3/14/11

Today’s hearing for Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose may set the stage for a proper settlement between the two parties over $62.9 million in redevelopment funds owed to the county. The Merc’s Karen de Sá has the details, including this bit from County Supervisor Dave Cortese, who has long been a ballpark backer:

“This is what we call a straight breach of contract, it’s not that much different than if somebody got behind on their car or house payments — you gotta settle up,” said board president Dave Cortese. “The difference is, this isn’t money for a car payment, this is money that needs to go toward all the services the county provides, everything from emergency rooms to a regional park service, libraries and courthouses. There’s no end to the hardship that would result in us being out of pocket $63 million.”

City Attorney Rick Doyle is among those who believe a deal can be reached by Wednesday, which is when the State Legislature is supposed to hear the new budget proposal.

Santa Clara is set to wrap up its work to protect RDA funds for the 49ers stadium project tomorrow.

San Diego is considering a Diridon-like transfer of 135 RDA-owned properties to the City.

Longtime NY Times baseball writer and anti-blog curmudgeon Murray Chass keeps up the weekly trickle of nationally-sourced articles pushing for the A’s to move south. This one follows a widely used AP piece last week. I sense a strategy in there… Chass’s column comes two years after a similar entry at his site, the difference this time being the appearance of Bill Neukom on the scene.

Jonah Keri’s new book about the Moneyball-style rise of the Tampa Bay Rays is out. The book is titled The Extra 2%: How Wall Street Strategies Took a Major League Baseball Team from Worst to First.

Added 3/15 1:00 AM – In Sunday’s edition of the Chronicle, Matier and Ross reported that Denver attorney Paul Jacobs was hired by Oakland to be its lead negotiator for the Victory Court project. The $455 per hour hiring, which wasn’t publicized immediately because it was done in closed session, is a big deal because Jacobs is prominent in the Western US for working on stadium deals. His biggest claims to fame are his role in putting together the resources that eventually created the Colorado Rockies, and the ballpark and land development deal around PETCO Park. As is often the case in the stadium game, Jacobs isn’t batting 1.000. More recently he worked on the aborted Pacific Commons project in Fremont and was retained by the City of Oceanside in its efforts to figure out a football stadium deal for the Chargers. One thing I’m curious about is whether or not the firm Barrett Sports Group was brought in. The last two links include mentions of Barrett Sports Group, the “other half” to Jacobs, with both hired as a package deal of sorts. Jacobs handles the real estate stuff, while BSG takes care of facility planning and financing. BSG counts A’s and Giants ownership as two of its many current or former private sector clients.

03.11.11
by

Days of Reckoning

Governor Jerry Brown’s self-imposed budget deadline has come and gone, though Brown has asked for more time to work out details with the legislature. That body is trying to line up a floor vote next week, and they can waive the advance requirement for a public vote if they can get the budget basics outlined. If a compromise can’t be reached in the Capitol, Brown has warned of an “all cuts” budget in which every state agency and employee group will be in an “every man for himself” mode. It’s hard to conceive, but not out of the realm of possibility. It’s too early to know what such an impasse would mean for redevelopment, and for the various stadium projects throughout the state.

Speaking of redevelopment, Santa Clara County’s lawsuit against the City of San Jose and SJRA will have a hearing on Monday. The immediate issue at hand is the County’s request for an injunction against the transfer of the Diridon land to SJDDA. It’s a move that could have a paralyzing effect on ballpark efforts in San Jose, at least if the state goes through with the elimination of redevelopment agencies. One thing to keep in mind is that unlike many other Bay Area counties, Santa Clara County has no redevelopment agency of its own. That makes the County unique in that advocacy for curtailing or eliminating redevelopment presents no potential conflict of interest. San Jose has tendency to throw its weight around, so you can see why the County might feel it has to resort to a legal action.

If redevelopment goes away, it wouldn’t only threaten San Jose. Oakland, Santa Clara, and at least two or all three of SoCal football concepts would both see their stadium projects vanish (San Diego, City of Industry for certain, Downtown LA unclear).

Under Brown’s proposal, redevelopment agency property would be sold and the proceeds divided among the cities, counties, school districts and other local entities, finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said, so moves to protect the assets – transferring parking lots, buildings and other properties to a city, for example – could limit the amount those other local government bodies get if lawmakers eliminate redevelopment agencies.

