The legislature ended its short session last night without SB 4 coming to a vote, which means any proponents will have to try again next year. As I noted earlier, the bill went through some major changes in terms of the bond approval mechanism, effectively neutering it. This effectively keeps the status quo, where groups looking for tax-free bond financing will have to go strictly through municipalities and joint powers authorities, and if public sources are required such as taxes, votes will be required.

Bud Selig’s speech and subsequent Q&A session was about an hour long total. The speech was a brief history of Selig’s time as an owner, then as the commissioner. Not naturally the most charismatic of speakers, Selig’s sporadic eye contact with the audience made the delivery fairly dull, and the speech an exercise in self-aggrandizement. As expected, Selig didn’t say anything to encourage San Jose supporters. In fact, his statements should provide some hope for Oakland supporters, though no one should be proclaiming Selig as the savior of baseball in Oakland just yet.

Notes: The audio stream of the event will be played on KQED-FM on Friday night at 8 p.m. An AP article focused largely on steroids is now available on the Chronicle’s SF Gate site. Daniel Brown from the Merc also wrote an article more geared towards territorial rights. Channels 5, 7, and 11 were present getting video.

Selig was initially flanked by former Commonwealth Club president Joe Epstein and somewhat surprisingly, County Assessor Larry Stone, better known as an irritant for East Bay supporters. Stone emceed the event, and before he finished his introduction of Selig, he plugged the MLB-to-San Jose effort, almost on cue.

Notes from the speech portion:

• MLB will surpass last season’s league attendance record by the end of the current season.
• He talked up the significant rise in the value of the Dodgers franchise when it changed hands from the O’Malleys to Fox and finally to Frank McCourt. He did not let slip an estimate of the Expos’ eventual selling price.
• Moneyball was mentioned as a subject that is “theological in nature.”
• Revenue sharing, payroll taxing (luxury taxes), and the debt service rule are the base of the current financial structure. He sees little need to change the structure in the near future.
• The speech was littered with quotes from Mark Twain, Thomas Wolfe, and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
• Steroids is cheating. The only other substance mentioned was andro, and only as a historical reference. No mention of HGH.
• He noted that in the midst of all of the media’s criticism of how MLB handled steroids during the 90’s, he looked up articles written during the era and saw only “11 articles that mentioned steroids.”

The Q&A was done via responses to selected questions the audience submitted on comment cards. Only 10 questions were answered, one of which was a throwaway question about the commish’s relationship with George Steinbrenner. Here’s the skinny on the question segment:

1. What happened to the Reggie Jackson group’s bid to buy the A’s?

• Selig claims it was Schott/Hofmann that decided to not entertain Jackson. He acknowledged that this contradicts Schott’s initial statements on the matter, but insisted that it was the ownership group that made the decision, noting that the commissioner’s office doesn’t have to time interfere with these things. MLB will only step in when it’s time to evaluate a group’s financial worthiness.

2. Any thoughts on the idea of limits to the number intentional walks a batter can receive (Bonds rule)?

• Not happening. No way baseball will change rules for a single individual.

3. Is a salary cap in the future?

• “I’m comfortable where we are,” Selig said.

4. What’s being done about tight-fisted owners who pocket revenue sharing money instead of spending it on players?

• “That phenomenon is a myth that somehow keeps getting perpetuated,” said Selig. According to Selig, the league shares the books with the owners, and the payers (big market “have” teams) wouldn’t stand for any prolonged effort by other owners to stash the money. Again, he reinforced the notion that the baseball’s economic model is good.

5. What about the influence of international players?

• This gave Selig the chance to tout the World Baseball Classic. He did this during the speech as well.

6. Is the DH rule going to change anytime soon?

• The DH was one of the few things on which he agreed with former A’s owner Charlie Finley (Yes for the AL). He’s happy with the way it stands since the teams in the two leagues are happy with the existing rules. (A good follow-up would’ve been to ask for his take on using the DH in NL-hosted games and the hitting pitcher in AL-hosted games, but there was no opportunity for follow-ups.)
• The only change he might see happening is a geographical redistribution of teams, but he didn’t get specific.

7. What is the league doing about steroids and its impact on records?

• Without outright saying it, Selig indicated that he’s leaving the records alone and will keep them asterisk-free. We’ll see if that holds up if any other high-profile sluggers are shown to have used.

8. What about the exclusivity of territorial rights?

• Repeating a statement he made weeks ago, Selig said, “You couldn’t run the sport without internal rules and you can’t make exceptions.”
• The Giants’ territorial rights were affirmed when they made the huge private investment in SBC Park.
• His feelings on relocation are heavily shaped by the Braves’ move to Atlanta. Besides the territorial rights issue, he appears to be stridently anti-move, though his previous statements about the situation in Miami raise questions about that.
• Regarding San Jose, he said that “San Jose is a great location, but that’s not the issue. We have to protect the status quo. We’re clearly not going to expand.”

