Oakland: A's not a priority, Wolff: Oakland isn't either
by vertig0 on Mar 20, 2006 8:10 AM PST
Email
PrintLooks like Lew isn't waiting until Opening Day to move forward. Out of today's Tribune comes the following quote from Lew Wolff:
"We've spent most of our time focused on Oakland; now the next goal is to stay in Alameda County," he said. "We haven't ruled out any place, but Oakland is difficult because it has lots of priorities that are very important to the community beyond sports."
Oakland officials were apparently taken by surprise (italics are my emphasis):
"He has not told us anything like that," said Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. "Until we are told something different, we are going to continue working. But Mr. Wolff is right, we have many other things on the front plate."Among those are a rising crime rate, beleaguered public schools and a hot mayoral race in which De La Fuente, the city's lead negotiator in the baseball talks, is a candidate.
"It is very difficult. With all these campaigns going on, our plates are so full," said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele, a member of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority.
There had been whispers that the A's haven't been a priority for Oakland pols, but this confirms it. It's hard to see a set of conditions under which the A's can stay in Oakland unless all other local alternatives fall apart, leaving the two parties to start from scratch. Perhaps it comes from a collective distrust of Wolff, but if it is, no one has said anything publicly about it.
120 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Difficult?
Fremont/San Jose don't need eminent domain
One-third of the San Jose site has already been purchased by the city of San Jose. The remaining sites are also owned by corporate interests who'll be able to relocate once their price is paid as well. This is not about kicking homeowners out of their bungalows.
Cisco Field?
Do you think that Cisco would entertain selling the land to Wolff at a discount for naming rights to the ballpark? I think Fremont is the perfect alternate spot for the A's as the location is in the middle of two major freeways, potential BART access, and also the fact theres tons of land to develop around the park.
by pickinmachine on Mar 20, 2006 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
name
Alameda County A's sounds nice
by OaktownTribesman on Mar 20, 2006 6:34 PM PST up reply actions
Cisco field sounds good.
by What Would Rickey Do on Mar 22, 2006 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
I'm trying to not let any of this affect my mood
Side note: Could someone please post the link to the "new ballpark" blog? I had it bookmarked, but the network here at work ate everyone's bookmarks last week... :(
No no no no!
Tell the elected leaders of your city how you feel
Oakland
by racodd on Mar 20, 2006 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
i don't live in oakland
Let's go
!!
by rockit on Mar 20, 2006 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
I Live in Norman, Oklahoma...
The funny thing is, at some level it makes a difference to me that the A's stay in the East Bay, even though I'm never there. I suppose my A's fandom is deeply tied to growing up in Berkeley, taking BART down to see games, etc.
At a certain level, baseball is about nostalgia (though sometimes for pasts that didn't really exist). This is, I think, especially true for fans like me who continue to root for the teams we grew up with, even though we've long since left our home towns. As John Thorn notes somewhere, nostalgia in the original ancient Greek sense, is the pain of not being able to return to one's home and family. My immediate family has long since moved away from the Bay Area. The A's, however, remain. Somehow if they were to move, that would make a difference, even though I have no plans (unfortunately) to return myself.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Mar 21, 2006 9:21 AM PST up reply actions
Move or get contracted
by What Would Rickey Do on Mar 21, 2006 7:51 AM PST up reply actions
It's not the fault of the A's.
I mean, seriously, if it was just about them making money, you don't think they'd move to Portland or Vegas or Charlotte, where they'd increase their drawing power, get brand new digs, have no competition for fans, and probably get a nice big shiny (free) stadium?
The A's are trying to stay near enough to allow fans to stick with them. And real fans would yell at the city officials who have better things to do (election campaigns, in their own words), rather than the team willing to move fifteen miles over fifteen states.
Irwindale or the Meadowlands
There is going to be a lot of postuirng that happens before any deal can possibly happen, and don't forget enviromental impact reports, "hidden" costs to the city that actually lands the team, etc.
The article refers to a possible land gift in Dublin for Lew's retail and housing development. That same land could still be used if the A's build in the coliseum parking lot.
So the question in my mind:
Is Fremont the new Irwindale or the new Meadowlands?
Good question.
I've known about the Dublin land piece, but it appears that there's now a twist. It now looks like Cisco wants to hold onto most of the land (they have a leasehold) and that the Dublin land, which originally was going to be part of a swap, will actually hold the residential piece. That means that there won't be a ballpark village, just a ballpark. Maybe there'll be a ballpark village as well, but it sounds like that's not in the cards right now.
