12.02.09
by

World Cup may not be bring a windfall

The AP’s Stephen Wade has a neat article about new book, Soccenomics. The book “to do for soccer what Bill James in his ‘Baseball Abstracts,’ and Michael Lewis in ‘Moneyball’ did for baseball: examine the game from the outside, using social science and academic rigor.”

Unfortunately for the futbol economy, it appears that while spending Yankees-style can bring on-field success, it doesn’t guarantee profit. The authors, Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper, point out that “the next World Cup will not be an airplane dropping dollars on South Africa,” due to enormous stadium construction expense canceling out positive economic impact from WC-related tourism. South Korea has had problems filling all of its new stadia after the 2002 WC.

It’s really the same problem with NFL venues, only the NFL’s stadia are even larger and more expensive. Thankfully, most of the new NFL venues were built during a boom period, with only a few replacements due or overdue. If the overriding argument against bringing a World Cup to a country is the construction cost, that should put the United States and its dozens of excellent stadia in great position, right?

Fifteen years ago, we hosted the WC with a bunch of venues that are now largely obsolete and have been replaced by something else:

  • Rose Bowl
  • Stanford Stadium
  • Cotton Bowl
  • Soldier Field
  • Pontiac Silverdome
  • Giants Stadium
  • Citrus Bowl
  • Foxboro Stadium

Stanford Stadium’s a bit small to do it these days, and the Silverdome and Citrus Bowl will probably continue to deteriorate over the next decade or so, ruling them out. Giants Stadium will be replaced next year while Foxboro and the Silverdome have already been replaced. The Cotton Bowl has been supplanted twice already, and Cowboys Stadium doesn’t have the nasty field crown problem that plagued Texas Stadium. The advent of retractable domes has made Indianapolis and Phoenix suitable locales, which only drives up competition among all of these new venues. That’s not to say that all large NFL stadia are immediately eligible – FIFA has a recent partial roof requirement that may disqualify many large NFL and college stadia. If I were to put together a venue list for a future USA World Cup, it would probably look like this:

  • Group A: Qwest Field, Seattle
  • Group B: New Bay Area Stadium
  • Group C: Reliant Stadium, Houston
  • Group D: Soldier Field, Chicago
  • Group E: University of Phoenix Stadium, Phoenix/Glendale
  • Group F: Gillette Stadium, Boston/Foxboro
  • Group G: FedEx Field, Washington, D.C.
  • Group H: Raymond James Stadium, Tampa

Knockout rounds:

  • Games 1 & 2: New Meadowlands Stadium, New York/New Jersey
  • Games 3 & 4: New Los Angeles Stadium/Rose Bowl
  • Games 5 & 6: Cowboys Stadium, Dallas/Arlington
  • Games 7 & 8: New/Refurbished Miami Stadium

Quarterfinals

  • Quarterfinal 1: New Meadowlands Stadium
  • Quarterfinal 2: New Los Angeles Stadium/Rose Bowl
  • Quarterfinal 3: Cowboys Stadium
  • Quarterfinal 4: New/Refurbished Miami Stadium

Semifinals

  • Semifinal 1: Cowboys Stadium
  • Semifinal 2: New/Refurbished Miami Stadium

Finals

  • Third Place Game: New Los Angeles Stadium/Rose Bowl
  • Championship: New Meadowlands Stadium

It’s a pretty equitable geographic distribution of games, better than 1994 at least. It would also require only two new venues and one refurbished venue (Miami), all of which are in planning stages anyway. So is it a good idea to pursue the World Cup in America in another decade? I can only speak from personal experience, which means that I got to hang out with an official translator for the Brazilian team in Los Gatos during the ’94 WC. Those Brazilians turned that place out. IMHO, hell yes.

11.30.09
by

Matier & Ross unveil Oakland sites

We’ve been told Oakland’s going to release some information this week in conjunction with a renewed show of support from the City of Oakland, business leaders, and fans. Matier & Ross have the sites, two of which are completely new.

