“Blez: At least you’re getting a lot of walk-ups lately.

Wolff: That’s the worst thing that could happen to us.

Blez: Really? Why?

Wolff: Well, let’s think it through a little bit. We have the highest walk-ups in Major League Baseball. That is a big black mark against us with the league. Say you’re trying to get the vendors ready for the game and you don’t know if you’re going to have 10,000 people or 20,000. The Giants have the luxury of knowing almost every game where they’ll be. This is a serious problem. It’s not a plus. Obviously we have a lot of seats because of the Raiders expansion and such. So when people say, “Gee whiz, can you spend more money?”, we don’t want to gouge anybody but we’d like to be closer to what the Giants are able to do just by way of a neighbor.“

• One of the things that tends to be forgotten in the appreciation of baseball is that there is a business model behind it. Or rather, several. Moneyball is a unique business model for developing and acquiring players. SBC Park and McAfee Coliseum have very different business models for their stadium operations. A team with its own cable network (Yankees, Red Sox) would have a separate business model for selling advertising. It may not be the most interesting thing to discuss, but it’s the reality of the modern era.
• This is not the first time Wolff has expressed his disdain for walk-up attendance. Expect the season ticket advertising push at the beginning of this season to be cranked into high gear in September and throughout the offseason.

“Blez: So, when you talk about 32-35 thousand capacity…

Wolff: That will create some scarcity. Not a lot. We still have some great ideas. We want to cater to families still and we aren’t looking for the last dollar. But we’d like to be able to manage the dollars that we have. And we don’t know sometimes whether to have 100 people working or 200. You need to probably talk to the people that do that to get more detail. But it’s just not good. And by the way, even if the Raiders weren’t there, it still wouldn’t be good. Without the Raiders, we’d still be looking for a modern venue.”

• The challenge for Wolff will be to sell the added value in a new ballpark. Some of it is inherent: new amenities, better location. Other added value may not be so obvious, such as special perks for season ticket or suite holders. In the end, the best added value comes from a winning team. It is the ultimate end product, after all.
• Mt. Davis has been almost universally hated by A’s faithful, but it’s provided some interesting benefits for them. The lease agreement is extremely favorable for the A’s, as their yearly payment is slightly less than the cost of salaries for rookies Huston Street and Nick Swisher. They also have one-year options on the lease starting in 2008 and have a cheap buyout clause. Without Mt. Davis, the A’s would arguably have less of a case to get a new ballpark. Opponents, including those who would have an emotional attachment to the Coliseum, might be more in favor of renovations to the Coliseum, perhaps similar to those undertaken in Anaheim. The Coliseum now is clearly not a good revenue-generating ballpark model because of the huge capacity and little scarcity.
• Pricing is another matter altogether. Since a competitor resides in the same market, the A’s couldn’t make huge across-the-board price hikes without dealing with the ramifications of the demand curve. Wolff has said that the area isn’t too keen on seat licences, but seat licenses are a very common part of stadium financing these days. Are seat licenses out of the question, or will they be offered in a limited form? If they are offered, how will they be pitched? What flexibility will be in the partial season ticket plans? What about ticket promotions such as newspaper family packs?

“Blez: Are you strictly focused on Oakland right now? I live in Sacramento, so I selfishly hope you’ll come here, but have you explored any place like Sacramento or Las Vegas?

Wolff: We have time to look at Portland and Las Vegas and places that people keep hearing about. Our focus is in our territory, which is really a district. Our district includes, Alameda County, Contra Costa County and I think Monterey too (laughs), we’re not moving down there. We don’t have Santa Clara because that was somehow shifted over to the Giants. I am focused totally on our district. In order of priority, I would like to be in the city of Oakland, if we could. If not, something to do with the city and county through the JPA, and otherwise, the county.”

• This should get the Portland and Vegas folks talking, but they’re just going to have to wait like vultures circling carrion (this goes for San Jose and Sacramento too) for talks in Oakland to collapse. However, Fremont or Dublin may be in play sooner than later. Wolff held firm on intent to not challenge territorial rights in Santa Clara County, which makes it all the more difficult for Baseball San Jose to sell their concept.

