Category Archives: Owners

07.14.10
by

Altogether Now

Not to be forgotten, at least one Oakland official is expressing his frustration at Bud Selig and his Merry Trio’s sixteen months of work (and counting), courtesy of Chris Metinko of the Trib:

“I think these people are playing us,” Oakland Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente said Wednesday. “The best thing (Major League Baseball) can do is pit one city against the other. I feel this is all being orchestrated.”

De La Fuente’s comments come just days after San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed expressed similar dismay over MLB’s long, drawn-out study.

…

De La Fuente, who also serves on the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board that controls the stadium in Oakland, said he has not heard anything from MLB in several weeks and echoed Reed’s comments about the cities being held hostage.

“At the end of the day, we should not be held hostage by baseball,” De La Fuente said.

In honor of the collective anger emanating from at least two corners of the Bay Area, I present the following video gem (watch out for some profanity):

In light of the rather elaborate plan hatched and executed by Miami’s new trio, it’s worth asking: How much of this process is real?

07.13.10
by

Coming to a head

Tuesday’s Merc article by Tracy Seipel indicates a sense a desperation among the San Jose boosters and Wolff, in that they need Bud Selig to render a decision on T-rights in order for San Jose to move forward with a ballot measure. In weighs Roger Noll, who feels that Selig hasn’t acted prudently on behalf of either the A’s or Giants.

Roger Noll, a professor of sports economics at Stanford University, said Wolff’s frustration means “Selig isn’t doing the job of a commissioner, which is getting the Giants and the A’s to talk together.” He has predicted the two teams could strike a financial settlement for the territorial rights.

“It’s very difficult to reach a deal without the commissioner coming in and saying, ‘Look, I want a deal… and you guys need to work it out,'” said Noll. “‘And if you don’t, I will impose one on you.”’

Now that would be fantastic for the pro-San Jose folks. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic. From what I’ve gathered, there has been little discussion about prioritizing this issue. Even if Wolff brought it up at the brief owner’s meetings and in the process set himself on fire to get everyone’s attention, I still don’t think Selig and the owners would take action immediately. I could be wrong on this, but I’m going with what I’ve been stating the last six months: San Jose has to get its ducks in a row first, then the owners can talk. Unfair? Yes. Unexpected? Not in the least.

The question arising from this is: What risk is there to the political process if MLB doesn’t take action in time? Well, that’s not easy to quantify. Perhaps some group is taking a poll now on this, but I suspect that trying to explain the history and vagaries of MLB’s Santa Clara County territorial rights to the voting populace would be an exercise in futility. The last polls taken support a ballpark in a general way, so what’s the hold-up? In all likelihood, it’s the ballot language. The measure has a limit of 75 words, and the pols must have numerous drafts on hand, wanting the most ironclad (yet deliberately vague) version in place before they go to the voters. That’s the irony in all of this. MLB won’t budge until SJ has its ducks in a row, and SJ doesn’t want to move unless it has an indication from MLB that it wants to move forward. SJ doesn’t want the extra cost associated with a spring off year special election, and November 2011 is more than merely cutting it close, it’s practically late given a likely construction schedule.

It sounds like an impasse, except that MLB knows that it has survived just fine without a franchise in San Jose for the last century. Can SJ afford to be a little more patient? We’ll find out soon enough.

Note: The article mentions a new grassroots anti-stadium group called Better Sense San Jose. The site has been up since April or May and has a decidedly fiscal slant, though like Stand for San Jose, I’m skeptical as to who’s behind it. WHOIS lookups on the domain owner are blocked, whereas the contact address appears to be a P.O. Box at a UPS Store in the Rose Garden neighborhood. Come on, people, it’s okay to let the public know who you are.

07.12.10
by

Another weekend, another op-ed

Following up on last week’s volley by San Jose booster Larry Stone, Oakland supporter and one-time A’s executive Andy Dolich fires back on the home city’s behalf. He brings up a great point in showing how Oakland has been counted out time and time again, only to emerge as still having its teams. His tack is left a bit wanting, as he repeatedly mines the not-so-recent past for Oakland’s success while not pointing at all to the future, or recent failures. His only hint at the future is a hope that someone will swoop in and buy the A’s out from the Wolff/Fisher group.