  • The current Oakland Coliseum site.
  • Oak and Third streets, just south of Jack London Square. [OFD Training]
  • The old Howard Street terminal on the waterfront, a bit north of the Coliseum and on the other side of the Nimitz Freeway.
  • Howard Street on the northeast side of the Embarcadero.

The fascinating thing is that while many – including myself – thought Howard Terminal would be one of the sites, the group is focusing instead on two sites along Howard Street, near High Street and 880. The area is in the vicinity of the site pitched by Chris Kidd, called Jingletown.

11.29.09
by

Welcome to the Fabulous Forum

As I mentioned in the last post, we now have a forum/bulletin board on site. The forum can be found at newballpark.org/forum. Four main categories have been created, with others possible as needed. Categories are as follows:

  • Ballpark Sites – Discussion of any and all potential homes for the A’s.
  • TV/Radio – Coverage of media deals and channel availability.
  • The Business Side – Discuss salary cap, personnel, draft, revenue, marketing, collective bargaining – that other off the field stuff.
  • Architecture and Design – Features, façades, field dimensions. You know, the cool stuff.

Now to the poll question. Some blogs are formatted to have comments either directly underneath each post, or in a designated forum, or both. How would like to enter comments? Vote in the poll on the right.

So check out the forum, register, and start your own topics. The more, the merrier.

11.26.09
by

And now for something new

Many of you provided lots of healthy feedback when the blog underwent a reskinning several months ago. Despite the excellent response, I’ve felt that the Blogger platform was somehow holding the site back. The Thanksgiving weekend seemed like an good time to make another move, and so I’m moving the blog to the WordPress platform. In addition, I finally got a proper domain. The new site is newballpark.org. It’s live and it looks slightly different, but just about everything’s there. I’ve added a discussion forum (under construction) so it’ll be easier to have discussions away from the regular posts. I’ll also add photo galleries and other types of content in the coming months.

Newballpark.org won’t be in some extended beta period. It’s where I’ll be posting from now on, so update your bookmarks and favorites and get the word out. The old site will stay up indefinitely, but there won’t be any new posts and I will be closing out comments on existing posts in short order. Of course, feedback is always welcome, and I appreciate all of the kind words and encouragement you have sent over the years.

Enjoy the rest of your Thanksgiving weekend,

– ML

11.25.09
by

More media reaction

Joe Stiglich has a follow-up from yesterday’s article, consisting of a sitdown with Lew Wolff. Wolff still puts out the 32,000 ballpark capacity (though I have heard otherwise). He refutes much of the criticism he has received:

“It isn’t like, if we had a winning team, we would have had double the attendance,” Wolff said. “If you trace it back for a long time, we’re in a market that’s difficult to tap. We’re close to the Giants, who have a beautiful ballpark. I don’t think the fact that we traded some guys “… When you look back at what we sent out, I think the balance sheet is in our favor, thanks to Billy and his guys.”

Whether you buy into that line of thinking depends on your “worldview.”

Gary Peterson wants an answer from the ever indecisive Bud Selig, and tries to break down the three possible outcomes.

Last but not least, Zennie Abraham never fails to pimp his software/bona fides every chance he gets, especially at his SFGate blog.
11.24.09
by

San Francisco Magazine article on Wolff/Fisher

The media blitz has begun. The Trib’s Joe Stiglich references a feature piece in the December issue of San Francisco Magazine. In it, writer Steve Kettmann, a San Jose native who spent a few years as the A’s beat writer, gets the clearest statements yet from Wolff and more surprisingly, “silent” partner John Fisher. One of the Fisher quotes takes another prominent sports media personality to task:

Fisher and Wolff are a generation apart, but Fisher told me that he considers Wolff “a tremendous partner and friend, who, while he values my input, is the final decision-maker and has been from the beginning-despite what [Chronicle columnist] Ray Ratto may write.
Later, Wolff describes how he came to be involved with (and later own) the A’s:
So 40-plus years later, during the 2002 World Series, (Selig) tracked down Wolff in Paris and asked him to one of the Giants-Angels games. To get there, Wolff enjoyed the first of many police-escorted trips with the commissioner. They traveled from the Mark Hopkins Hotel to PacBell Park. Then, during the game, Selig asked Wolff if he had any interest in talking to the A’s owners, Hofmann and Schott.