Given Lew Wolff's close relationship
It may not seem like it, but Fremont seems like the best possible option right now. And Wolff could easily draw the invaluable corporate funding from the San Jose area without infringing on baseball's territorial rules.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Mar 21, 2006 7:58 PM PST up reply actions
the worst part...
Wolff would not discuss a possible name change last week, saying it was too early to do so. But he did indicate the Golden State Warriors' name is a plus because it does not identify a city.
"It is a business, and we have to attract our market," Wolff said.
Ladies and gentlemen ...
Go Y's!
Keeping your powder dry dep't
"It is absolutely no coincidence that clubs branded 'Anaheim,' 'California,' 'San Jose,' 'Golden State' and 'Oakland' have problems finding media dollars, as none of those ... reflect the DMA the team plays in," [said Hallmark Channel marketing manager Mark McDonald].I'm not saying that now that the Angels have the overlong and unmellifluous LAAoA designation that they're suddenly a rich team, but when you hear guys who are on the buying end of these deals talk this way, you can understand why Arte was so hot to change the team's name -- and why "Golden State", "California", etc. aren't such great names, at least, from the perspective of an ad customer.
Here's what will happen.
Team takes on the name San Jose Athletics.
Fremont and San Jose take much pride in new team.
Oakland city officials bitch that they would have done what was needed if they just had more time, as they clear out their offices post-election.
if you're implying ...
These things have a tendency...
Which is why Charlotte had a new NBA team within a few years of losing the Hornets.
No votes lost if A's leave, but...
"Only Nixon could go to China." Say nothing's settled in Jan '07 when Ron Dellums becomes Mayor of Oakland. With impeccable social justice cred, Dellums cuts a deal with Wolff for the ballpark village, to be built with unheard of numbers of local Oakland minority contractors (a genuinely big local issue). They put it, say, on the now-emptying Broadway Auto Row, ensuring very big ticket prices for the housing and allowing a healthy chunk of affordable set asides. Dellums gets the local job creation and saved-the-A's props, and Wolff gets his village which, after ten years, becomes 100% market rate and generates big income for decades.
A fella can dream, can't he?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 21, 2006 10:52 PM PST up reply actions
New Name
by What Would Rickey Do on Mar 21, 2006 7:58 AM PST up reply actions
No new color.
If you really want to go way back....
by breedingewoks on Mar 21, 2006 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
and going further back ...
Blue and White
by What Would Rickey Do on Mar 22, 2006 8:14 AM PST up reply actions
what's with the April/soon quasi-deadline?
deadline
After reading that article Fremont appears more then ready to move forward, with SJ moving forward as well albeit the one big obstacle for them still stands in the way. So I wouldnt be suprised if the two areas compete.
by pickinmachine on Mar 20, 2006 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
well, his original "April" ...
I fault neither Oakland politicos nor Wolff for not getting more traction for an Oakland park; but I would certainly fault any municipal government for allowing itself to get em-Borassed by Wolff by bidding against itself to meet an artificial deadline with no real competition.
You pose a tough question, but I like...
To quote Hamlet's Polonius, "there is truth in jest." Albeit your are not jesting. Frankly, I'd rather deal with a monkey than DLF regarding Oakland and the stadium. DLF loves to have his hand in the nut jar but he like the monkey can never get his hand AND the nut out at the same time. That's been the problem and will continue to BE the problem.
Don't the A's have a year to year lease with Oakland right now? But it will not go on ad infinitum. What we don't know is how much pressure he is getting from Selig. We know Selig's stance on the A's and their stadium. I think in our heart of hearts the A's can't get what they want given Oakland's politics. And you can't discuss Oakland without discussing its politics. Politics will forever take precedence in this city as long as it exists.
I suppose from a business standpoint, as long as the A's are at the coliseum, they will have limited revenues, especially from a corporate sponsorship standpoint. The ONLY way that changes is with a new venue. I pray it's within Alameda county. Fremont is my choice.
speaking as a monkey with a hand on a nut myself
I'm basically with you down the line, G. I don't see any realistically feasible sites (large, single- or limited-owner, underdeveloped but not blighted, with easy freeway/BART access) in Oakland proper that will satisfy Lew's needs. Honestly, I think "Oakland politics" has been a convenient excuse for Wolff -- while, yes, he'll need governmental buy-in anywhere he goes, the lack of available sites in Oakland necessitates much greater governmental participation; and given that Oakland proper has a lot more pressing financial and development issues than a ballpark, they just don't have the bandwidth to get a park deal done.