9. Epstein posed a follow-up: “Is there a process by which a vote could be taken by the owners to overturn these rights?”

• “No. It’s not a question of overturning rights,” replied Selig. I’m not certain if the response meant that he would not allow it to come to vote, or whether he was rendering his opinion on the outcome of a vote. Surely the owners would not vote for anything that could potentially threaten their own financial well-being.
• He trumpeted the party line about “staying focused on Oakland.” The question of what would happen if the Oakland deal didn’t succeed was not asked.

The San Jose boosters I overheard upon leaving didn’t appear discouraged, least of all Larry Stone. While Selig dismissed the idea of overturning the Giants’ territorial rights, that’s the weakest option because it’s the least realistic. Maury Brown of Business of Baseball and the Oregon Stadium Campaign and I have had this discussion in the past, and I agree with him that for the A’s to move anywhere, whether it’s San Jose, Portland, Vegas, or Sacramento, the bidding group needs to make an extremely compelling case – not just to a single affected owner, but to all 30 owners and MLB. Oakland, with its location and access, is hard to argue against. Any bids to move the team will have to be comprehensive, probably including packaged TV and radio deals and lists of pre-committed corporate sponsors (because those are Oakland’s weak points currently). Without those requirements, I doubt any bid would be entertained.

Remember that in Wolff’s press conference last month, he talked about the ability of the East Bay business market to fill the 40 luxury suites and 40 minisuites (plus club seats) that he wants to build in the new ballpark. It stands to reason that he’ll compare that to other market studies, determine the costs and risk factors, and then decide – if it even gets to that point.

I’ll be attending tonight’s Commonwealth Club event featuring Bud Selig in San Jose. I may be able to ask him a question. What would you ask the commish? I have a list so far, and I except to check off most of those questions as the night progresses. Expect an update later tonight.

An article in the San Jose Business Journal summarizes the current situation with SB 4 and has comment from local politicians from Fremont and San Jose. Though the piece has a definite South Bay focus, the financing structure created once SB 4 passes would be available to every city, county, and joint powers authority in the state that wants to finance a public venue, including Oakland and the JPA. As noted in an earlier post, it could create an competitive bidding environment among cities, with the winner providing the most favorable deal for a team owner.

There should be some potential benefit for San Jose Earthquakes fans. AEG, which has threatened to move the Earthquakes as early as after the end of the 2005 season, is on record as supporting the bill, so it knows the ramifications. The Santa Clara County Fairgrounds, which has been touted as a possible site for a huge soccer complex with a 25,000-seat soccer stadium at the heart of it (like those in Dallas and LA), would become a much more likely possibility.

Any pursuit of KTCT-1050 AM as the A’s flagship may soon be rendered moot when Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff decides which bidder wins the right to purchase its radio properties. Bidding is open for Susquehanna Media until September 13, though the company isn’t releasing any other details. The parent company, Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff, has already divested itself of its Internet consulting business, SusQtech, and its dinnerware business as well. Top suitors include Infinity, Clear Channel, Cox Radio, and Entercom. Business continues at KTCT, which is applying for the abililty to broadcast at 50,000 watts at night as well as during the day.

SI.com just released their baseball Fan Value Index, which attempts to quantify the experience at each of the thirty MLB ballparks based on prices, amenities, and “intangibles” such as neighborhood and atmosphere.

McAfee Coliseum landed right in the middle, at #15 between Yankee Stadium and U.S. Cellular Field. In giving the Coliseum a score of 40 out of 70 possible points, reviewer James Black hit the nail right on the head in one of his closing comments:

“Despite regularly producing playoff teams since the 1970s, the A’s play in one of the majors’ least interesting ballparks, while across the Bay the Giants’ inconsistent play (at best) is rewarded with a veritable Taj Mahal.”

Surprisingly, that very Taj Mahal across the bay placed 24th on the list, scoring a total of 37. The low scores came largely from inflated prices cited from Team Marketing Report’s Fan Cost Index, with which I have to take some issue. It basically assumes that a family will buy the same food and souvenirs at every game, which is less likely to happen the more one goes. I can’t comment on souvenirs since I don’t buy them, but food prices are only slightly higher at SBC versus those at the Coliseum. A microbrew usually costs a quarter more in SF, while a hot dog is 25-50 cents more. SBC, through its pouring rights deal with Coke, has one pretty unique item not found in other ballparks: Coke vending machines. When the park opened in 2000, those 1.5 L bottles cost only $1. They’ve steadily gone up since then and are no longer a great deal at $3 (IIRC), but they more than did the job since they didn’t have long lines and the sodas were always cold. It’s an idea that should be considered for a new A’s ballpark, since the overhead compared to using vendors is relatively low. No, I am not arguing for the return of the Automat, but for something as simple as a drink, there are obviously more efficient ways of selling it, and vending machines make sense.

