The two upcoming series with the Yankees and Red Sox will be important because the six games will bring at least 1/10th of the season’s total attendance through the Coliseum’s turnstiles. The A’s will have two other large-grossing series, June 24-26 vs. the Giants and September 2-4 vs. the Yankees. If the A’s are in contention through August, they should be able to hit the 2.1 million figure at the very least. If not, they could drop below 2 million easily. Last season’s 2.2 million is slightly off from 2003, and that small (1%) drop can be attributed to the A’s losing the division on the 2nd-to-last game of the season.

Currently through 15 dates, the A’s total is 309,117, with an average of 20,608 per date. That’s down almost 108,000 from 2004, but through 15 dates in 2004, the A’s had already played 3 games with the Yanks. This season’s drop can be largely blamed on the poor weather seen so far this spring.

It’ll be interesting to see how much the agressive season ticket marketing campaign has affected season tickets sales. This was considered Lew Wolff’s #1 goal prior to getting a stadium deal in place. Even if the team drops in attendance due to poor performance, an expanded season ticket roll will be a very encouraging sign for the ownership group and peripheral investors as well.

Incidentally, the Giants’ current total attendance is 758,618 through 20 dates, with an average of 37,931 per date. Not quite a sellout every game, but they’re still on track to 3 million.

The grand opening for the Oakland Coliseum Intercity Rail Station just outside the stadium will be May 25, according to the East Bay Business Times. Yes, it will be more expensive than BART, but there is at least one nice thing to it: some of the trains have WiFi and Amtrak expects to roll it out further over time.

This time, as promised, I present the photo overviews for:

• Laney College Athletic Fields – Not feasible nor under consideration due to Peralta Community College District’s desired land uses.
• Howard Terminal – Unlikely because of long-term lease with major shipping company Matson.
• Uptown – Small sliver of hope for a ballpark that requires much political work done over the last three years to be undone, and new political support to be lined up behind it.

Other notes:

• The East Bay Business Times put out an editorial in this week’s issue that does not support large-scale public financing of a ballpark. It steps back slightly on its position towards the end, urging Oakland and Alameda County political leaders to “weigh the economic benefits of the stadium as an investment.”
• On the sidebar to the right, I’ve added a new feature called The Scorecard. It’s there to keep track of how different media outlets (TV, radio, print) and personalities (columnists, talk show hosts) are positioned on the ballpark issue. For now, it will show indicators for two specific public financing questions, though it is likely to expand. If you see, hear, or read anything that can help fill in the Scorecard, please send it in.

For those that want a non-propagandistic view of the economic impact of sports venues, take a look at Robin Pogrebin’s May 7th article from the Arts & Design section of the NY Times. Several individuals from both sides of the divide were interviewed, including Jay Cross, who headed the Air Canada Centre and American Airlines Arena projects. He is currently working on the mammoth Jets stadium project on the West Side of Manhattan. Some interesting (and relatively refreshing) quotes from Cross:

Cross… cautioned that a stadium could not shoulder the entire burden of reviving a neighborhood. “One building can’t do it on its own,” he said.

-and-

The stadium’s impact, he added, would take time to determine.

“You’ve got to give it 20 years,” he said. “You’ve got to be patient. They can help neighborhoods,” he said of stadiums, “but they’re not instant panaceas. They will neither repel housing or attract it. There still needs to be a bona fide reason to build housing or commercial space as part of a well-thought-through package, because it’s largely market driven.”

“Times Square had all the good will to clean it up,” he continued. “But it needed developers to make commitments.”

Keep in mind that the Jets stadium is a multi-use facility which will also function as an extension of the Javits Convention Center, as well as a centerpiece should New York win the 2012 Olympics. Without those, the stadium would have only 8-10 automatically scheduled dates per year in the form of football games. A ballpark would schedule over 10 times that number – 81 games or more. However, even that expanded schedule has holes: 3 months of games spread out over a 6 month span, and what happens during the offseason? Without some guarantee of traffic during that down period in the fall and winter, developers will be hesitant to make commitments.

Courtesy CBS-5 (KPIX)/Bay City News Wire:

Today’s news tidbit comes from a recently constructed watchdog group from San José called Ballpark Tax Watchdogs. The group filed a rebuttal to San José City Attorney Richard Doyle’s April 22 memorandum, which advised the city and the Redevelopment Agency on how it could proceed to acquire the individual parcels that make up the Diridon South site. The controversy revolves around whether or not the purchase of the Diridon South lots and related expenditures, when used for the eventual construction of a sports facility, requires a referendum.

Doyle’s opinion is that the purchase of the land and related costs such as feasibility studies are not subject to a vote. Only actual construction costs, when financed by public means (bonds/taxes), are subject to a vote.

BTW believes that any costs, including site acquisition and exploratory expenditures, do require a referendum.

