Category Archives: San Jose

12.23.11
by

Rosenthal: A’s not on January agenda, push forward anyway + Nightengale scoop

I’ll let Ken Rosenthal’s words speak for him:

In mid-November, I reported that baseball was trying to accelerate a decision on whether to allow the A’s to relocate to San Jose and that a meeting between commissioner Bud Selig and San Francisco Giants officials would take place within two weeks.

That meeting still has not occurred, according to major league sources. The Giants remain adamantly opposed to relinquishing their territorial rights to San Jose and the South Bay region. And the Athletics’ situation will not be on the agenda at the next owners’ meetings in January, sources say.

There is a twist to this. As I understand it, 20 days prior to any owner’s meetings, any owner can bring up any issue and put it to a vote. For a vote on the A’s territorial rights to be on the agenda, that request would have to be made by December 22-23. I don’t know if that was done, but I have heard that the infamous “blue ribbon report” (yes, the one we’ve been waiting over 1000 days for) was made available around the time of the GM Winter Meetings. That report would be good reading over the holiday break before getting into back to business and making a decision in January. I don’t expect this report to be available to the public, only to The Lodge. (Side note: I’ve generally gone away from the “blue ribbon” moniker as it paints the process as more formal than it may actually be.)

Despite the uncertainty regarding the scheduling of the decision, Rosenthal paints a picture of Beane and Wolff as moving forward confidently. Something has to give.

Update 12/24 2:42 AM – In an interview with Susan Slusser, Billy Beane continues to say that “he believes a decision is coming soon.”

Update 9:17 AM – Another similar article from MLB.com’s Jane Lee.

Update 11:49 AM – Now, a tweet from Bob Nightengale

All signs and top MLB# sources say that the #Athletics will be granted permission by Feb to move to San Jose.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled roller coaster ride.
Update 2:18 PM – Joe Stiglich picks up the Nightengale scoop and runs with it.

12.20.11
by

The long slog to the South Bay

Last week’s news that VTA may get BART to the South Bay as early as 2016 was certainly welcome, though many important steps remain. In the spring, federal New Starts funding has to materialize for the extension to move forward. Fortunately, the fact that work is already underway on the separate-but-linked Warm Springs extension should help the Silicon Valley extension’s case. As we’ve discussed previously, the South Bay extension has been split into two parts to help its chances of getting funding for the entire project. As a result, the first part extension to Berryessa (the flea market) is scheduled to be completed by 2016-2018. The second part, which runs through downtown San Jose and up to the airport, has no completion date at this time. FYI, Phase 1 is about the same length as the Dublin/Pleasanton extension from Bay Fair.

The 10-mile Berryessa extension (Silicon Valley Phase 1) is in addition to the 5.4-mile Warm Springs extension

Terminating BART in Berryessa leaves no clear solution for ferrying fans from BART to the Diridon Station area, where the ballpark would be. Any highway-based bus routing is circuitous. Running on city streets would be a shorter trip. Either way it’s at least an extra 20 minutes after leaving BART even if it’s a direct bus with no additional stops. A natural BART-to-light rail transfer in Milpitas would take 40 minutes, though it would shave off a few minutes of BART time. Keep that in mind when looking at the following table of travel times, comparing BART, Caltrain, and Capitol Corridor.

Caltrain and Capitol Corridor trains arrive at ballpark. BART is more frequent but would require a 20-40 minute transfer (at least in the near term). Caltrain and Capitol Corridor times are published. BART times are estimates except for Coliseum.

What would take a shuttle 20-40 minutes to bridge the gap between Berryessa and Diridon would probably take only 5-6 minutes if BART went all the way to Diridon. Alas, that’s not in the cards until several years after Phase 1 starts operation. One interesting observation is that Capitol Corridor is somewhat competitive timewise with BART when heading all the way down to San Jose. Unfortunately, fares are much more expensive than BART.

There’s never been a doubt that just about any Oakland site is more convenient for much of the Bay Area and the existing East Bay fan base than San Jose. Even with BART coming to San Jose, it would seem that trips averaging an hour or more plus a transfer would be prohibitively lengthy for many fans. The flipside to that argument is that both the Giants and A’s in their current locations aren’t all that accessible from the South Bay, so if MLB were to place the two teams so that they could grab the largest potential audience for the MLB product, having the Giants in SF and the A’s in SJ would make the most sense.