“Blez: Anything beyond that?

Wolff: I don’t know where to go beyond that (laughing). That’s all we have the right to do. Now, Sacramento could probably be an area. But I haven’t discussed it in any detail with anybody. Right now, I’m not sure whether that’s a good market or not.

Blez: Raley Field was actually built so you could build a second and I think third deck on it to make it into a major league ballpark.

Wolff: We want a ballpark without a third deck. I understand the park is great and a friend of mine owns the team. I haven’t actually seen it yet but I’m going down with Billy soon to see it. When you’re going to make this type of investment whether it’s in Oakland or somewhere else in the area, and I’m talking $300-400 million, you should get the biggest bang out of it. San Diego’s done a great job. They’ve benefitted a lot. But Oakland is a tough city. It’s built up.”

• At first, I was surprised with Blez seemingly pimping Sactown. I don’t really have an issue with it. Wolff, Fisher and other investors will choose a site and plan based on feasibility, cost, and potential. He’s probably heard plenty about Sacramento already, so Blez isn’t giving him anything new to think over.
• As for bang-for-the-buck, there’s potentially another issue regarding Sacramento. If a ballpark village were planned for the area around Raley Field, that would mean displacement of many business situated in the warehouse district there. That may not seem like much, but those businesses have a rail line, the river, and a major interstate only steps away from where they hang their shingles.
• Built-up? This wasn’t necessarily an issue only three years ago, when the relative futures of Howard Terminal, Uptown, and Oak-to-9th were in question and all three were open to different development plans. Howard Terminal is now sewn up for the next 30 years. Uptown is belatedly getting all of the pieces in place for the Forest City project, and Signature may have a plan in place for developing the Estuary. This brings up the question of timing. Wolff was brought on solely to work on venue development in 2003, then got an option to buy the team. Then he exercised the option in December, shortly after all three deals were well past initial planning stages. That leaves Oakland with fewer and fewer ideal sites. I’m probably reading too much into this, but it is curious.

I’ll end on this note: Not only was it a brilliant interview “get” for Tyler Bleszinski, it was an excellent P.R. move by Wolff. He addressed much of the hardcore fanbase directly, giving them a few details to whet their appetites. Many are now clamoring for site plans, models, renderings, anything to push it forward. It’s clear from most of the comments that there is a positive feeling about Wolff, one of guarded optimism. It’s a crucial step in convincing the community at large that a ballpark is a good thing for the public.

In today’s post, I’m going to cherry pick some of Wolff’s stadium-related quotes and analyze them. There’s much to glean from the interview, so if you haven’t read the entire transcript yet, check it out.

Wolff: “We have something like 7,000 season ticket holders and the Giants have 25,000. We have comparable records, comparable division wins and wild cards, but since the new venue was built over in San Francisco– I’m not a scientist, but I think that does have some factor.”

• Both of the statements are a big deal. The last statement – that was the first I had seen anyone in the A’s ownership discuss SBC Park’s effect on the A’s attendance. That’s important, because it acknowledges that the Bay Area is one large market, not a split into SF/Peninsula, East Bay, South Bay, etc., with hard drawn lines.
• I had been wondering why the A’s didn’t release the season ticket numbers, and Lew does just that at what is arguably the best venue: AN. 7,000 is a paltry number for a big league franchise. There are good marketing opportunities in the future should they choose to take advantage. One promotion that seems obvious is using the purchase of full season tickets at the Coliseum, and even multiple years’ worth, as a way to get better positioning for season tickets at the new ballpark. By establishing a pecking order – established season-ticket holders first, then the aforementioned “transition” ticket-holders, then those who elect to buy full or partial plans when the ballpark opens – demand should be driven up among the fence-sitters, including yours truly. It could yield a good deal of upfront funding without the term “PSL” hanging over it.

Wolff: “Then the size of the market. I think with a great venue and great venue support–and I’m not talking about the city writing me a check for the venue– I think we could do a lot better. We’re the smallest two market team in baseball. And even the White Sox, and my good friend owns the team, suffers attendance in Chicago. You would think Chicago would have more than enough people to be selling out and they’re 14 games ahead right now!