Who’s right? Take a look at San Jose’s Municipal Code Section 4.95.010:

4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility

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

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

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

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

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

Where one stands on this issue is largely dependent on how one views sports facilities projects and similar redevelopment work in general. In the end, it appears that this ordinance, enacted in 1988, may have been specifically worded (notice the use of the word “building”) to allow for planning-related work to occur. The real question here is, “Will the ballpark opponents take this to the next level?” That level, of course, is court. The last line of BTW’s home page indicates this threat is possible. Whether or not they follow through on it remains to be seen.

Note: The BTW domain was registered only 2 days ago (5/2), and the rebuttal was submitted on 4/30.

Eric Lai wrote a good summary of the development climate in Oakland with regard to the ballpark situation. He contacted me last week, and while I didn’t get back to him in time to be quoted, I did respond in time to give the paper permission to use my Coliseum South mockup on the front page. He interviewed Zennie Abraham of Sports Business Simulations, who is the first person I’ve seen actually discuss the use of redevelopment money (tax increment funds) to finance a ballpark at some length. That’s important, because I think there’s a misconception that an A’s ballpark will be financed the same way that SBC Park was. The chances of that happening are not good. It’s best to get the public educated as early as possible about the financial ramifications and costs. Proponents should start early to educate voters on how such a deal would be different from the Raiders’ deal, and that kind of outreach could make a difference. At the same time, I will scrutinize such a deal myself to see if it is truly fair for the public. No polls have been taken of the populace, but I would speculate if one were taken now, poll results would be similar to those in the Twin Cities, where the majority of the public is currently against public financing of a ballpark. It would then fall on ballpark proponents to turn that number around in time for a June/November 2006 election.

Just completed – three new site photo overviews. The finished overviews are:

1. OUSD (Oakland Unified School District) – This site was mentioned in Peggy Stinnett’s column in the Oakland Tribune. She offers her take on a visit by Naoko Ezawa, who helped design Pac Bell (SBC) Park and represented developer KUD. KUD may very well be the Santa Monica firm hired by Lewis Wolff to visit and assess Oakland sites. Based on KUD’s portfolio, much of their experience is in developing waterfront properties. I visited the OUSD site several weeks ago, and while it has positives (mass transit, location), there are definitely issues in its shape, size, and the lack of parking (you can see this from the aerial photo in the file). The lot is shaped like an inverted “J”, and unless other surrounding blocks are acquired to round it out, it can’t properly accommodate a ballpark’s footprint. Also, putting it in a decidedly residential neighborhood may turn a ballpark there into Wrigley Jr.
2. Coliseum B-C Lot – This may or may not be the main option for building a ballpark. It’s the least sexy option because it’s the most difficult to foster other surrounding development, but it’s also probably the cheapest to build because of zero land acquisition costs.
3. Diridon South – The main San Jose site is just a block from the train station and two blocks from the HP Pavilion. San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency has been given the green light to acquire the site. Funds are a bit tight but it is expected that money to buy the site will come from the sale of other properties. There exists an issue with the PG&E substation on the west side of the site which probably won’t be easily overcome or circumvented.

Next up: the Laney College Athletic Fields, and the Uptown and Howard Terminal sites.

A small bit of news that flew under the radar last weekend was the announcement that Susquehanna, the parent company of KNBR (680 and 1050 AM), is putting their radio business up for sale. In the salad days of the late 90’s KNBR and KTCT (1050, which later became co-branded as KNBR) were cash cows for Susquehanna. Lately they’ve become more of a liability to the parent company, as the 49ers’ and Raiders’ fortunes suffered, pulling away listeners and ratings. Susquehanna, based in York, PA, also owns the venerable KFOG and KSAN-The Bone rock stations in the Bay Area, and 20 more stations in 7 other markets.

It is unclear whether the stations will be sold as a group or as individual entities. Some, like KNBR-680, are the crown jewels and will fetch a pretty high price. 680 is one a handful of clear channel (not the company) stations throughout the country whose signal can be heard at night for hundreds of miles, in states as far as Utah and up and down the Pacific Coast. KNBR has had difficulty finding a good programming mix over the last few years for its lesser property (1050), sometimes going with edgier personalities such as Jim Rome and “J.T. The Brick.” On the other hand, it would also simulcast some of its other shows, such as “The Razor and Mr. T.” The morning drive-time slot has also been somewhat tricky, especially when KNBR brought a decidedly “morning-show” vibe to 680 in the “Not Just Sports Show,” which was killed only last fall. The Raiders had been on 1050 for several years, but were not renewed last season and subsequently moved to KSFO-560. Most recently, KNBR announced a four-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, who had seemingly been on KGO-810 forever, but were let go after KGO saw a ratings slide.

