09.19.11
by

Great America to be bought by group containing 49ers, will end lawsuit

If the 49ers couldn’t celebrate at the ‘Stick yesterday, at least they made a huge step towards celebrating every week in Santa Clara. According to the Merc’s Lisa Fernandez, a real estate firm partnering with a 49ers-controlled entity will buy Great America (the theme park assets not including the land) for $70 million. JMA Ventures, the lead in this purchase, is a 25-year old company backed by major private equity firms (Carlyle Group, Lehman, Morgan Stanley). They also own several properties throughout Northern California, from Tahoe ski resorts to SF restaurants. As for Cedar Fair, the squeaky wheel throughout all of this? They get cash to pay down debt.

This is a much better move than the 49ers buying the theme park outright, since they don’t have the expertise to do anything like operating a theme park. JMA Ventures would seem a more ideal partner, and at least at the outset they don’t appear to be interested in changing anything. Great America is on a weekends-only operating schedule until the end of October, when it closes to the public for the season. That should give JMA and the 49ers plenty of opportunity to take a look around and see what improvements could be made.

Could Great America close in the long run? I doubt it, since JMA is sinking $70 million into what is essentially a bunch of rides and games. Hopefully, they and the Niners can start working the channels with the NFL to integrate some sort of football theme into the park. That could go a long way towards making the Santa Clara stadium a much more cohesive experience for future Super Bowls, even if the stadium won’t have the retractable roof the league covets so much. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room to expand there as previous owners added water park features to Great America – features that won’t be useful in January/February.

Initially, I have a good feeling that JMA, a company geared around entertainment, will keep a local institution going while making it play nice with the 49ers. There’s that chance of integration with the stadium. If the two can enhance job opportunities in the area (even if they are low paying jobs, many of my immigrant relatives work there) it’s a win-win.

09.18.11
by

Bleacher seating clarification

This came this afternoon from A’s VP of Stadium Operations David Rinetti:

Rhamesis and Jennifer,

I am hopeful that both of you will use your means to send this message to all concerned A’s Bleacher patrons:

As you are all aware, we met with a small group of A’s regular Bleacher patrons a few days ago to discuss a potential change in policy. Our goal for this meeting was to try and come up with a solution to deal with the 200 or so complaints that we receive for every premium game in the Bleachers due to guests that show up without a place for their party to sit. Our hope was that we would work with the core group of Bleacher fans to create a way for them to purchase their regular seats in advance and even offer them incentives to do so. We have heard loud and clear from many of the Bleacher patrons through the various blogs and emails that there is clear opposition to this plan. Although some blogs and emails have accused the A’s of trying to alienate their fans, or that this was an intentional ploy by ownership to make things difficult for our Bleacher guests; this is very far from the truth. We were just looking for a way to improve customer service for our fans. Based upon the feedback that we have received, we will not be changing our policy in 2012. We will, however, aggressively monitor the Bleacher area for the premium games to make sure that all fans with Bleacher tickets can be seated.

We thank you all for your continued support of the Oakland A’s.

Respectfully,

David Rinetti
Vice President, Stadium Operations

That should settle it.

09.16.11
by

You mess with the bull, you get the horns

Update 9/18 3:00 PM: According to the Keep the Bleachers General Admission Facebook page, the A’s have done a 180 and reverted back to all General Admission seating in the Bleachers. Huzzah!

It seems as though I’m always in transit when news breaks. Anyway…

Word spread quickly today that, come 2012, the A’s are converting the Bleachers from general admission (no assigned seating) to assigned seating. As a guy who has taken in over 500 games in the Bleachers over the last 20 years, I have to say that I’m in shock. According to conversations with the ticketing office, the change was made because some season ticket holders in the Bleachers were upset that their seats were taken after family members briefly left the game action for a trip to the restroom. While this has happened occasionally for some of the higher attendance dates, I rarely saw this occur. Personally, I have to admit that I usually sat a few rows up instead of taking the prime “front row” seats on the rail in part to avoid the possibility, no matter how remote the chances.