Even if A’s management were to earn back much of the goodwill lost over the last decade, long trips from the East Bay will surely cause a reduction of fans from that region, making it all the more important that the A’s replace those lost or less frequently attending fans with South Bay fans. Certainly there are Sharks fans who make the trek from the East Bay now, but going to 2-3 games per week per homestand is a lot less rigorous than 6 games per week. The A’s have recently had among the lowest season ticket rolls in MLB (7-8,000), so replacing them may not be such a huge task. It goes to show that even if the A’s get the green light for San Jose, there’s plenty of work left to do.

12.19.11
by

More from TLR

Tony La Russa was at The Game’s studios in SF this afternoon with Brandon Tierney and Chris Townsend. Tierney asked about the state of the A’s, and here’s what TLR said:

Well, I think economically it’s not a fair playing field. That’s (the A’s) the glaring example. It’s not the Cardinals at $100 million and the Yankees at $200 million because $100 million is a lot. You can win with that.  So what you hope is that it becomes more economically fair, and I know there’s some noise that it could be built in Oakland – the new ballpark – around Jack London Square. I don’t know if that makes sense, I mean I don’t see the corporate support. So it’s about San Jose and I don’t know what MLB is going to say.

You know, the Giants have been great to ARF (TLR’s Animal Rescue Foundation), I want to make (it) clear about that. I don’t want to get Larry (Baer) and the Giants upset at me, but they got the San Jose territory because Mr. Haas was just really nice. Unless it comes –  something where the A’s can make some money – they can’t compete.

Listen to the interview. It’s fantastic and has more about TLR’s desire for the A’s to be able to compete economically, fairly. I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll say it again: the guy is plugged into the economy. Why? Because companies are huge benefactors for ARF. When corporate giving goes down, ARF can suffer just like any good cause. So yeah, he definitely knows what he’s talking about.

Speaking of ARF, TLR came on to promote a series of ARF events happening in the new year. There’s a Comedy Night on January 6 hosted by Dana Carvey, a concert called Stars to the Rescue on the 7th, and a 2011 season retrospective on the 8th. All of the events will be held Walnut Creek’s Lesher Center for the Arts.

12.19.11
by

South Bay Stuff

January is getting closer. We might actually hear some good news. We should hear one way or another.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel exposed Stand for San Jose as a farce. I’ve written enough about them. Read down in the Facebook comments for a statement from the plaintiff Eileen Hannan, who is now crying foul as she claims she was ambushed by Seipel in her questioning. If you can’t take the heat… Just a reminder, the A’s coming to SJ doesn’t necessarily mean the little Giants have to leave. If that happens, the decision will be made by the big club in SF, the owner.

On a sad note, Tony Lima, the artist responsible for all of the hand-painted artwork at San Jose Municipal Stadium, is in failing health due to cancer. His work was always endearing, sometimes whimsical, and helped make the family friendly atmosphere at Muni.

The Orioles announced changes to Camden Yards to enhance the fan experience, including a new centerfield viewing area, dropping the height of the rightfield wall a little, and six sculptures of great O’s of the past.

Sports Business Journal’s Daniel Kaplan reports that the 49ers sold a “low nine figures” share of the team to a Silicon Valley exec in order to help finance the Santa Clara stadium. In a followup, he thinks it’s someone at Facebook though he can’t confirm it. If the Raiders want to build their own stadium, they may have to do the same even though they’ve been selling off shares for some time.

Later today – a BART article.

12.06.11
by

Reinsdorf plays the heavy

Bulls/White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf has a unique bit of experience under his belt: he’s overseen the construction of a publicly-financed stadium (New Comiskey Park/US Cellular Field) and a privately-financed arena (United Center). He once played the I’ll-move-the-team-to-Tampa card with the White Sox and turned it into the birth of the new era of ballparks. He also has a reputation as a shrewd negotiator and plain talker. So I suppose it was not all that surprising that, when Susan Slusser and John Shea caught up with Reinsdorf at the Winter Meetings this week, he had a few choice words about the A’s situation.

Major-league owners can vote to overturn territorial rights, and recent signs point to a potential vote on the issue at the owners’ January meetings. The A’s will have at least one prominent backer in White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, a longtime friend of A’s owner Lew Wolff.

“I’m totally supportive of Lew getting a new ballpark and going to San Jose,” Reinsdorf said. “He needs to be there. It has to come to a head soon.

“Certainly, (the Coliseum is) past its time. In my opinion, Oakland’s past its time, too. Oakland’s had plenty of opportunity to build a stadium and hasn’t gotten it done.”