“Lewie, would you be interested in buying the interest of one of the partners in the A’s?” Selig asked.

“I thought my role, if I bought in, might be to work on the venue and have a little fun,” Wolff told me.

Soon enough, while investigating the idea, Wolff got a call from John Fisher, with whom he had been a co-investor in hotels such as the Carlyle in New York, the San Jose Fairmont, and the San Francisco Fairmont. Fisher and his father had been part owners of the Giants before largely dropping out in 1995, so Wolff asked about the idea of crossing the bay to buy out the A’s owners. “I think it was around $180 million for all of it, which required about $100 million in cash,” Wolff told me. That was too rich for Wolff’s blood, so “I said to John, ‘I’ll just take a small piece, and I’ll run it. Whatever you want.’ So John called back and said, ‘If you’ll buy 10 percent now and commit to buying another 15 percent, I’ll join you.’

“I said, ‘You know, once you ask someone to run a team, they can’t be removed easily, unless I kill someone or something. So are you sure?’ And John said, ‘Oh yeah, we’ve known you a long time.’ “

Wolff told me he now has $15 million invested. “This is a significant investment for me, and it’s not chump change. I think my ownership position is as large as Peter Magowan’s was in the Giants.”
While it may seem like the backstory is the focus of the article, it is just backstory. Still, I put it out there for emphasis. The idea that the ownership situation was ever in flux since the Wolff/Fisher group took control was and is patently absurd. The real thrust of the piece is San Jose, San Jose, San Jose. And no, the fact that it’s in San Francisco magazine is not accidental.

There’s a lot more, including a sadly humorous anecdote about the Coliseum from Billy Beane and Sandy Alderson commenting on territorial rights. It’s definitely a worthwhile read, so head out to your local newsstand/bookstore/library to check it out.
11.24.09
by

River Cats owner Art Savage dies

Yesterday, the Sacramento Bee reported that River Cats owner Art Savage, who successfully brought pro baseball back to Sactown after a long absence, suddenly died over the weekend. Savage, who was a non-smoker who had successfully fought off lung cancer, was consistently hailed throughout the Central Valley and the baseball world for running the River Cats so well and for providing an excellent product year-in, year-out. The comments to the article bear this out, as there is nary a bad word in Savage’s memory. The article traces his life, from college at Texas Tech to tax accountant to CEO of the Sharks and then the move to get the River Cats started.


In his stint in San Jose, Savage befriended many of the political players who are now aiming to bring the A’s to San Jose, including Lew Wolff. Savage, who was 58, will apparently leave the team to this sons.
11.23.09
by

San Jose puts out the word on new EIR

Just got this from the City of San Jose:

In February 2007, the City certified an EIR for the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area Project (2006 Stadium Proposal), which included a maximum seating capacity of 45,000 and a maximum height of 165 feet, with scoreboards up to approximately 200 feet and lights approximately 235 feet above finished grade. However, due to an error in the traffic data that were used in the previous traffic study for the 2006 Stadium Proposal the City has determined that it is necessary to update the traffic analysis for the modified project using corrected traffic data to disclose a new significant impact to freeways. In early 2009, the City began exploring the development of a modified stadium project. Key components of the modified project proposal that differ from the 2006 Stadium Proposal include: a smaller maximum seating capacity of 36,000; relocation of the parking structure; an option to reposition the stadium to the south; and the realignment of South Autumn Street and South Montgomery Street near their intersection with Park Avenue.

Obviously, people will quickly pick up on the new figure of 36,000. I don’t know where it comes from exactly, but it probably works when gauging impacts since it’s exactly 20% less capacity than before. Beyond that, the repositioning of the stadium looks interesting since we’ve discussed that here many times before. It’s good to have options.