I suppose it’s fitting that tonight’s fireworks show is Star Wars themed, making the bleacher creatures the rebel alliance and Lew Wolff, well, Emperor Palpatine. A few minutes ago I asked David Rinetti to comment on this via email. I’ll post a response if I get one. Update: response at the end of this post.

The obvious theory at this point has many already begrudged fans thinking that Wolff has done this out of spite in response to the at times numerous anti-Wolff posters along the RF rail. I can’t discount it. If the purpose is to motivate some of the protesters (many of whom are season ticket holders) to give up and stop going to A’s games (and thus stop the protests inside the Coliseum), it just might work. He and his staff must have calculated the bad PR they’d get from this and went with it anyway. Like the tarping of the upper deck, this may be a sort of ticketing experiment to see what the response from the fanbase will be. And when the outcry happens, they can point to it and say, “See, we can’t even make a change from a very outdated business model – general admission seating. How can the franchise survive like that?”

Of course, that ignores the decades of tradition of consumer-friendly general admission tickets, even though they are more expensive ($13) than both the Plaza Outfield ($9) and Value Deck ($12). It’s all about the freedom of GA. I could get there on a weeknight after work and sit in the 4th row above the 362′ mark just before the seating bowl bends into a very baseball-unfriendly angle. If not the 4th row, then the 5th. Or 6th. Chances are it was available, with no hassle from the ushers. Now that’s gone, just like my carefree youth.

One thing I never understood about the tarping change was the conversion of the Plaza Bleachers to assigned Plaza Outfield seating, while the regular Bleachers stayed GA. It would’ve made more sense then to convert the Bleachers to Outfield Reserved seating, while the Plaza Bleachers remained GA. Sure, it would have punished the old die-hards even earlier, but it would’ve at least retained GA elsewhere in the park. A better way to make the change would be to have either the left field or right field area remain general admission, while the other side could be converted into “family” assigned seating, sort of like what the Giants did when they remade the Pavilion stands at the ‘Stick almost 20 years ago. I’ve added myself to supporters of the new Keep the Bleachers General Admission Facebook group, and I hope others will too. This move seems drastic and unnecessary, especially at this stage of the A’s tenure in Oakland. If the A’s are going to move to San Jose eventually, why not let Oakland-only fans have at least a few of their beloved institutions? Better that than the continued scorched earth campaign.

P.S. I got Rinetti’s response just after I hit the Publish button. Here it is:

Thanks for your letter.  We are encountering significant ticketing issue on our premium games in which over 200 fans per game have bleacher seats and can’t find seats together or seats at all.  We have come up with a plan to take care of the regular bleacher guests and even provide them with a discount as long as they purchase their seats in advance.  The regular games that have plenty of open seating will not be an issue.  It will be the games vs. the Yankees, Giants, Red Sox and some of the fireworks shows.  If you would like to call me after Tuesday of next week, I can explain further. 

I think I’ll give Rinetti a call next week.

09.15.11
by

Unanimity

On March 11, Chuck Greenberg was ousted as Texas Rangers’ managing partner and CEO. Nolan Ryan was named CEO immediately thereafter, with the plan to become the managing partner down the road. Two months later on May 12, Ryan was approved as the Rangers’ managing partner by a 30-0 vote.

Just over six months after Greenberg’s ouster, the Giants were forced to announce managing partner Bill Neukom’s “retirement”. Mark Purdy reported that Larry Baer would be named CEO of the team, with someone else becoming managing partner. Purdy included three names as the possible next managing partner, including Franklin Templeton Chairman Charles Johnson, who appears to be the frontrunner among internal candidates (I’m not aware of any outside money coming in at this point, though Neukom said he will divest his share in the future). The Giants will need to address that hole at the top of the organization, since it’s the managing partner who represents the team on all relevant league matters, and a fairly important league matter is coming up in CBA negotiations. (The CEO title is entirely internal to the team organization.) Based on the lead time for the slam dunk approval for Ryan and the drawn out process for Jim Crane’s purchase of the Astros, approval of the Giants’ new managing partner candidate should take at least two months.