Assuming that whatever lawsuits stem from the seizures get resolved, that would leave the various cities to work out deals where agreements and contracts already exist. That would include the Coliseum in Oakland and the Airport West property in San Jose.

In other news:

  • Chuck Greenberg is resigning from his CEO post with the Texas Rangers today, after only 8 months on the job. A shocker, and the background article is a worthwhile read.
  • The A’s will raise funds for victims of the Sendai earthquake and tsunami on April 3, a game against the Mariners. The day will also be called Japanese Heritage Day.
  • NFLPA appears to be ready to decertify itself, a move that would preempt a lockout. It would also set off a series of lawsuits. The two sides are said to be some $600-700 million apart n terms of sharing revenue, with the league offering 43% of the full pie ($9 Billion) and the players wanting 50%. By going down this path, both sides are setting a highly contentious precedent that could well be followed by the NBA this summer, MLB not so much. Update 1:19 PM – The league has reportedly upped their offer to 46%. Last minute talks are underway. Update 2:16 PM – False hope. Union is decertifying. Begin lockout posthaste.
  • Tim Kawakami continues to carry the torch for Larry Ellison’s NBA team ownership bid.

I need a drink.

03.09.11
by

Getting ready just in case

KCBS radio reported yesterday that an online construction bidding service, bidclerk, has a new or updated listing for an A’s stadium San Jose (paid subscription required). The value of the project is $400 million, less than what we’ve frequently discussed as the cost of the ballpark. Start date is listed as January 2013. The project description goes as follows:

New construction of an athletic stadium in San Jose. Preliminary plans call for the construction of a 32,000-seat baseball stadium. The stadium will include concession areas, restrooms, ticket boxes, V.I.P. areas, locker rooms, a medical facility and offices.

This project is contingent upon approval from Major League Baseball and the city. Construction is scheduled to begin no earlier than the first quarter of 2013.

The listing dates back to 2006, when the A’s were looking in Fremont. Strangely, the included documents are two of the now outdated Pacific Commons renderings alongside one recent San Jose rendering. Listed as project contacts are Lew Wolff and 360 Architecture principal Brad Schrock. There isn’t much information right now other than a heads up to interested contractors. Should the project be approved by MLB and SJ, activity should increase appreciably.

Wolff’s Maritz-Wolff development company also lists the Earthquakes’ stadium project. Some light-oriented schematics are included, and the project description indicates how much further along the project is compared to the ballpark:

Site work and new construction of a mixed-use development in San Jose. Schematic plans call for the construction of a 20,000-seat soccer stadium.

This project is currently in the financing stage, and construction is tentatively expected to begin in spring 2011.

In both cases, they are accurate reflections of where the two projects stand. That leaves the January 2013 start date for Cisco Field the one truly speculative item. Should it start at that date, construction would have to be completed in 27 months to be done prior to Opening Day.

03.02.11
by

Requiem for a Finley (or Peterson complains about Wolff’s complaining)

One of the problems I have with Lew Wolff pleading his case in the media is that it gives the media plenty of fuel for columns – columns that are almost invariably anti-Wolff. Such is the case today, with a Bloomberg article followed up by a rejoinder by Tribune columnist Gary Peterson. None of it moves the conversation forward, and it creates a cloud over a team at a time when all teams should have unfiltered hope on their side. You’ve got pro-Oaklanders and most local columnists on one side and Wolff, Beane, and the national columnists on the other side. And there isn’t much room for convincing either.

Peterson has plenty of good points (the beer size scandal) and some bad ones (the non-existent big development in SJ), but he makes one rhetorical mistake in comparing Wolff to Charlie Finley. In no way is Wolff as cheap, colorful, or rebellious as the maverick Finley. MLB wouldn’t have a Finley in the current era. As much of a mixed bag as Finley was, his honeymoon in Oakland may have ended as early as April 18, 1968. That was the date of the second ever home game for the Athletics in Oakland. After a sellout, 50,000+ crowd on opening night, game two brought in a whopping 5,304, most of those probably season tickets. Out of curiosity, I did a check of every first and second home game ever played in Oakland, and the results are only marginally better, sometimes worse.