The Notice of Preparation has a few other gems, including the potential acquisition of other sites outside the known ballpark footprint. If the ballpark is repositioned to the south, it would be pushed to the southern edge of the property while Park Avenue would be narrowed from four to two lanes (this stretch is the only one in the immediate area where it is four lanes wide). The PG&E substation could remain intact or be reconfigured, though the former would be a really tight squeeze.

A scoping meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 16 at the usual bat-time/bat-channel.

Update 3:11 p.m.: 36,000 is not merely an estimate for EIR study purposes. It’s quite possibly the new ballpark capacity. Rejoice!
11.21.09
by

WNBA Monarchs fold, could be headed to Oakland

After a 12-year run as a charter franchise in the WNBA, the Maloof family suddenly closed up shop with the Sacramento Monarchs, citing financial concerns. This leaves the WNBA at least temporarily with 12 teams, and the Maloofs with one less loose end should they try to bolt from Sactown. At least one player learned of the team’s ignominious fate via Twitter.


That doesn’t mean that women’s pro hoops are leaving the NorCal market. Apparently, Oakland city council member Rebecca Kaplan has been pushing hard to get a WNBA team at the Coliseum, and the exit of the Monarchs may provide such an opening. Similar talk has existed in the past regarding San Jose, but SVSE head honcho Greg Jamison denied any discussions. The Bay Area has been a great market for women’s hoops in the past, but the lack of a WNBA franchise always seemed puzzling. Was it the NBA exacting penance for San Jose having the Lasers? Or was Chris Cohan simply disinterested in sponsoring a WNBA franchise? Whatever the case, it would be great to have a new team in Oakland to tap into the fanbase and help pay for rent at Oracle Arena to boot.
11.20.09
by

A’s sign 10-year deal with KTRB

In what can only be described as a major bid for stability, the A’s extended their deal with upstart AM sports station KTRB through 2019. We’ve been crying out for some semblance of consistency since the KSFO days, so it’s nice to know that we’re getting it. The long-term deal should also propel KTRB towards broadcasting truly local shows, not just the pre/postgame sandwich. As I understand it, KTRB has been operating without a Bay Area studio, choosing instead to rent out other facilities as needs arise. This should get them going on a proper SF or Oakland studio with real local “talent.” I’m happy.


However, not everything’s wine and roses. Listeners in the Berkeley/Oakland hills were left feeling neglected, as KTRB’s signal was noticeably poor throughout last season, day or night. When we last left off, KTRB was pursuing a second broadcast site in Sonoma County. Things have changed, and it’s hard to say if it’s for the better.

The FCC granted a new Class B transmitter construction permit to KTRB in July. As is often the case with radio stations, there’s more than one transmitter location. In fact, there are three. All three won’t be used at the same time, instead they’ll be time-based. The nighttime transmitter location will remain at the current site near Sunol/Livermore, with no change in orientation. During the day, the transmitter will be at the eastern foot of the San Mateo Bridge. Then there’s the “critical hours” phase, better known as dawn and dusk. During that period – two hours after sunrise and two before sunset – stations are often required to reduce power. In this case, that means dropping from 50,000 to 40,000 watts. That could have negative effects on A’s broadcasts, since most weeknight games will have at least a portion of the game broadcast during critical hours. That’s not the only critical hours change, as the transmitter in the application for that timeframe is not at either of the aforementioned sites. Instead, the critical hours transmitter is slated to be placed just west of Bethel Island. At this point, it’s impossible to say if this will result in an improvement for the people of the Berkeley/Oakland hills. I’m crossing my fingers.

Note: I’ve looked further into the critical hours situation. The FCC defines sunrise and sunset on a monthly basis. Here’s how they define sunset going forward:
Local Standard Time (Non-Advanced)
April – 6:45 PM
May – 7:15 PM
June – 7:30 PM
July – 7:30 PM
August – 7:00 PM
September – 6:15 PM
October – 5:30 PM
I’m not sure how Daylight Savings Time factors in.