• The experience of the South-Siders should serve as a cautionary tale: Don’t site a ballpark just anywhere without further planning in mind. If you don’t develop a social community around it (entertainment district or ballpark village concept), the chance that you’ll struggle with attendance is higher. It’s easy to have such hindsight considering the fact that The Cell was built in 1991, before the Camden Yards boom. Still, the parallels between A’s and White Sox’ market positions are striking, and are worth noting if only to prevent a repeat of the White Sox’ situation.

Wolff: “We have some challenges and I don’t think Steve and Ken Hofmann spent a lot of time on that. They were busy trying to make the team work. We need a new venue and we’d like it to be in the city of Oakland. If not, then in Alameda County. One of the things you’re going to see in the next few weeks is that as soon as I say I need government help, everybody thinks I’m talking about a bond issue and a check. What I’m really talking about is someone who will say, my God if we can do a new venue here, what can we do to make it work financially for the developer and the owner? How do we clean up the environment and where is the site? So those are the things we’re looking for.”

• Wolff is being nice to the previous ownership group. It was Steve Schott, after all, who spent as much, if not more time looking for a site in Santa Clara County as he did in Alameda County. On his way out, Schott admitted that he could have done things differently. His methods, including negotiation through the press, had alienated much of the existing fanbase.
• Wolff has started to become pretty forceful about defining what he means by “public assistance.” It’s extremely important to get citizens to think about the project positively, so he’s not just avoiding, he’s downright denouncing, the idea of the blank check. This is in keeping with his previous statement about having most of the financing come privately, but it doesn’t mean there won’t be some public share, though that might be more hidden than upfront. Rezoning, partnering on cleanup, easing relocation of existing owners and tenants – these are all hallmarks of large redevelopment projects, and Wolff has done many of those. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see Maritz & Wolff or associated companies get options to develop area around the ballpark once it’s rezoned. That would pave the way for new residential or hotel development, or even office towers, though Oakland isn’t hurting for office space right now. Developers would then get a good deal on land along with promises of less red tape or regulatory issues (ex.: percentages of affordable housing in new projects). It’s being done in San Diego, Brooklyn, and to a lesser extent, in Oakland as well (Uptown and Oak-to-9th have both benefited from city help to resolve potentially sticky legal situations).

“Blez: So what you’re saying is that you aren’t necessarily looking for funds to build the stadium?

Wolff: The answer is this. Cities have things that are better than funds. I’ll give you an example. They have the power to clear property. When you look around Oakland, it’s a pretty built-up community. And when you look around the 880 corridor, it is not the world’s leading aesthetic (laughing). But all kidding aside, it has BART, it has transportation. What we’re hoping for down the road is that there will be some leadership on the public side, and when I say that people immediately say, oh, you want them to pay for it and hand it to you, but that’s not true. We’re going to get a lot of spins soon saying that if I want some city help on zoning or entitlements, meaning zoning, right away people will be writing letters saying that he wants us to do the same thing that we did for others and the schools suffer and so forth which is true. But we need to have as much creativity on the public side as we do on the private side.”

• This is probably as close as A’s ownership will get to actually endorsing a mayoral candidate. Wolff’s being intentionally coy, but it’s not hard to interpret this as a plug for Ignacio De La Fuente, who so far has been the only Oakland official to have regular contact with Wolff. Wolff has been in touch with members of the Coliseum JPA as well, but it’s the City (and maybe the Port) of Oakland that are getting first crack, then the JPA, then Alameda County.
• The comment about zoning and entitlements is surprising in its candor. Wolff deserves credit for acknowledging the controversy surrounding entitlements. Though he doesn’t mention it by name, it’s quite likely tax increment financing would be used to provide some measure of funding for cleanup, improvements, and land acquisition. It is controversial because it is a redirection of a portion of projected higher property tax revenues to the project, instead of the city’s general fund (which means potentially less money for services). TIF tends to be used in blighted or underdeveloped areas that need a jumpstart to promote economic growth. In North Oakland, there is a debate about the merits of having a TIF district in a place that clearly isn’t blighted. Depending on where in Oakland a ballpark is located, it could be a sticky situation, since some of the redirected money could instead go towards city services. There is also the threat of eminent domain being used to acquire land, as was done with Uptown.