Within MLB, it’s been well known that Reinsdorf backs his buddy Lew Wolff, along with Commissioner Bud Selig. As a 30-year tenured owner and a member of MLB’s Executive Committee, he’s been known to have nearly as much sway as Selig. When it comes to rallying votes and gaining consensus, Selig and Reinsdorf should be able to pass just about anything, including a resolution to the A’s-Giants territorial rights battle. Will that actually happen? It sure looks that way, based on how Billy Beane’s practically gushing about it.

As for Reinsdorf’s quip about Oakland, that was just mean and unnecessary. Then again, this is the man who sided with Jerry Krause over Michael Jordan.

12.03.11
by

Stand for San Jose sues City of San Jose

AP’s Janie McCauley has the news of a lawsuit filed by Giants astroturf group Stand for San Jose against the City of San Jose. The group alleges that City “abused their powers and ran roughshod over their legal duties, including their duties to protect the public’s right to vote and to comply with laws designed to protect the environment, prior to committing to sell public lands for a Ballpark Project.”

I snipped a piece of the City’s municipal code for occasions like this:

4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility 
The city of San José may participate in the building of a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the city of San José approving such expenditure.

A “sports facility” for the purpose of this chapter is to be any structure designed to seat more than five thousand people at any one time for the purpose of viewing a sporting or recreational event.

“Tax dollars” for the purposes of this chapter include, without limitation, any commitment to fund wholly or in part said facility with general fund monies, redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by city property, taxing authority or revenues.

Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the city from allowing the construction of a sports facility funded by private investment.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this chapter and application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

The phrase “participate in the building of a sports facility” has always been subject to interpretation. For some, it can mean the City bearing some of the direct construction cost of a stadium. It could mean contributing some or all of the land, especially if the land is sold or leased at below market rate. It seems that Stand for San Jose thinks that the City needed approval via a referendum before signing off on the land deal, even though it’s just an option at this point. The City has been consistent in that it will put the entire package – land deal and all – up for vote when all of the details are completed. By going in Stand for San Jose’s route, virtually every step of the process would have to approved by a public vote every time. The idea sounds like a recipe for gridlock, especially when you consider that the EIR process started in 2005, four years before Stand for San Jose was hatched by the San Jose Giants. All this time, a year after EIR certification, and that’s when you decide to file a lawsuit?

Of course, the Giants (both SF and SJ) could have chosen to stay quiet for years because they were lobbying the City for improvements to Municipal Stadium. Convenient then, that the timing of all of these political and legal actions would occur after the City provided redevelopment funds for Muni? Way to bite the hand that feeds you, Giants. Even more convenient, take a look at how a referendum is required for any venue with a capacity of 5,000 or more. Muni’s capacity? 4,200. Should Muni’s improvements have required a referendum too?

On the other hand, I think the A’s and City could reduce some of their exposure to these types of actions if the Diridon land deal was simply done at market value. Wolff Urban Development is buying the Hotel Sainte Claire at market value, why not the ballpark land? – is what people will argue. This 2005 SV/SJ Business Journal article hints at possible actions if City pushed for a discount. Then again, it’s likely that Stand for San Jose would simply sue based on the EIR, forget the land deal. Coincidentally, the positive budget deficit news reported yesterday (now down from $80 to $25 million) actually works against both Mayor Chuck Reed and Stand for San Jose, since resources won’t be so scarce in the near term.

I would’ve had more sympathy for the mini-Giants had their owners not chosen to sell out to the big paternal Giants to the north. Now it’s just one big corporate interest trying to push around another with the City in tow. We know that the Giants’ motive is to have the A’s leave the Bay Area altogether, or at least rot in the Coliseum for years to come. Thankfully, it appears that Bud Selig is getting off his duff and getting the Giants to the table. Then maybe, just maybe, all this B.S. posturing can stop. Or, as Christina Kahrl tweeted:

http://twitter.com/#!/ChristinaKahrl/status/142832962747113472

Two other observations – note how Stand for San Jose shared the news with the Associated Press instead of the local news outlets when they filed the lawsuit. Looks like someone else is figuring out how to work the national media as well. Also, I like how Stand for San Jose has no problem filing tons of paperwork with the City, yet can’t bother to post any of these filings or letters on their website. Come on astroturfers, if you’re gonna call for “transparency”, you should at least practice what you preach.