Wow
by Tyler Bleszinski on Mar 20, 2006 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, a 62nd
by green star oakland on Mar 20, 2006 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
not to mention an entire soliloquy ...
And "Lewis is an honorable man"
He hath brought many free agents home to San Jose
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
"To quote Hamlet's Polonius"
Get Thee to a Nunnery!!
Step back a bit and get a new perspective
What is happening now is the paralyzing fear that all politicians experience in an election year. They are all afraid of saying something that opponents will attack. Embracing the ballpark plan, whatever it is, would be such lightning rod for opponents charges that the candidate does not have his priorities straight. Most Oakland voters are not regularly going to games. All ballpark votes face this challenge where ever they are. Nothing will happen until after the election.
I am concerned Dellums will win and that he will actively oppose a new ballpark. DLF will at least not stop a real effort to get it done.
Before you give up on your current "partner" you better make sure you "know" her replacement. People that want to keep the A's in Oakland will all be voting for DLF whether we like it or not. Ease up on him.
by Thomas Walker on Mar 20, 2006 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
yoiks
it is for me
I vote and it is an important issue with me
I do not know how many kids directly benifit from programs like Home Run Readers, A's Mathelitics, Stay in School Challenge, Little A's, Bay Area All Star Team and others. But in this community it has to help.
Developers will continue to make money off Oakland land. A good mayor in my mind will find an opportunity for one specific local investor (a baseball club), which has already shown a commitment to contribute to the community, to make money developing land in order to build a new ballpark to insure the community benifits continue.
Not a lot seperates the candidates. This is one important issue.
by Thomas Walker on Mar 20, 2006 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
fair enough, but ...
Which means that any candidate promising to even be competitive for a stadium deal is promising to (a) decrease the amount of resources (time and money) spent on solving Oakland's myriad other problems and (b) give Wolff as sweetheart a deal as possible.
Personally, I would find those two promises to be mighty irresponsible.
More importantly, I think the main body of Oakland voters (the majority of whom, again, are likely not A's/baseball fans) are likely to reject such promises. I really think that aggressive backing of any stadium plan is a political loser in the mayoral race. DLF isn't that stupid.
Agree on all points
But he is the one guy that will try. Do you see any better options?
by Thomas Walker on Mar 20, 2006 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
you are correct
I think where you and I fundamentally differ is on the advisability of actually pursuing an Oakland-sited new stadium.
Absent a different set of priorities from Wolff, I don't see how it's even conceivable at this point.
Two most important Attributes
All Oakland has to do is "lock" the predevelopment land values in place so the Baseball Development Group can aquire the land at preproject values. This was the key problem in San Diego. As soon as site was announced then the landowners increased their asking prices. San Diego did not get built exactly where the club wanted it. But they worked out an area where the price was acceptable and it was were the city wanted it.
This can be done but does require political desire. Those landowners can be among the biggest political contributors. It is a problem. In San Diego the team ended up not demanding adjoining property development rights. But there the city contributed to the project. It is unbelievable how many high rise project are being built is that area now. The increase in tax base has to greatly improve the financial condition of the city. I believe from what I understand of the Wolfe proposal is publically more acceptable.
For a number of reasons Oakland is the best first choice. Location, transportation and land costs are all good. But you may be right to give up on it. Ever since Robert Bobb left the city there is no one to pull together this plan politically. The A's must be getting close to the end of their financial timeline.
Interesting that San Jose also has an election for mayor comming up. I suspect a plan for the A's will closely follow each city's election.
If I were the A's I would hire the young man who put the San Diego project together tomorrow. He reminded me of a Beane and Crowley type. He would fit right in. He has already done it once. Whether it is in Oakland (please) or San Jose this would be to one positive move the A's should make.
by Thomas Walker on Mar 20, 2006 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
You know what Oakland officials miss in all this?
I grew up in Sydney Australia, and I knew where Oakland was because I watched Kirk Gibson put one over the wall on one leg against Oakland's Athletics.
I had no idea where San Jose was until they found sharks playing hockey there. I had no idea where Fremont was until they started getting into the fight for the A's. I have no other point of reference in my entire life for knowing word one about the city of Oakland other than the Athletics, the recently returned Raiders, and Hunter S. Thompson's book about the Hell Angels.