Incidentally, the top-ranked venue this year was Miller Park, which like the Coliseum has lots of parking and plenty of walk-up tickets available. Limited public transit options knocked it down a bit, but the great tailgating experience and the amenities available in the new ballpark boosted its score. PNC Park placed second, Coors Field third, and Angels Stadium fourth (thanks to Arte Moreno’s promise of reasonably-priced concessions and tickets).

According to this report from the Merc, the Commonwealth Club’s Silicon Valley chapter scored big in getting an appearance from none other than commish Bud Selig. Selig is scheduled to speak September 7 at the McEnery Convention Center, where he will speak on numerous topics including steroids and expansion. The most locally intriguing issues are, of course, relocation and territorial rights. This is probably the best opportunity for San Jose partisans to find out if Selig is willing to budge on his hardline stance regarding the Giants’ rights to Santa Clara County. There is an issue of timing, since the Oakland ballpark plans were announced only weeks ago and Selig won’t want to say or do anything to potentially jeopardize that initiative. It’s likely that Selig could spend the day touring the Coliseum North site with Lew Wolff, perhaps even alternate sites like Fremont. If San Jose officials were able to get an hour or so to make an unofficial pitch and tour, it would be a major coup for their efforts.

I, for one, will make every effort to attend the event.

Yesterday, SB 4 passed easily in the State Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, 13-4. The three Bay Area Assembly members on the committee (Mark Leno, Johan Klehs, Joe Nation) all voted yes. Now, it should be on to a third reading and a vote in the Assembly. Afterwards, the heavily-amended bill has to go back to the Senate for approval, and then finally to the Governor’s desk. SB 4 will have to compete with dozens of other bills, many of which are higher profile. The journey through the Legislature must be completed by September 9, which marks the end of the session.

Again, should SB 4 pass, there are possibilities for raising tax-free financing for a new ballpark and surrounding infrastructure, without requiring a local vote to authorize funds. Because the bill itself has been weakened, it’s only reasonable to expect that the I-Bank Board would be very careful about how it qualifies projects, since it will have the final say. If the Wolff plan proceeds with land acquisition and then construction, it’s likely that either the JPA or Oakland would be asked to make a proposal to the I-Bank, even though the revenue streams used to pay off the stadium would be largely private.

CBS-5’s Hank Plante hosted a Charlie Rose-style roundtable including the mayors of the three big Bay Area cities: Jerry Brown, Ron Gonzales, and Gavin Newsom. The discussion covered a multitude of issues including crime, the Bay Bridge, gay marriage, and homelessness.

Inevitably, Plante brought up the issue of competition among the three cities, and that meant the A’s and San Jose’s thinly veiled efforts to get the A’s. True to form, Gonzales said little about the A’s directly, and Brown repeated his position of “let’s keep the A’s here, but at what public cost?” Anyone expecting heated debate about the A’s was sure to be disappointed. It’s becoming apparent that Gonzales is merely keeping the idea of baseball in San Jose warm for the next San Jose mayor, while Brown used the roundtable as a lengthy politicking session, as shown by his almost complete disinterest in the subject matter.

The recent surge in the standings helped boost the A’s turnstile performance during the first week of the 12-game August homestand. As expected, attendance cooled somewhat with the weather and the arrival of the Baltimore Orioles and Kansas City Royals, but the average attendance for the homestand was still excellent, at 32,555 per game.

To date, that puts the A’s 4% down from last year. This season’s total attendance through 65 dates is 1,697,637. In 2004, it was 1,769,184. The good news is that the A’s should surpass last season’s pace (not total attendance) in the next series versus the Yankees. The following three opponents (Texas, Seattle, Minnesota) probably won’t make much of a dent. At least there are a Mark Kotsay bobblehead night (rare to have bobblehead giveaways on weeknights) on September 6, and a Fireworks Night on September 23 versus the Rangers. The last series of the year is a four-game mid-week set against The O.C., and while the last two games should be well-attended by default, attendance at the first two games may depend on the A’s relative playoff status. To beat last season’s total attendance mark, the A’s will have to draw around 31,500 a game for the rest of the season – not impossible, but a challenge because of the way the schedule is drawn up. If the A’s are in wild card or division championship contention during the final week of the season, they should be able to beat it. They’ll need 1,000 more than that per game to beat 2003’s total.