Bold/italic figures indicate doubleheaders. Blue years are in Kansas City, Green years are in Oakland. Home games played outside of Oakland were not counted. Data source: Baseball Reference

There’s a story – possibly apocryphal – of how Finley said that he made a mistake in moving the A’s to Oakland when he saw the crowd for that second game (that may be how Selig got the basis for his famous quote). To be fair, BART was under construction. On the other hand, traffic was not nearly as bad on the Nimitz, then also known as Highway 17. Seriously though, 5,304? And less for the second games the next few years? The Haas era bumped things up, but even then the A’s had two years whose second games had four-figure crowds. Increased season ticket sales this year should ensure that a <10,000 crowd won't occur this year. Still, no matter how much Oaklanders and columnists despise Lew Wolff, hate alone won't save the A's. Showing up just might. I know that many of you will be there on Opening Day. What about the following day?

03.01.11
by

When encroachment is not encroachment

Update 3/1 2:00 PM – Lew Wolff is keeping the campaign going. In a Bloomberg article, Wolff states that he is “aghast” at how the Giants could be so stubborn in guarding T-rights when the A’s are moving further away.

Thanks to jk-usa for getting hold of KCBS In Depth’s (Doug Sovern / Ed Cavagnaro) interview with Giants president Larry Baer. Nearly four minutes of the interview is spent talking about the A’s and territorial rights. Below is a transcription of the relevant section (starting at 17:30 of the interview).

KCBS: The other team in our market – the A’s – their owner still very much has his eye on San Jose. What is the Giants’ on this, has it changed at all as far as, is there something you would accept to give the A’s entry into San Jose?

Baer: No change. When we go back to 1992 and the team was acquired by this group, there was a territorial right that went with that purchase… the exclusive right to exhibit baseball in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties… We understand the A’s situation. We believe that they need a new ballpark. There’s no doubt about that… but they need a new ballpark, not a new territory. Certainly in their exclusive areas, Alameda or Contra Costa County or anywhere else in this region whether it’s Sacramento or wherever, we wish the A’s luck and hope that they’re able – for the good of the sport – to get a stadium that’s to their liking.

KCBS: We know you have the right and that you’re opposed, but do you think that there’s any chance that the owners would allow the A’s to move to San Jose, and the odds that the San Jose people would be able to build a baseball stadium?

Baer: Well, there’s no precedent for stripping a team of its territory. People point to Baltimore-Washington. That’s a totally different situation because the Orioles did not have a territorial right to Washington. In fact, when Montreal moved to Washington there were reparations paid to the Orioles even though it wasn’t necessary. So in a way it argues our point that even when another team doesn’t own a territory, that it’s allowed to move close, there’s a chance for real destabilization of the existing team. So this has been kicked around forever. The commissioner has never indicated to us that he believes that the territorial right that we have is in doubt.

KCBS: How do you feel having the A’s in San Jose would harm the Giants?

Baer: Well if you look at the patterns, Ed, and you look at over the years what’s transpired… when the team was first acquired in ’92 or ’93 the team was in trouble. We were playing in Candlestick but the fans weren’t coming. We were thinking that it was franchise that maybe could not survive. We redoubled the marketing effort – San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. That is our core. If you look at – even though Oakland may be closer to SF than San Jose – there’s a little thing that people forget called the San Francisco Bay. The path of travel in this region is really north-south. If you look at KCBS traffic reporters and where people are moving it’s a north-south grid. People are well versed and in the habit of coming up the train to San Francisco – we have to preserve Caltrain by the way – coming up the train to Giants games. They take buses, they take BART into parts of the South Bay. That is our fanbase. It’s a big part of who we are, it’s where our sponsors come from, and we’d be destabilized if the Giants had another team that was right there.

That part of the interview was sandwiched by talk about an arena in SF and CBA matters.

First off, I have to admit I admire the way Baer said that he hopes it works out for the A’s in Alameda/Contra Costa Counties and sneaks in a reference to Sacramento or other parts of “the region” in the same breath. The Giants certainly won’t be shedding any tears if the A’s moved to Sacramento. They’d probably pay for the Mayflower trucks. Of course, Sacramento is such a hamstrung market right now that any suggestion like this is clearly a straw man. Still – well played, Baer.