Now we all know how much Bud Selig, who gives the ultimate thumbs up or down on all ownership matters, likes consensus (or at least the appearance of it). He had no trouble rustling up the 30-0 yea for Ryan, since the fireballer has been a known quantity in baseball for over four decades and is not the type to rock the boat. He wants the same thing for the Astros, and he should get it for the Giants. Reservations about Crane’s previous business doings have tripped him up at least in some owners’ eyes. Just as reservations stand in the way for Crane, there could be at least one owner who stands in the way of 30-0 for the Giants: Lew Wolff.

Wolff has signaled on this site that he’s going to go along with whatever the Commissioner decides, so we can’t expect Grandpa Lew to pace outside Bud’s office wearing a sandwich board. Yet he doesn’t even need to formally verbalize his dissatisfaction regarding the Giants’ territorial rights stance in an owner’s meeting – everyone knows what he thinks and the threat he represents. This provides an opportunity – or rather, an excuse – to bring the two teams to the table to work things out. The Giants have the big holdout vote on the A’s moving to San Jose, and the A’s could be the dissenter in approving a new Giants managing partner. Obviously, the two decisions are not even in the same spectrum in terms of impact, but when you have a commissioner who strives for unanimity, even the smallest tensions can upset it. What’s a commissioner who normally sits on his hands to do? The last thing he needs is the appearance of disunity among his ranks, and a stalemate between the two Bay Area teams couldn’t come at a worse time, even if CBA negotiations are not expected to be particularly rancorous. Both the Dodgers and the Mets are on Lady Justice’s clock, which means no quick resolutions for either.

It’s unfortunate that the Giants chose to make this change now, before the season is officially over. They know that the CBA is coming up, they know that Wolff is looking for a crack in the door. They were probably looking to wait until after the big decisions were complete in November-December before they announced Neukom’s departure. Purdy foiled their plan with his reportage, and if it wasn’t for the very professional Giants media relations staff, he’d be persona non grata at AT&T Park. Nevertheless, that’s where we are now, and while it’s a leap to think that Wolff will aggressively pursue a course of action or lobby owners, that crack is there.

I’ll characterize Wolff’s chances at this point at 25-30% of getting what he wants, 50% of at least getting to the table. Considering where we’ve been for the last few years, I think he’ll take the odds every time.

09.14.11
by

Neukom out as Giants CEO

So there I was, trying to cheer myself after another A’s loss with a side trip to SF’s new high-tech grilled cheese joint The Melt, and I hear that Bill Neukom, he of the monopoly-defending ways (for both the Giants and Microsoft), has been ousted as CEO. “What the what?!?!” I thought.

Mark Purdy appears to have the best read on things. Whether Neukom was too profligate a spender or if his style rubbed the rest of the Giants executive committee the wrong way, it’s a shocking end to a tenure.

At this point it’s much too early to know how this is going to shake out for the A’s. Neukom may stay on in some capacity, and if it’s as some sort of legal counsel, there’s no reason to think the Giants will be even the slightest amount more flexible regarding territorial rights to Santa Clara County. Team President Larry Baer will take the reins, and he hasn’t exactly been friendly to the concept. In a similar manner, Texas Rangers managing partner Chuck Greenberg was deposed before the beginning of the season and subsequently replaced by Nolan Ryan.

Still, you have to think that with the brain-trust of the Giants so worried about spiraling payrolls despite consecutive sellout crowds and locked-in TV dominance, something has to give. Given Bud Selig’s generally laissez faire approach to managing owners and ownership groups, this has to be an internal struggle. Who knows, maybe T-rights is part of the discussion? I can’t see it being at the top of the priority list. Selig is probably watching closely to make sure that the Giants don’t turn into the Dodgers, and not much else.

09.11.11
by

Legislative and political flurry

A series of changes at Oakland City Hall and the State Capitol may portend well for Oakland’s chances to get either an A’s ballpark or Raiders stadium built. Or maybe not.