“Blez: I wanted to ask how your relationship is with Oakland’s public officials right now?

Wolff: So far, it’s been terrific, including the county too. Right now we’re operating under the JPA (Joint Powers Authority). The reason for that is that they’re our landlord and it does include both county and city officials. I think everyone is for doing something. We recognize that the area, especially the city of Oakland, has huge and much more important priorities from school systems to safety. But we’re still going to need some acreage to build this ballpark and it was in a blighted area. Do we have the resolve to clear out the blight? Even if we pay for it. The problem is that there are too many of these little blip statements and I need somebody to interact with. And we’ll find that person or group. There’s been a lot of willingness to help and I think it’s up to us to say what we would like if we had a magic wand. We’ll be doing that very soon.

Blez: Where do you think the process stands right now?

Wolff: Unless there’s a change, I’ll be giving an update report soon to the JPA which will be a little more specific than it was a few months ago. That’s all I really want to get into at this time.”

• The report to the JPA should be interesting, partly because of the nature of the venue development committee’s discussions: they are working with the City of Oakland and the Coliseum JPA in parallel. The timetables will probably be different just because the JPA only has the Coliseum under its control, while Oakland has numerous potential sites to offer. The report should clearly indicate what the VDC’s assessment regarding Coliseum feasibility really is.

“Blez: (Laughing) At first, the talk of location for the new stadium was the parking lot of the Coliseum, then it was a waterfront location and the latest that I’ve read is the Coliseum south area.

Wolff: There’s a number of possibilities. All require some significant action on the part of the owner and the public body involved. For example, there are some easements and some power lines involved in the Coliseum land itself, which are things we could probably get by, but at the same time the dislocation of parking while we were building a ballpark would not be very fair to the Warriors, assuming they would agree to it. That isn’t the point, but we’d have to be very careful on how to do that. So there’s a bunch of balancing acts. We’ll need to have private development to build just a ballpark and not take advantage of what it could do aesthetically around it. It seems like a lost opportunity to me.”

• The last two sentences together are the biggest indicator of what the A’s are intending to do, i.e. a ballpark village concept.
• Funny that the Warriors’ parking issues are being considered, but the Raiders aren’t mentioned, even though it’s the Raiders’ parking requirements that are greater.

I’ll cover the walk-up situation and Blez’s “Sacramento plug” in the next post.

Lew Wolff sat down with Tyler Bleszinski of the Athletics Nation blog to discuss Wolff’s first few months as an owner, and to talk stadiums. Wolff gave more details, but I’m not going to recap them here. It’s best that you see for yourself.

The Sacramento Bee’s Marcus Bretón wrote a column last week encouraging the A’s to move to Sacramento, where they would receive more fan support and greater attendance than they are currently getting at the Coliseum. He cites the four-county Sacramento Valley area’s projected growth numbers, while also getting a few digs in regarding the A’s poor radio position. Despite all of the bluster regarding Sacramento‘s potential, in comparing Oakland and Sacramento he only gets one point truly right: Sac would offer a better radio position.

What’s wrong with the rest of what he says? I’ll deconstruct the different points one-by-one.

When decrying the Double Play Wednesday ticket discounts, Breton writes that if it were a regular-priced game, “You would have seen about 25,000 fans, give or take, which is about the A’s average this season, down from last year and one of the lowest attendance figures in Major League Baseball.”

• The A’s are in the lower third in terms of attendance in the league, but the blame has to be placed partly on the stadium. A quick check of the attendance numbers shows that the standard deviation among the A’s per game attendance figures so far is 10,563. That means it’s just as likely for the A’s to draw 15,000 (non-giveaway weeknights) as they did 35,000 (bobblehead Sundays) or 25,000 (the average). This is not going away as long as the A’s stay in the Coliseum, an unsexy venue with a much larger than desired capacity. Presumably, a new ballpark built according to Wolff’s small ballpark specifications should tighten that standard deviation up, drive up demand, and in turn, drive up ticket sales. Wolff doesn’t need to move the team to Sacramento to prove this. It’s all basic microeconomics.