Next up – the path of travel is really north-south? That must explain the full Embarcadero BART platform before and after each Giants game. Or the record BART ridership the day of the championship parade. Or the fact that fans coming via Caltrain are 5% of a typical Giants gameday attendance. Or the 444,000 vehicles that take the three east-west bridges every day. Come on, let’s get real. We all know something that neither Larry Baer nor Bill Neukom are willing to say – that the Giants and AT&T Park have taken much of the East Bay fanbase, especially the casual fan. They have that and they want continued protection of their “core.” As much as fans may come from the South Bay, it still isn’t the most convenient kind of fandom. If a weeknight Giants game ends at 10 PM, fans aren’t leaving on the train until 10:30 and won’t arrive at their respective stations in Santa Clara County until at least 11-11:15. Add a drive home and it’s 11:30. That may be perfectly acceptable for diehard Giants fans (it is for me when going to A’s games) but it’s a tall task to get a truly significant number of fans from the South Bay. And the “BART into parts of the South Bay” business? That is truly rich.

Circles indicate a 20-mile radius from China Basin, Coliseum, Diridon sites

Circles indicate a 20-mile radius from China Basin, Coliseum, Diridon sites

The Giants frequently like to point out that 50% of their ticket sales come from south of the San Francisco City-County line. Roughly half of those come from Santa Clara County, and many of those are long-time Giants fans. Many are corporate interests who can’t or won’t buy into the A’s where they’re currently situated. Sometimes it’s both. If they’re that worried, why not measure it? Let’s set a baseline for how much revenue comes from the South Bay, and if the Giants see an attributable drop to the A’s move to San Jose, MLB can set compensation on a seasonal basis until the loans on AT&T Park are paid off. I’ve suggested in the past the the A’s simply shift part of their existing revenue sharing check – which basically is paid by the Giants anyway given the clubs’ relationship to the revenue sharing pool – and be done with it. Once the A’s move in, then use the baseline. The fact is that San Jose is too far from either San Francisco or Oakland to be even remotely optimized as a market. If MLB wants to maximize sales to the entire Bay Area, it needs to maximize the sales territory. Ever wonder why Oakland doesn’t have great retail shopping districts or a mall? It’s partly because long ago, retailers and developers decided they could get sales from Oakland without having to locate in Oakland by locating in Emeryville, San Leandro, and even SF for some major stores. At some point MLB will have to decide if it wants as much from the Bay Area as possible or not. The status quo will surely not provide that.

Finally, there’s this matter of the Giants getting the South Bay baked into the $100 million purchase price paid by Peter Magowan and company in 1993. That price was a hometown discount, well shy of the $115 million offered by Vincent Piazza when he tried to move the team to St. Petersburg. We’re familiar with the hometown discount since it allowed Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann to get the A’s from Wally Haas for a cut rate. However, that brings up the question of how much the T-rights for the South Bay were worth back then and now. Below is a table showing the purchase prices for eight teams that changed hands in the early 90’s.

franchisesales-early90s

So Magowan paid about the same for a bigger market, greater legacy team as Drayton McLane and Nintendo did? Barely more than the two National League expansion franchises, both of whom were in inferior markets compared to the Giants? Incidentally, Magowan initially offered $95 million but may have brought in additional outside money to bolster the bid (at the time Magowan was worth a “measly” $60 million, hardly billionaire status).

If $95 million could be considered the Value of a Replacement Franchise, that doesn’t say much for having additional value baked into the 1993 price paid for the Giants, whether that value comes from T-rights to the South Bay or not. In all of the resale cases, franchise values may have been artificially depressed to maintain that team in-market. That’s fine, better that than a free-for-all. Let’s not kid ourselves about how much Santa Clara County was worth back then. In fact, in 1993 the A’s franchise valuation was $114 million, well north of the Giants, close to Piazza’s bid, and more reflective of an open market valuation. Shortly after Magowan assumed control, he inked Barry Bonds and the franchise value took off. It’s hard to argue that the South Bay had so much value in that transition when Magowan such a huge discount in the process. There’s more meat to the story if the value is baked into the financing of the stadium. But that’s done in 2017, and the Giants want the South Bay in perpetuity.

The funny thing is that I’ve spent over 1,000 words on what is essentially no change in position on the part of the Giants from 2009, when Neukom took the helm. While the A’s and South Bay interests have shifted to an appeal to decency, the Giants haven’t budged one bit. It’s clear that one team is better at playing this particular game, and it’s not the one who has more World Series trophies.