First up, newly hired Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana, late of San Jose, made two key hires in poaching SJ Finance Director Scott Johnson and SF Redevelopment head Fred Blackwell to be Assistant City Administrators, each with different roles. Johnson will be tasked with the responsibilities you’d normally consider as part of a city manager/administrator role, such as finance/budget and labor relations. Meanwhile, Blackwell will be covering a redevelopment-oriented role. Scuttlebutt is that CEDA head Walter Cohen may be on his way out amidst “major changes” there. Could CEDA and ORA be headed for big time restructuring? It would make sense if they want to deal with next year’s budget deficit early. That shouldn’t mean bad things for the Victory Court EIR or the Raiders project since they’re already in the pipeline. It probably means there will be fewer resources for planning and future projects, both short and long-term.

Up in Cowtown, yet another bill (actually two) designed to bypass the CEQA process has made it through the Legislature. SB 292 (D-Padilla, San Fernando Valley) limits potential legal actions against LA Stadium/Farmers Field EIR by pushing challenges up to the State Court of Appeal, where cases could be expedited more quickly. This is important because it could save several months, maybe even a year by offering this kind of protection. The actual EIR review process will not be impacted in a major way, only the method for dealing with legal challenges. SB 292 only protects the Farmers Field project, so it isn’t helpful for either Oakland project, or others with already certified EIRs.

A companion bill, AB 900 (D-Steinberg, Los Angeles), could help Oakland. Initially meant as a companion for SB 292, AB 900 expands its coverage to large projects worth $100 million or more. Naturally, that would include any major stadium or arena project throughout the state, including either Oakland stadium, the Kings’ downtown arena in Sacramento, and others. AB 900 actually sets a time limit of 175 days for the Court of Appeal to issue a decision on any affected project after a party files a petition challenging said project. AB 900 will not become law unless SB 292 also is signed into law, so at this point everything rests with Governor Brown, on whose desk the two bills sit.

Brown may be of two minds on the bills. On one hand, he can’t be in love with the Legislature for flat out denying him on a multitude of tax extension requests, though he may be putting the blame on Republicans instead of his own party. And while he’s no proponent of stadium projects, in the case of these two bills there are no traditional public sources of funding being tapped, so he may be a little more amenable to signing these bills than he would for other deals. We’ll see shortly.

09.07.11
by

Is Crane approval on hold pending Astros move to AL?

FOX-26 in Houston is reporting that Jim Crane’s approval as the next owner of the Houston Astros may be awaiting Crane’s agreement to move to the American League. When the possibility surfaced in June, the thought was that realignment could be done, but would have to be studied to understand the effects on scheduling (both inter and intraleague) and the playoffs. It’s safe to say that if Selig is pushing this to happen, that study is complete. Crane doesn’t have a lot of choice in the matter, considering that he remains on the outside looking in. Of course, this would mean that interleague play would occur pretty much everyday during the baseball season.

Houston realignment to the American League

Maury Brown claims that Crane could use “denial” of the move as an excuse should he be denied the ownership stake, and that the excuse would paper over many of the other misgivings the other owners might have about Crane assuming control of the Astros. That’s plausible, but the easiest way for Selig to get some modest form of realignment, which is one of his pet causes, would be to use this as way to kill two birds with one stone: get realignment on the back of Drayton McLane selling the team. I sincerely doubt that Selig and the other owners have gotten religion and have decided to have more “upstanding citizens” within their ranks. None of the billionaires or multimillionaires have gotten to where they were by being nice guys (yes, I am including Lew Wolff). We’ll find out sometime before the end of the season what happens to Crane, to realignment and scheduling in the 2012 or future seasons, and hopefully this will get things rolling for the A’s as well.

08.30.11
by

News for 8/30/11

There’s a little back-and-forth between the Chargers and a LA-based blogger who has concluded that AEG is buying 96% of the team from the Spanos family, with the intent of moving the franchise to a new downtown LA stadium. Chargers spokesperson Mark Fabiani has said unequivocally that the team will not be sold.

Tim Kawakami has done some back-of-the-envelope numbers on financing for the 49ers stadium and has come up with many of the same conclusions written here a year ago.