If 680 and 1050 were sold together, the buyer would be given a virtual monopoly on sportstalk radio in the Bay Area, but would also be saddled with having to program for two 50,000-watt stations, which can be expensive. Signing the 49ers when they did probably helped boost the asking price of KNBR, but it remains unclear how the sale would be handled. KNBR already has Giants baseball exclusively on 680 and Warriors basketball (which switches between the two stations). It’s not unprecedented for a single station to carry three different teams, but that means that schedule conflicts could become a common occurrence.

This gives Lewis Wolff a potentially huge opportunity. As mentioned previously, the A’s will be off KFRC-610 at the end of the 2005 season and their next radio home has not yet been determined. If Wolff were to buy KTCT-1050, he’d have a built-in sportstalk audience on a 50,000-watt station, along with immediate programming in the A’s, who currently are relegated to vagabond replacement player status in local radio. Not only would the A’s get more immediate exposure; they would also be able to do many of the same revenue-hiding tricks that only the big boys are able to get away with.

That’s not to say that acquiring a station will be easy. Once any station goes on sale, literally hundreds of suitors line up for a shot. Existing behemoths such as Clear Channel (yes the company) and CBS/Infinity/Viacom have tons of cash to throw at any acquisitions. An open auction process could drive the price up for either or both stations. KNBR also has a 2% minority stake in the Giants, which further complicates things. Breaking the two stations apart and allowing them to compete would be good for the listening public and potentially reduce any conflict-of-interest issues. Buying KTCT would cost the Wolff/Fisher group millions of dollars, but it would guarantee the A’s a stable home on local radio for years, if not decades to come. That can’t help but raise the value of the franchise.

You probably know by now some details about MLB’s payoff to Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos over the Expos’ move to DC. MLB allowed the O’s to set up a new regional sports network (RSN) called Mid-Atlantic Sports Network. MASN is to be run by the O’s, with Angelos having complete control over broadcasts of most O’s and Nats home games. MLB has a stake in the venture that will grow annually, but the stake is capped at 33%. The Nats get a “market share” price for the rights to broadcast such games; estimates had the amount at $25 million.

That all sounds well and good for baseball (unless you’re a Nats owner who wants a little more control over the situation), but it appears that baseball forgot to consult with a company that’s normally a big player in such deals: Comcast. Comcast is the dominant cable operator in much of the country, and it considers the mid-Atlantic area its backyard (it’s headquartered in Philadelphia). Comcast also runs regional sports networks throughout this area, and its position as both network (Comcast Sports Net) and distributor (Comcast Cable) gives it some unique power.

What happens when you don’t consult Comcast on these things? It’s America, so Comcast sued MLB, the O’s, and MASN. In the meantime, Comcast is refusing to show Nats games that would normally appear on cable (those home games again). This hardball tactic has worked before when negotiating per-user fees for carrying the RSN, or even carrying it in the first place. The cable provider holds most of the cards in these battles, and they can wage the PR battle that normally hits the teams harder than the cable provider.

Comcast isn’t happy about not being able to bid on the rights to carry the Nats. Since MASN is an O’s venture, the O’s would leave CSN once their contract was up in 2006, leaving CSN in the lurch. If it sounds familiar, you don’t need to go far to find similar examples.

Comcast can go a number of ways with this. They could win the suit and have open bidding for the Nats. They could ask for a piece of MASN. They could also choose not to carry MASN at all, or carry it only on expanded basic cable instead of cheaper basic cable. This may also be simply a ploy to get a favorable deal to carry the RSN. But based on their recent expansion, I’m led to believe that they legitimately wanted a chance to broadcast the Nats. This may end up in the courts for quite a while since there’s no obvious middle ground. The losers will be the fans, and the eventual Nats owner as well since broadcast rights fees factor into the Nats’ final purchase price.

That’s a long-winded rant just to get to how this affects the A’s. It comes down to one suggestion for Lewis Wolff: Play nice with Comcast. CSN opened up shop in California last fall when they got the nod to carry Sacramento Kings games. They’ve positioned themselves as the Central Valley’s RSN, and they’re poised for a bigger advance throughout California. They are on digital cable throughout the Bay Area (channel 401 if you’re interested). They don’t have any of the Bay Area’s major pro teams yet, but you can be sure that as each team’s contracts expire, Comcast will swoop in for the kill. They have the built-in advantage over Fox Sports Net because of that distributor position. It could turn out good for viewers as it may cause a sort of bidding war, and FSN, which has a difficult time carrying 4 teams (Giants, A’s, Warriors, Sharks), may step away a bit, allowing for better coverage for all teams. That is, unless you like hunting for FSN+.

Comcast will be the ultimate roadblock for the A’s if Wolff were interested in setting up his own RSN. Comcast could use the same tactics they used with YES/Yankees, or even drive an RSN out of business, as they did in Minnesota.

I’ve posted the PDF for the next photo site overview, this time for Coliseum South. For some conjecture on how I think development might go, click here. Next up is the Coliseum Parking Lot overview, though it will have fewer pictures. Enjoy.