02.25.11
by

Emphasis, or beating a dead horse

The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser catches up with Lew Wolff on the stadium situation:

Wolff reiterated that he believes that the Bay Area should be considered like the other two-team markets, none of which have territorial rights assigned.

Wolff said that funding for any stadium approved in San Jose is in place. “We’re prepared to build the stadium,” he said. “We have the funding, the equity, the sources of revenue.”

This is the first I’ve heard or read Wolff confirm this. Obviously he’s not going to divulge details on how this would work, but we’ve made plenty of reasonably good guesses here to paint a picture.

In other news, the Kings have asked for an extension to the March 1 deadline to petition for a franchise move, presumably to Anaheim.

With both of those in mind, here’s a simple poll question.

02.24.11
by

Revenue sharing rollback?

Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal is at it again. This time he’s talking about that horrible, disgusting word that I loathe, the one that makes my skin crawl, the C-word.

That’s right. Contraction.

Rosenthal notes that some of the big market owners are grousing about having to send money to low revenue franchises such as the Rays and A’s, who conveniently don’t have new ballparks to help their revenue cases. Both teams should be the likeliest candidates because of this. However, all is not as it appears to be! Rosenthal walks back the threat in the context of upcoming CBA negotiations. To wit:

Such a threat would, however, change the tenor of the upcoming labor negotiations, raising the tension considerably. Yes, the owners always could pull back to extract other concessions, but if the A’s can be saved, why risk a work stoppage to eliminate one troubled franchise?

Naturally, he pivots to an A’s move to San Jose, which could (and should) resolve the A’s poor revenue position. In the grand scheme of things, improving the A’s financial stance may bump up total MLB revenue 1% on annual basis. That’s not enough to make Joe Fan notice, but if the game is as also about getting more owners to sign off on the financial model for the next 5-10 years, it’s an important battle to not have to fight.

Right now, MLB and MLBPA are set to go into CBA negotiations with several draft related items such as bonus slotting, a potential international draft, and the possibility of trading draft picks (yes please). Competition matters include increased replay and that extra playoff round. These items are only peripherally related to how the revenue pie is split, so the tension regarding those matters is projected to be minimal at best. That makes the biggest struggle not between players and owners, but rather between owner haves and have-nots. It has building to this ever since revenue sharing was introduced, and the financial document leaks of last summer only added fuel to the fire.

For a while I’ve been talking about how revenue sharing isn’t going to be expanded. It faces a rollback, strange as it seems, and the big market teams are pushing it. Bud Selig is listening, as his response to Hank Steinbrenner’s comments from earlier in the week shows:

“We have more competitive balance than ever before,” Selig said. “We have more competitive balance than any other sport.

“Now, look, is the system perfect? No. I didn’t say it was perfect, but I said that I think what exists today is pretty darn good. In the next labor negotiation, we have to tweak it in some areas, and it’s significant tweaks.”

What kinds of tweaks are we talking about here? There might be a tweak to the luxury tax, but that would only really satisfy the Yankees. Revenue sharing is defined as 31% of revenue minus expenses. Which means that teams keep more than 69% of their gate, local TV and radio money thanks to the ability to deduct stadium costs. Forbes had the Yankees 2009 revenue at $440 million after expenses and revenue sharing. By reducing the required share from 31% to 25%, the Yankees could see their net revenue approach $500 million, half of that excess likely going to yet another free agent pickup.

On the other end of the spectrum, a have-not team like the A’s could see its revenue go south by only a few million. It also means that other have-nots would take similar hits. In practical roster terms, this means not signing some like Grant Balfour. For a team that tends to hoard revenue sharing like the Pirates, it simply means they have less to hoard since they are forever playing the waiting game until their competitive window opens.

(You can stop your laughing now.)