Chron sports editor Al Saracevic reports on a new parking study commissioned by a SF Planning Commissioner takes issue with the 49ers stadium EIR’s assessment that parking inventory will be “equal to or superior to any in the NFL.” Considering the way this new study was derived, the results have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t good points. I’m absolutely certain that tailgating, of the kind Niner fans currently experience at the ‘Stick, will be practically extinct. It’ll be largely replaced by team-sponsored fan zones and other tailgating facsimiles.

BANG is asking fans to submit suggestions as to how the Raiders can increase attendance in Oakland. Send responses to turn2@angnewspapers.com or ccnsports@bayareanewsgroup.com.

A fan fell down a stairwell at Rangers Ballpark on Saturday. The unidentified 24 year-old man was knocked unconscious by the fall and remains in a local hospital.

I want take this opportunity to address something discussed in the last comments thread. There’s an opinion – generally espoused by Rick Tittle – that the A’s should spend money on the Coliseum to make things a little more fan friendly. Tittle frequently cites the investment made by Peter Magowan when he assumed control of the Giants as a good example. It sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t explain how this would work. Let’s get a few facts out of the way regarding what the Giants did:

  • The Giants spent $5 million in 1994 to add new LF bleachers, field boxes, the outfield fence, and the out-of-town scoreboard above the RF pavilion.
  • The money also went toward replacing the dirt warning track with the rubberized “tartan” surface. After all, you can’t have high rollers in field boxes stepping on dirt to reach their seats, or have wind-blown dust in their eyes.
  • In 2011 dollars, the inflation-adjusted value would be $8 million or less.

We’ve talked a lot about what it would take to spruce up the Coli, even to the point of fans initiating the effort since we can’t expect the A’s, Raiders, or Coliseum Authority to do it. We’ve heard that the Coliseum Authority may be replacing the obsolete scoreboard system, which is a good and necessary move. However, there aren’t many other changes that could be made that wouldn’t adversely impact either the A’s or the Raiders. Consider this:

  • I’ve suggested in the past that the best way to expand the lower concourse is to take out the last 3-4 rows of the field level seats and make new platforms for wheelchair seating areas and standing room sections. Doing this would remove 3,000+ seats, which would drop the Coliseum’s capacity below 60,000, below NFL guidelines. I can’t imagine either the Raiders or the NFL going for that, even if the Raiders don’t routinely sell out the joint.
  • The A’s can’t add more seats on the field because space is taken by the dugouts, the existing field boxes, the rolled up field tarp, and the bullpens.
  • The A’s can’t reduce foul territory by reconfiguring the lower deck without major engineering and construction challenges.
  • The Coliseum does actually have some modern amenities, such as the West Side Club and the Diamond Level seats.
  • As much as people complain about the troughs in the men’s restrooms, the decision to keep those in place was made in 1995. Have you ever noticed that the troughs have those sensors above that can tell when you’re finished and then flush? That’s the extent of change in the original restrooms.
  • It’s possible that the A’s could invest in expanding the clubhouse facilities, but I don’t know what complexities lie in attempting that.

Now let’s say that you own the A’s, and like what Magowan did 17 years ago, you’d like to spend $8 million, no, up to $10 million on the Coliseum to improve the experience. Take the scoreboards off the table. What would you improve? Do you have any idea how much it would cost? Is there a decent chance you’d recoup that investment? One thing to keep in mind is that when Wally Haas sunk money into the Coliseum, he was eventually paid back by the Coliseum Commission. He eventually saw greater revenues during the Bash Brothers era, but was unable to sustain that in the long run. Many of the current deficiencies with the Coliseum can’t and won’t be addressed by quick fixes.

Before you chime in, read this ESPN article about the A’s and their relationship with the Coliseum by Mark Kreidler, one of the “Rise Guys” brought in from Sacramento a month ago. Then look at the date. Some things never change.

08.29.11
by

Rust Belt Ballpark Tour 2012

I have a news post in the hopper. It’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

During tonight’s A’s-Indians game, there was a brief shot of Heritage Park, an outdoor monument at Progressive Field. Heritage Field opened in 2007, long after the last and only time I visited then-Jacobs Field. I’d like to visit the Jake again in 2012, along with a number of other major and minor league ballparks, some of which I have visited in the past.