“A month ago, the University of the Pacific’s Business Forecasting Center told The Bee’s Andrew McIntosh the Sacramento region’s economy will more than double in the next quarter century. The four-county area – Sacramento, Yolo, Placer and El Dorado – will grow to 3.5 million residents.”

• Sacramento‘s growth potential is bright, but even then, the area will be still be only half as large as the Bay Area, if not less. It’s a matter of going from a major market to a medium-sized market. Some would argue that Oakland actually is a medium-sized market. I’d rather call it not actualized, since other than the radio issue and the territorial rights issue in the South Bay, there are no limits on how the A’s can market throughout the Bay Area, or even all of Northern California. By moving the A’s to Sacramento, Wolff would ensure that the vast majority of casual baseball fans in the Bay Area would go to San Francisco, not 90 minutes to the northeast.

“Compare the number of A’s games on Fox Sports Net to those of the Giants. It’s not even close.”

• The basic difference between the Giants and A’s FSN schedules is the lack of broadcasts on A’s weekday day games. Is that such a big deal? The A’s have alternatives should this become a sore spot. They could make those “getaway day” games night games, which would get picked up by FSN. They could also move to Comcast Sports Network once the current contract with FSN expires. Comcast, in its thirst to get more substantial local programming, may be willing to broadcast more games in its bid. A competitive situation should yield this.

“Sacramento could provide the land for a stadium that the A’s will never find in Oakland or in Contra Costa County.”

• Really? In Sacramento? Let’s put it this way: There’s a reason why Raley Field was built in West Sacramento, not Sacramento. That reason is politics. Raley Field ended up being a near perfect site because it’s just across the Sacramento River from downtown, yet it was in Yolo County, which became the prime location after much squabbling among different neighborhood and business interests in Sacramento. It stands to reason that Raley Field will remain the prime location for a major league team as well, especially if a significant public investment for a ballpark is required. With locals sour on a downtown Kings arena, it would be hard to see support really drummed up for a new ballpark there if another major league franchise (the Kings) wanted a new facility and the ballpark built in 2002 was designed for expansion to attract a MLB franchise. Add to that the fact that there are sites in the East Bay for a ballpark (some less ideal than others, but sites do exist) and the argument doesn’t hold water.

Beyond that, there’s the issue of Raley Field itself. Stadium construction has become a highly evolving marketplace, with new innovations forcing early renovations and in many cases, a yearly fund has to be set up just to support renovations. Milwaukee‘s Miller Park, opened in 2001, is set to undergo several millions of dollars worth of scoreboard and signage changes over the next three years. To get Raley Field up to Wolff’s desired level of creature comforts, it’s not going to work to just build a second deck on top of the ballpark’s luxury suites and call it a day. Let’s look at the wishlist:

• Minisuites. These would have to be built on top of the existing luxury suites, and might require a separate concourse.
• Club seats. Only 450 club seats exist in a section along the first base line, on the same level as the suites. To get more premium seating in the ballpark, designers would have to create more club seats on top of the suites, perhaps behind the minisuites. Extra ultra-premium club seats (think of the Coliseum’s “Diamond Level” seats) also could be placed on field level behind the plate, but that would require extensive construction, as was done recently at US Cellular Field. The sweet spot for new stadiums is around 3-5,000 club seats.
• Large luxury suites. This actually works to Raley Field’s advantage, since the place already has 35 suites and could be expanded to Wolff’s desired 40 by converting the existing club.
• Adding 20,000+ seats. The existing seating bowl has 11,000 seats plus 3,000 in the outfield berms. Extending seating down the right field line to the foul pole would add less than 1,000 seats. A second deck, without the separate club seating area and minisuites, could add in the neighborhood of 15-17,000 seats. With the club, which would be at the front of the deck, second deck seating would be limited to 12-15,000. Designers could add a large number of bleacher seats in the outfield to get up to 32,000 seats, but the bleachers aren’t exactly a premium location (except in Fenway or Wrigley), and if you do it wrong, Raley will turn into the next Arlington Stadium. That will do nothing but give a team an excuse to ask for yet another new facility, since they’ll consider Raley only temporary.
• Team facilities. If you’ve been to Raley Field, you’ll notice that the team clubhouses are located in left field. That’s not the most ideal place for clubhouse facilities, and construction of new ones in the bowels of a renovated Raley Field would have to be lumped into the budget.
• Financing. Raley Field is an example of how a public-private partnership could be made to build a ballpark in California. In fact, it is considered the model upon which SB 4 was written. That said, it was a $29 million project, less than 1/10th the cost of new major league ballparks, so it was much easier to reach the goals required to pay back debt service. For instance, the minimum attendance per game to pay off the bonds was only 3,400, and the Rivercats average a near-sellout for every game. Build a major league facility, and suddenly the requirements go way up. So if Raley Field is upgraded to a major league facility, an extra $100-150 million in debt service will be required, but it may result in a ballpark that just isn’t big enough to handle future requirements. If Raley is upgraded to become a temporary facility while a new one is built, then what becomes of it when the A’s move into the new ballpark? Someone will end up picking up the tab for two ballparks.