The A’s will most likely get their new stadium in Oakland because the A’s will follow the Giants example. In the Giants’ darkest moment, a group came together to keep the team in its rightful place in San Francisco. Oakland elected officials and private, civic-minded business leaders will find a way to build a new ballpark. When fans of the Green and Gold are celebrating their fifth world championship, it will be in Oakland.

I’ve heard this multiple times, yet I’ve never heard it articulated in any meaningful way. Is the idea to wait out the process, hope San Jose fails, Wolff gives up, and sells the team in short order to an Oakland-only interest (that MLB approves of)? It’s not impossible, but it’s not really a strategy. It’s like waiting for your boss to give you a promotion at work even though you’ve been playing Farmville at your desk everytime he drops by. Moreover, is Dolich suggesting that he would be part of the angel ownership group, just as he was part of the Piccinini group? If that happened, then suddenly there would be something concrete. It’s hard to say what other pieces would be part of such an investor group, but at least one would have to be a billionaire in order to carry the weight required to get a new ballpark deal done. Hell, I would love to start that rumor myself, but it would be completely out of thin air.

Speaking of a new ballpark, Dolich cites the Giants the prime example to get something done in Oakland.

It took the Giants 16 years and four failed elections to get their gem of a privately financed jewel at China Basin. It’s a bear to build a new sports venue in today’s California, no matter how much rose coloring you add to your glasses or how much of the owners’ privately funded millions are put into the project.

Point of distinction: When the Giants proposed their “privately financed jewel,” it took only one election to get it approved. The previous three initiatives all involved publicly financed venues in either San Francisco or Santa Clara County. Big difference. Whether in Oakland or San Jose, it’s not hard to envision a ballpark happening once a Yes vote is obtained. Oakland does not have a voting requirement for a stadium, which boosters like to point out frequently, but at the same time it’s remarkably bad form to spend up $50-100 million on land and infrastructure in a budget crunch without getting public approval, especially in light of the Coliseum renovation debacle.

If Oakland and its boosters really want to get citizens of the city and the region out of its collective apathy or disaffection, they need to articulate how this can all be done. It doesn’t have to be done now, but it needs to be done steadily and completely. I’ve received conflicting reports on whether that’s happening, though Mark Purdy, in his latest repetitious plea to Bud Selig, thinks the MLB panel may be working with Oakland interests on such a plan. Personally, I hope that it is happening, whether it’s to perform due diligence throughout the East Bay or to create a viable Plan B if San Jose doesn’t work out. In the constant battling between the two factions, it’s easy to lose sight of the goal of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. I don’t tire of the posturing since that’s all it is, posturing. Soon, the dog days will be upon us and work will begin anew.

07.06.10
by

Let’s pool money and buy the Rangers

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

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

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

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

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

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

07.03.10
by

The day has come… for a proxy fight

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

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

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

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

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

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

06.25.10
by

Tampa Tribune checks in on relocation prospects

As part of recent coverage of the Rays’ desires to leave the Trop, the Tampa Tribune took a look at four cities who had been and could be future relocation candidates. While the four (San Antonio, Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas) still have boosters or other groups waiting in the wings, to say that they’re ready to pluck the Rays (or A’s) from their current respective homes is a bit of a stretch.

Hat tip to Field of Schemes.

06.21.10
by

Rays expand search to entire Tampa Bay region

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

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

The SPTimes report adds a bit of intrigue:

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

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

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

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

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

This could get messy.

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

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

06.11.10
by

Overreaction Central

Having a big laugh over certain reactions to a piece about the 49ers and A’s and their owners in the NY Times. The A’s part comes at the end, in which famed protester/fan Jorge Leon has his long awaited meeting with Lew Wolff – this time in a suite.

For many fans, the teams’ search for new homes has become intensely personal.

On May 9, Lew Wolff , the 74-year-old A’s owner who also owns the San Jose Earthquakes, invited Jorge Leon, a fan, and his friends to watch an A’s game in a luxury box at the Coliseum. Mr. Wolff wanted to explain to them why he was trying to move the team to San Jose. Mr. Leon had been ejected from a game three weeks earlier for holding up a sign that read “Lew Wolff lied, he never tried,” a dig at the owner’s public statements that he had exhausted all efforts to get a stadium deal in Oakland.