12.02.11
by

News for 12/2/11

Now that the tryptophan has worn off, we’re starting to get some news again.

  • Wolff Urban Development (Lew & Keith Wolff among others) is buying the Hotel Sainte Claire in downtown San Jose. The hotel, on the corner of Market and West San Carlos, is currently owned by Larkspur Hotels. Marin-based Larkspur dozens of other hotels throughout California, including the Larkspur Landing chain. Prior to Larkspur’s ownership, the Sainte Claire was part of the Hyatt chain. That’s all well and good now that the Wolffs will have three hotels in downtown (Fairmont, Hilton, Sainte Claire). The interesting scuttlebutt is that there may be some higher-ups at MLB that may be involved in the Sainte Claire purchase, perhaps with an eye towards revamping it so that it becomes the official hotel for MLB road teams. That would be a smart move, since right now the Hotel Valencia at Santana Row is eating their lunch in terms of attracting road teams (in this case, NHL squads). The Valencia is only slightly larger, but much newer than, the Sainte Claire, so the Wolffs will have to put a good amount of money into improvements to match or surpass the Valencia. SV/SJ Business Journal asked a consultant, Thomas Callahan of PKF Consulting, how much the Sainte Claire would cost. Callahan pegged the price at $34 million. (David Goll, Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal).
  • Staying downtown, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed may be able to avoid a divisive budget battle with public employees unions thanks to new, lower pension cost projections that cut next year’s budget deficit in half, from $80 million to $40 million. Reed will argue that the projections are a one-time reprieve and that more fundamental changes are required, but this news will certainly make his case look weaker, especially because the unions appear to be offering concessions that will bridge that $40 million and more beyond the next budget year.
  • Moving to a mayor with a different set of concerns, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s supporters held a press conference yesterday that may have actually been a proactive rally against a recall petition effort, which is expected to begin next week. So that’s the point when Mayor Quan starts getting proactive. (Matthai Kuruvila, Matier and Ross, SFGate)
  • Meanwhile, a few A’s players have been making the rounds within the community. First it was Jemile Weeks and Tyson Ross at the Alameda County Food Bank on Wednesday, followed by the annual A’s Community Fund Holiday Party on Thursday. (Jane Lee, MLB.com)
  • A ceremonial groundbreaking at New York’s Willets Point (outside Citi Field) kicks off a $50 million redevelopment plan that will surely gentrify that part of Queens. (Nicholas Hirshon, NY Daily News)
  • Historical footnote: the New York Post revealed that prior to building the original Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, the pinstripers were looking for a stadium on 42nd Street in Manhattan. Now that would’ve been different. (David K. Li, NY Post)
  • In what may be the start of a trend, the New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins are pursuing development of casinos within shouting distance of their respective stadia. (Douglas Hanks, Miami Herald)
  • Ed Roski’s Majestic Realty (of the City of Industry NFL plan) and UNLV are still working on a new arena/stadium deal. (Paul Takahashi, Las Vegas Sun)
  • Magic Johnson is teaming up with Stan Kasten as part of a group bidding on the Dodgers. (Bill Shaikin and Bill Plaschke, LA Times)

More as it comes.

11.29.11
by

Quakes introduce suites at SJ stadium

When the San Jose Earthquakes announced their plans for a stadium near SJC, observers noted the capacity (15,000), shape (horseshoe), and the seeming lack of luxury suites. Now the team has remedied that last flaw, unveiling a package of luxury suites to be located on both the field level and the rim of the stadium.

The stadium’s original design had a very short first deck and a large second deck, which made it easy for the Quakes to add suites if the economy was friendly enough to do so. In going this route, some other premium seating will be displaced, but the 12 field suites alone should boost the team’s bottom line significantly.

View from behind a suite at field level

What may be more interesting is how the suites are being pitched to potential buyers. The suites have NanaWall-esque moving glass walls instead of a typical door-and-fixed window setup. It’s expected that a number of high school and college events will be held there, which is a smart move given the lack of modern facilities in the South Bay. Concerts are not in the sales brochure, which indicates how sensitive the Quakes are about noise and the venue’s potential as competition for HP Pavilion. Field level suites are $350,000 for a 5-year contract.

Suite seating arrangement. Note non-suite seats to the right.

You might remember how the Fremont ballpark concept would’ve had a level of suites only 10-15 rows from the field. It looks like that amenity will go to the soccer stadium instead, with the ballpark getting the traditional level of suites cantilevered over the lower deck.