Sacramento may become a solid major league baseball-ready city at some point in the near future. But to think that building a facility there won’t involve obstacles similar to those being faced in Oakland, San Jose, or anywhere else in the Bay Area, is shortsighted.

From today’s KRON morning news is this report (with video) from Teo Torres. Some of the details are a little off, like the mention of a site at 16th and Oak Streets, which doesn’t actually exist. It’s more likely a reference to the Estuary (Oak-to-9th) site, which extends further east to 16th Avenue. A mention of the Hegenberger/Coliseum South site is towards the end.

The always intrepid Phil Matier and Andy Ross spill the beans on sites:

Financial hurdles aside, the most pressing problem for the A’s is finding a suitable location.

A few weeks back, after the A’s had all but given up on the Coliseum parking lot for a new ballpark because of objections from the Raiders and Warriors, De La Fuente tossed up a Hail Mary — suggesting the team look at a waterfront site on the Embarcadero already set aside for housing and retail.

De La Fuente said the 65 acres between 16th and Oak streets, being developed by Signatures Properties of Pleasanton, could easily be expanded by about 15 acres to accommodate a ballpark.

But another source close to the discussions, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the talks, tells us the A’s have all but dismissed that site. Transit and freeway access are poor, and there wouldn’t be a lot of other development opportunities for the team that could help it defray its construction costs.

Another site under consideration, according to De La Fuente, is the old Home Base property on Hegenberger Road between San Leandro Street and Interstate 880, just southeast of the Coliseum.

That, sadly, is another nail in the coffin in the Estuary plan. Maybe if Wolff got a partnership going two years ago, when he joined the A’s as VP of venue development, he could have put together a comprehensive Estuary development plan that included a ballpark. Alas, we’ll probably never know.

A surprising note is the mention of the HomeBase site (Coliseum South). The notion of development momentum I’ve discussed in previous posts has to be there for a plan at the HomeBase site to work.

Tom FitzGerald of the Chronicle recaps the most recent statements by Wolff and has quotes from David Alioto, the A’s VP of sales and marketing. There’s little new except for the following tidbit:

The A’s may have been consistent playoff contenders, but one organizational weakness is the lack of season ticket-holders. The club won’t even reveal how many there are. The A’s offer a variety of partial plans because they have to.

“We definitely don’t have enough full-season ticket-holders,” Alioto said. “The quality of the team has always suggested there should be more, but even in the World Series years the season ticket-holders were never there.”

I’m certain the season ticket rolls have gotten better during the A’s run over the last five years, but yet they don’t release the numbers? They’re obviously not a charity case, but it wouldn’t hurt to fully explain their “plight.”

During the A’s superb 3-0 victory over the The O.C., A’s managing partner Lew Wolff sat down with A’s TV broadcasters Glen Kuiper and Ray Fosse to discuss the team’s resurgence and the recent front office moves. The highlight of the discussion was a new set of details about the new ballpark plans. As usual, Wolff didn’t get too specific, but he at least gave viewers some nice details to chew on.

Quotes:

“We’re very close to sitting down with the city and sharing some ideas. I hope there’s some leadership there that can help us. We can’t do it alone.”