That night, the owner told Mr. Leon, a San Leandro lab technician who had “Oakland A’s” tattooed on the inside of his left forearm, that he had wanted to build a stadium in Oakland, but that the city could not come up with the land.

Mr. Leon and his friends talked with the A’s owner from the third inning on, at first hardly noticing that Dallas Braden was on his way to pitching a perfect game. Mr. Wolff left in the seventh inning, pulling on an Earthquakes jacket as he walked out of the suite.

Mr. Leon said he came away from the evening unconvinced by Mr. Wolff.

“I want the A’s to stay in Oakland,” he said. “They bring so much pride to the city.”

Baseball Oakland went on AN and decided to jump on Wolff’s departure from the suite as a sign the he’s not a real baseball fan. Field of Schemes’ Neil de Mause considered it a sign that Wolff is one of the worst owners in baseball. When called out on the idea that Wolff left the suite, not the game, de Mause tried to backpedal and cited a third/fourth-hand report that Wolff left to go to a Quakes game – a game that was actually played the night before.

Now, I’ve been in the owner’s suite twice. I’ve also talked to Wolff about how he likes to attend ballgames. The fact is that he doesn’t like being in the suite unless he has to be there. He only goes there to entertain guests. He shows up in the 2nd or 3rd inning and leaves in the 7th, bidding the guests adieu and allowing the guests (who are generally there to party, game being secondary) to finish eating the free food and drink. I distinctly remember yelling out the suite window at Sean Gallagher, cursing his inability to throw strikes. At the other end, Wolff looked at me and smiled, surprised. I guess he doesn’t see too many bleacher creatures up in the hermetically sealed confines.

Anyway, Wolff would much rather sit behind the A’s dugout, though at times he might be in the Diamond Level or linger behind those seats. He may also head down to the clubhouse if he chooses. The idea that people took a fairly innocuous set of events (leaving in the 7th, putting on the Quakes jacket, everyone not paying attention to the budding no-no) is simply rich. Is that what this has come to? Such is the blogosphere, I guess.

On a tangentially related note, I should mention that among the World Cup hoopla that the Quakes are playing an exhibition against Chivas USA at Raley Field tomorrow. Should I run with that as being a trial balloon to move the Quakes to Sactown? Naw, that would be irresponsible. Oops, I already wrote it.

06.06.10
by

A’s exercise 2011 Coliseum option

No drama here, as Eric Young of the SF Business Times reports the A’s decided to stay at the Coliseum through at least 2011 by exercising their year-to-year option in the stadium lease. Two additional yearly options remain in 2012 and 2013 before the lease runs out. Yet when asked, Lew Wolff focused instead on San Jose, a clear indicator of where he thinks the team’s future lies.

“They have been getting their ducks in a row,” said Lew Wolff, A’s managing general partner, said at the time. “I have to compliment them on what they are doing. They are spending money and making things happen,” said Wolff, who has said he is open to moving his team to San Jose.

It would seem as if things are coming together, wouldn’t it?

05.25.10
by

Rangers file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Strange goings on in the Metroplex. Tom Hicks’ mismanagement of his sports empire has finally caught up with him, with his HSG Sports Group filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to avoid paying off some $540 million in debt.

Here’s how bad the situation is:

In January, Mr. Hicks reached a deal with Messrs. Greenberg and Ryan to sell the Rangers, the Ballpark at Arlington, and some 150 acres adjacent to the stadium in a deal valued at about $530 million, although the value has escalated with the rising amount of liabilities the new owners are prepared to assume. According to court filings those liabilities include almost $25 million that the team owes slugger Alex Rodriguez in deferred compensation and almost $13 million it owes pitcher Kevin Millwood. Neither player is with the team anymore.

The “Ryan” in the above paragraph is possible future Rangers managing partner Nolan Ryan, who wrote an open letter to the team’s fans in the Dallas Morning News. It’ll be interesting to see how much longer it takes for this to be resolved, as it must have MLB’s undivided attention at this point. Perhaps the league won’t broach the A’s situation until the Rangers’ issues are resolved. Not that they’re in a hurry, mind you.