Just as the ballpark may grow in capacity as a late game tweak, changes such as the addition of luxury suites can be made for the Quakes’ stadium. We can look forward to more such changes as these projects move from paper to concrete.

11.27.11
by

It’s gouging season

Hello everyone, I hope you’re having a splendid Thanksgiving weekend.

I have another CBA article coming tomorrow. For now, there’s an item in the Merc’s Internal Affairs column today. Apparently, AT&T is holding out on their land for a a whopping $150 per square foot, or $6.5 million per acre. That’s roughly the market price in 2005, when the ballpark process started in earnest and the real estate market was still bubblicious.

Real estate professionals familiar with the industrial area chuckled heartily, saying that the AT&T land is worth closer to $25 to $35 a square foot.

AT&T and the other holdout landowner have every right to ask for as much as possible. It’s fair business for them, and there will be some displacement that needs to be addressed. The threat of eminent domain, coupled with MLB’s blessing, should bring the price down since those two factors will reduce the landowners’ leverage. As I’ve written before, the most likely outcome will be that the Wolff/Fisher group will make one offer once they get MLB’s approval and let the chips fall where they may. If the landowners want to get as much as possible they’ll want to avoid the possibility of eminent domain, since there’s always a chance a judge will give a minimal land valuation. Legal fees will only make the whole ordeal more wasteful. That said, the holdouts may have a threshold that they’re not willing to drop below, so it could very well go into eminent domain proceedings. There is no given at this point. We’ll just have to see how it plays out.

11.22.11
by

Big market, low budget

In February I wrote about a potential revenue sharing rollback in the new MLB collective bargaining agreement. While today’s joint announcement didn’t produce a percentage rollback (or contraction for that matter), there is a sort of rollback coming for revenue sharing. And the way it’s constructed, it’s targeted at one team in particular – the Oakland Athletics. Here’s the relevant text (courtesy of The Biz of Baseball):

IV.. REVENUE SHARING

a. The net transfer value of the Revenue Sharing Plan will be the same as the current plan. Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity.

b. The fifteen Clubs in the largest markets will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by 2016. The revenue sharing funds that would have been distributed to the disqualified Clubs will be refunded to the payor Clubs, except that payor Clubs that have exceeded the CBT threshold two or more consecutive times will forfeit some or all of their refund.

c. The Commissioner’s Discretionary Fund will increase from $10 to $15 million per year.

Again, no percentage rollback (A). It’s item B that has enormous implications for big market teams. The revised revenue sharing system effectively shuts the big market teams out of the program by the end of the CBA, gradually losing 25% of any revenue sharing receipt annually until 2016 when it’s eliminated entirely. The Bay Area is the #4 media market and is #6 in population, so neither Bay Area team would be eligible for revenue sharing in the future. Sounds like a deadline and a decision for the A’s, right?

Not so fast. SI is reporting that a provision in the new CBA allows the A’s continue on revenue sharing past 2016 if there is no resolution. So what does this all mean?

The A’s are in a unique and unenviable position among the 30 MLB franchises. They are both a big market team and a low budget team. In the long run, they can’t be both. No other big market team operates on revenue sharing, year after year. When Lew Wolff and I talked two years ago, I mentioned that the A’s were the only two team market where one franchise pays into revenue sharing while the other receives it. He replied that he hadn’t heard the Giants-A’s dynamic phrased in such a manner. I joked that he could take that up to the league office if he wanted at no charge.

MLB appears to be taking the steps to ensure that the A’s are positioned to become a full-fledged big market team. Getting a stadium deal in place is only the first step. Vastly improved media and sponsorship deals are just as important. That doesn’t mean the A’s will reach the Red Sox or even the Giants in terms of revenue, but if they can achieve the medium revenue levels of the Nationals or White Sox, they’d be considered self-sufficient. Both Wolff and Billy Beane are aware of this.

One explanation for the provision may be that the A’s might not be able to open a new ballpark in San Jose until after 2016, though there has been no indication that this is the case. If Wolff isn’t given the go-ahead to move to San Jose, there’s no telling what will happen down the road. It should set up the A’s for a sale at some point. The problem with this is that we know that an Oakland-based buyer with knowledge of the area’s low revenue generation would have to buy the team at a discount, whereas other buyers looking to move the team elsewhere would be willing to pay full price. Hopefully it never gets to that point. MLB is not going to approve Oakland’s continued stay on welfare. They’ll move the team out of the area instead.