Thankfully, the have-nots and middle class teams outnumber the big markets. They’re not going to take this lying down and they can lobby Selig just as effectively as the Steinbrenner brothers or John Henry (who once owned a have-not team in the Marlins). What to do then? As Rosenthal suggests, getting one team off the dole – namely the A’s – could be a big difference maker. The Twins are already there. The Marlins will be healthier starting next year. The Royals have a greatly renovated ballpark and a fantastic farm system which could literally pay dividends over the next several years. The A’s will be once they have a ballpark built (and they have the revenue streams to pay for it). That leaves the Rays as the only team that can’t lift itself up by its proverbial bootstraps. Knowing that the Rays probably won’t have anything done at least through this next CBA means they are the only team to worry about instead of four or five should the A’s situation be resolved. The sooner the owners make this happen, the sooner they can end this major internal distraction and rally in solidarity against their real enemy: the players union.

.

P.S. One other thing that Rosenthal touches on is debt or legal issues facing certain owners like Fred Wilpon, Frank McCourt, and Tom Hicks. It would seem that owning a team is a license to do some seriously crazy things, like investing with Bernie Madoff or buying a bunch of other franchises that one can’t afford. While Selig may look to enforce debt rules better, his reach doesn’t go as far as telling owners how to run their own personal finances. Is this recent history of individual owner financial troubles simply a remnant of the economic downturn or something else? I don’t know that any additional “screening” of potential owners would help. It’s not like choosing owners is going to become an open, democratic process overnight. They don’t call it The Lodge for nothing.

P.P.S. Ray Ratto also dismisses contraction.

02.23.11
by

News and Interviews for 2/23/11

Carl Guardino’s interview with Lew Wolff and Michael Crowley is now available (MP3). Nothing really new, other than one particular quote from Wolff that I took note of. When asked by a caller about whether it’s San Jose or out of the area to Sacramento or Vegas because Oakland’s not possible, Wolff replied:

I don’t agree with you that the Oakland situation is quite that bad. It’s a fanbase, but the problem is that implementing a privately financed ballpark is difficult.

So what it comes down to, as I’ve been hammering home for the last year or so, is being able to pay for the stadium. Oakland is simply behind the eight ball when it comes to corporate interests and it’s a nonstarter for seat licenses if those ever become necessary. I don’t have specific numbers to back this up, but I suspect that the club seat market is also poor. Even for fairly well-attended A’s and Raiders games, club sections are frequently empty compared to others. If building in Oakland or Fremont was based on an economic model that collapsed (real estate), what is to take its place? It brings to mind comments made by official Yankees blowhard Hank Steinbrenner regarding revenue sharing and markets (via ESPN):

“At some point, if you don’t want to worry about teams in minor markets, don’t put teams in minor markets, or don’t leave teams in minor markets if they’re truly minor,” Steinbrenner said. “Socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is never the answer.”

Say what you will about the Yankees, but there’s a reason their ticket prices are so astonishingly high: they’re privately financing $1.1 Billion of the new stadium. Which means that they’re privately financing a stadium, paying luxury tax, and contributing the lion’s share of revenue sharing into the pool. Yet they still can’t fill out a rotation. Hank probably has a nice ulcer over all of that.

Shortly after the market question, the subject matter changed to Wolff’s communications (or lack thereof) with Oakland Mayor Jean Quan. Quan, who was misidentified as the first Asian American mayor of a major US city in Baseball Oakland’s otherwise good interview (Norm Mineta was San Jose’s mayor 40 years ago), has mentioned that she hasn’t spoken to Wolff since his aborted Coliseum North plan, which Wolff himself confirmed. Now, they can both play political points with each of their respective bases by continuing to point this out, or they can actually choose to have a real conversation. Not like anyone’s stopping either of them. And for those of you who say, “so-and-so should act first,” grow up. It doesn’t matter.

Further on in the Quan interview, she suggests that redevelopment is in a much more secure position than portrayed by others who may be signaling alarms (including me), simply due to the legal trouble the state would face in dismantling it. That may be the case, but it isn’t stopping cities and counties which have real, ready-to-go projects from taking the necessary measures to protect their plans. In Oakland’s case, Victory Court isn’t anywhere near ready-to-go, so committing resources to it with so much up in the air is certainly premature. I just have a hard time believing that any city in this era can act on a hair trigger. The process is long and arduous, and if you’ve been reading this blog more than a year you need no further reminders of that.

One thing that puzzles me is that Bud Selig’s committee is working in a silo with Oakland. It is doing the same with San Jose. It is apparently not communicating any of this to Wolff. Why not? Shouldn’t there be some sharing of information to get the best ideas to the forefront? It’s not like we’re dealing with multiple teams competing for the same stadium. It’s the same team regardless of which city is picked. It doesn’t make much sense.