“We need some vision in the community and some vision in ownership.”

“As you know, I’m no fan of the Coliseum.”

“We need some vision in the community and some vision in ownership.”

New details:

• Compact stadium, 32 – 35,000-seat capacity
• Each area in the ballpark will be a neighborhood
• 40 four-person boxes (minisuites) at the 12th row
• Trying to make everything in the ballpark lower (suites, seats) for a better fan experience
• Trying to avoid having to build a third deck (the PNC Park model)
• Condominiums overlooking the outfield, around 20 units (sample outside Wrigley Field)
• There is a focus on both enhancing the fan experience and keeping it affordable
• The team is about a month away from meeting with the city to discuss plans

Comments:

• The condo talk was surprising. If that doesn’t get people talking about a ballpark village concept, I don’t know what will. That’s why it’s important for Wolff that the eventual site is not just any site. It needs to be one that is attractive not just to the team, but to other developers to invest in the ballpark village or neighborhood.
• By not having to build a third deck, construction and materials costs could be cut by $50 million or more.
• So far, I like what I’m hearing. I look forward to interviewing some of the design principals when the time comes.

Remember the old term “box seat?” It’s not one that really gets used anymore except when referring to ultra-expensive luxury boxes (suites) or field level boxes, which are little more than expensive field level seats. Box seats at ballparks were usually sold in groups of six and had steel railings that defined them and cordoned them off from other boxes or seats. When the innovations called suites and club seats forever changed how stadiums and arenas were built, box seats became something of an anachronism. Now it appears that they may have a place again, if the Wolffs have their way. Don Muret from the East Bay Business Times reports on the venue development group’s interest in minisuites, club boxes, and other types of seating that fill a pricing and marketing void that exists between individual club seats and luxury suites.

“We heard from a lot of teams that said they have too many suites,” Wolff said. “In most markets, there aren’t a lot of companies that can fill a 25-person suite consistently for 81 dates. We’re thinking of having 40 traditional suites and 40 minisuites.”

Lewis Wolff is the co-founder and chairman of Maritz, Wolff & Co., a privately held hotel investment firm, and Keith Wolff said he and his father are fully aware of how difficult it is to keep hotel rooms regularly occupied.

The same principle can be applied to a sports facility setting, Keith Wolff said.

The minisuites would likely have two rows of two seats, with a drink rail and two bar stool-style chairs in the back of the box, Wolff said.

“For a company that has only 20 employees (such as Maritz, Wolff) but has relationships with a lot of clients and desires a unique experience, it would be perfect,” Wolff said.

For the average fan who doesn’t care about such things, this is just more money talk. But for the Wolffs, it may potentially be a revolutionary idea that other teams and ballparks copy once they see it in action. The move in this direction has no doubt been shaped by the Wolffs seeing how difficult it is to regularly sell the suites in McAfee Coliseum. The sweet spot for building suites has typically been 50-60 in a new ballpark, but by lowering the number of full-sized suites to 40, the A’s could limit construction costs and drive up demand, giving them a better chance at selling them out. At the same time, the creation of 6-8 person minisuites could give small businesses a more palatable option for luxury seating as well. When looking at the Bay Area pro sports landscape, it’s also an important differentiator for getting patrons in this rich, but finite market.

I had been playing phone tag with the folks at NUMMI, and I finally got a reply to my inquiry about the NUMMI property which has been discussed for use as a ballpark site. Follow me on this:

1. According to NUMMI, they have no official position on a ballpark.
2. There is no official position because the NUMMI Grimmer site is not being considered for a ballpark.
3. The plans to build a warehousing facility on the site are not formal yet and are still under discussion.

Confused? Now you know how I feel. The problem is that no one recently (as of a week ago or so) opened up any discussions with NUMMI about a ballpark plan. So they don’t have a position. That could change quickly if Wolff or Fremont’s Mayor Wasserman gets the ball rolling, at which point NUMMI would have to render a new opinion on the matter. It may end up that a ballpark could be planned on land across Grimmer from NUMMI, which would limit available parking but should be big enough for a ballpark at the very least. I’ll try to get a clarification on this over the next few days.