So far I have assembled the following list of cities and venues to visit over the span of roughly one week, in no particular order:

  • Detroit (Tiger Stadium)
  • Toledo (Fifth Third Ballpark, AAA)
  • Cleveland (Progressive Field)
  • Canton (Pro Football Hall of Fame)
  • Pittsburgh (PNC Park, Consol Energy Center)
  • Columbus (Huntington Park, AAA)
  • Cincinnati (Great American Ball Park)
  • Dayton (Fifth Third Field, A)

There are additional side trips that could be taken if I have the time:

  • Louisville (Louisville Slugger Field, Museum/Factory)
  • Indianapolis (Victory Field, AAA)
  • Buffalo (Coca-Cola Field, AAA)
  • Toronto (Rogers Centre)
  • Lima, OH (McKinley High)

What places or parks would you like for me to cover on the trip? So far the must-sees are the 4 MLB facilities, Huntington Park, and Canton. Everything else is up for grabs or depends on the game schedules, which won’t be available for a few months at the very least. Also, if there’s a particular route you think I should take, here’s your chance to suggest it. I’m shooting for May 2012 to take the trip. Thanks for your help.

08.25.11
by

Stirring the Beane pot

A few Bay Area writers are talking up Billy Beane possibly leaving for Chicago’s North Side, with the rationale being that Brad Pitt’s alter ego will exit stage right after having experienced too much frustration regarding the A’s low revenue status.

All this sounds fascinating given the A’s record and the lack of resolution on the stadium front. However, it falls apart once you scratch the surface.

First of all, while the story has created something of an echo chamber effect here, there are no media reports emanating from Chicago about Beane being a candidate, speculation or otherwise. There are several “hot” candidates who are either younger or easier to get contract-wise. Dozens of articles have been written about the purported frontrunner for the Cubs’ GM job, current White Sox assistant GM Rick Hahn – who just happens to be a Chicago native and a lifelong Cubs fan. Then there’s the status of wunderkind Rays GM Andrew Friedman, who is currently working year-to-year with no contract. Ned Colletti and Brian Cashman have been discussed as well. On the other hand, Beane is signed through 2014, and even though Lew Wolff would let Beane go if he asked, figuring out how to properly terminate the contract (ending in 2014) and have Beane divest his 2.5% stake in the A’s/Quakes is another matter altogether.

Then there’s a simple matter of timing. Chances are that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts will want to get his new GM in place no later than October, so that his new hire will have a fighting chance in the free agent market (there are some first basemen who may catch Ricketts’ fancy). It’s highly unlikely that we’ll hear a decision on Santa Clara County territorial rights by that point, leaving Beane and the rest in ownership in limbo. Beane would effectively be basing his decision on a hunch, and as we all know, Billy’s a little more empirically driven than that.

For his part, Wolff has been pretty straightforward on this semi-issue (from Shea’s piece):

“I would never inhibit anybody from bettering themselves because of a contract,” said Wolff, who had lunch with Beane on Wednesday and said no team has called regarding his GM. “Billy is fantastic and, to me, indispensable. My hope is he will be here a long time. I did promise Billy and all the guys we would have a venue so they would be able to further execute their abilities, and I think that will happen.”

Sounds optimistic.

“I have to be,” Wolff said. “There is no choice for us, for the good of baseball. It’s sad it’s taking this long.”

He added, “I’m going to build a new stadium for the A’s, and if I’m not, someone will,” but he was quick to point out he didn’t mean he’d move the club or sell to out-of-town interests, instead mentioning his son, Keith (vice president of venue development) as a possible baton receiver. “We’re working every day. If it doesn’t happen, we’ll go to Plan B, which I don’t have.”

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that despite the A’s revenue problem, Beane likes his life. He oversees two franchises by day and pals around with venture capitalists at night. Not to say that he couldn’t get some of that in Chicago, but really, porkbellies aren’t as interesting as tech. And I have to think that as a particularly driven guy, he might not feel his work is done just yet. Just a hunch.