In other news, Santa Clara unanimously approved a resolution to create a stadium authority for the 49ers.

According to BoSox president Larry Lucchino, Fenway Park is expected to stand another 40-50 years. (Well, as long as the climactic scene in some recent movie set in Boston doesn’t happen frequently.)

Over the weekend there was some hubbub about a rough rendering of the Quakes stadium, previously discarded and sent to the City of San Jose for code verification as part of its permits process, showing up on the interwebs. To which I say, Wow. Just wow.

Going back to the Wolff interview for a second, I noticed that the show was sponsored in part by construction firm Webcor Builders. Could they be trying to get in good on the stadium construction tip? They are handling the work at Cal’s Memorial Stadium. Devcon has been involved with the 49ers’ plans and the expansion of Buck Shaw Stadium at SCU.

More on Wolff regarding the A’s future regular season and spring training homes from MLB.com writer Barry M. Bloom.

Also, Ken Rosenthal’s argument against contraction seems familiar.

02.22.11
by

Wolff on Guardino’s KLIV radio show tonight

As Santa Clara prepares to “finalize” its stadium deal, Lew Wolff will be on SVLG head Carl Guardino’s “The CEO Show” tonight on KLIV (AM 1590). Wolff’s been making the media rounds every so often, though the tone of this interview should be different from Rick Tittle’s excellent work from two weeks ago. Last September SVLG officially came out in support of an A’s move to San Jose, and sent a letter to Bud Selig urging him to make it happen.

Update 7:05 PM – Interesting, Mike Crowley is on with Wolff.

7:17 PM – Wolff answering a caller’s question about Oakland’s issues with attendance and retaining a team: “I don’t think the situation in Oakland is that bad as far as the fanbase. The difficulty is in putting together a privately financed stadium.“

7:27 PM – Wolff talks about Cisco’s technology push, which uses concepts seen in Minority Report, probably via near field communication.

7:29 PM – If you’re thinking the callers so far are all ringers, they are. Except maybe one.

7:30 PM – About the Quakes and the $60 million investment for the stadium there: “$100 million for 17 homes games a season is a bit of a reach.“

7:35 PM – Time to build the ballpark: 30 months, assuming (the A’s) don’t get sued, as long as we get the process going.

One of the interesting asides from the interview came in Guardino’s 10 questions segment. Asked what was his favorite book, Wolff replied that it was an out-of-print autobiography of developer William Zeckendorf, who built Century City in Los Angeles and owned the land on which the UN headquarters in New York would eventually be built. As is often the case with many CEOs, he makes his employees read his favorite book.

02.16.11
by

Demo to begin at Quakes stadium site

Better late than never. On March 3rd, a demolition ceremony will be held at the site of the future San Jose Earthquakes stadium. The 15,000-seat venue, whose design is not yet finalized, is will replace SCU’s Buck Shaw Stadium, which was only meant to be a temporary home. Most of the site known as FMC/Airport West is already cleared, save for a large plant that is a remnant of its history as a large defense contractor facility. I’m not up enough on the history of the FMC plant to know if this building is where the once ill-fated Bradley Fighting Vehicle was built.

Old plant sits on stadium footprint

The site already has the Quakes’ practice field. Other redevelopment nearby has already been completed, including a shopping center with a Lowe’s and In-n-Out. It is also near the Santa Clara Caltrain Station, the far-off Santa Clara terminus for BART, and coincidentally, Stephen Schott Stadium on the SCU campus.

Practice field

No date for groundbreaking has been given, and it could happen at any point given the mild, construction-friendly weather we typically experience every year. In the past I have posited that the construction schedules of the Quakes’ stadium and an A’s stadium may be linked as part of a package deal. Now I’m not so sure since MLB’s schedule seems to be in flux.

2010 rendering

Despite the fact that the design is not finalized, I don’t expect it to vary too much from the renderings released last year. The only major changes could be if the bowl were fully enclosed or a bunch of suites were added at the last moment, and I don’t think that the financials have changed enough to merit such changes. Then again, if Quakes president David Kaval has sold the concept well, I may be eating my words in short order. Either way, I expect that the stadium should be ready by the beginning of the 2013 season. No pressure, of course.