Heck, I'll admit it - I honestly had no idea what city the Golden State Warriors even played in until I planned my upcoming Oakland opening day trip and saw on Ticketmaster that they're playing the Kings a few days earlier, and I've been a moderately interested NBA fan for over twenty years.
Ever wondered why cities will spend billions to get an Olympic Games that will only ever recoup hundreds of millions? It's because an average Olympic Games brings in $12b worth of advertising and PR exposure to a city, and that pays off forever.
Ask the people of Homestead, Pennsylvania what their most famous landmark is and they'll tell you the Homestead Grays of the Negro League. Ask the people of Green Bay whether anyone would know them if they had no Packers. Ask the people of Hartford how their city fared on the global scene now that the Whalers have left town.
If the people and officials of Oakland are smart, they'll spend a little money and keep the A's in Oaktown, because major league sports brings a whole lot more to a city than the number of tickets and beers sold.
Heck, if not for the A's, I wouldn't be planning a week-long trip to the Bay area in a week's time, and before I'm done, I'll have spent a good two grand there.
I'm sure Fremont would love to see some of that coin.
you and what army?
</reztips>
But seriously: on the 14K/night games, I doubt many of those folks are in town dropping a couple grand.
That's true, but...
Or, to put it another way, if you take the A's out of Oakland, what's left other than sunshine and random machine gun fire?
I'm glad you chimed in
My fundamental stance in all of this is that I think Lew Wolff is acting in the best interests of the A's. But as owner of a private business, he has to do what's best for his constituency. We fans are an important part of that constituency, but those responsible for the venue they inhabit really have not shown the same intensity with improvement. I'm not saying DLF doesn't want to, it's just that, as you mention he can't.
Nothing would make me happier than seeing the A's stay in Oakland with a venue we can all be proud of. But watching any politician in Oakland for the last 30 years, has left me more than disappointed. For me it goes back to when the Raiders left the 1st time. It continued when they returned. It worsened with how I perceived their treatment of Schott and Hoffman.
Until I see ground broken in Oakland, I will continue to be skeptical. That's not to say I'm hopeful but we might see that the A's are at a point where they can't wait any longer for the politicians to clear the way. We don't know Wolff's timeline on this issue, but it looks as if change is going to happen.
The Timeline is the key
We may as well buy a condo in San Jose. We have some people there willing to make the effort to get it done. When Oakland's hope dies I will join them.
We fans will be fine. The Oakland community, particlarly the youth, will be the big losers.
by Thomas Walker on Mar 20, 2006 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
The Big Losers...
If playing within Oakland city limits
Go ahead and ban me for that!
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Mar 20, 2006 10:10 AM PST reply actions
i wish
If they move to San Jose, well, i couldn't tell you how i would feel because i just don't know. Also, not being able to go to a game anymore is a pretty big deal. And if they move to San Jose, i'll make 5 a year if any (depending if there is Bart)
That is a weak arguement...
Mark Purdy wrote
If anyone knows the link to that article could you please post it. That article will tell you everything you need to know about what the plan is for the owners.
This person has also said that San Jose will think about challenging the territorial rights issue with the Giants in court because no one in San Jose politics understands why the Giants have rights over the city when nobody from the city agreed to the territorial rights. No need to post why the Giants have the rights I think everyone on here knows the story.
by Ben25 on Mar 20, 2006 10:15 AM PST reply actions
link
by pickinmachine on Mar 20, 2006 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
wolff's new SJ soccer team?
i wonder if they're involved in wolff's san jose soccer plans...
if SJ takes MLB to court ...
Not that they might not win in court -- just that (a) it'd take probably 5-10 years to resolve the case, and would probably involve Congressional action, and (b) the impingement on the antitrust exemption would P.O. the ownership groups to no end, ensuring they wouldn't let SJ into the club.
Now, as a threat, legal action is more tasty for SJ -- it's a club to wield over Selig. But Selig has actually been pretty good at coopting and defusing confrontations -- and he might just call them on the threat, which would leave SJ holding an empty bag.
Either way, it's high-risk.
The thing is
On a side note, the notion that the Giants were given the rights to the largest city in Northern California because they failed on more than one occasion to move there is a complete joke. It's all about compensation of money and as soon as Lew works that out then you will see the San Jose A's.
by Ben25 on Mar 20, 2006 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Nipped in the "Bud" 9 months ago
Within a week, the heretofore active BBSJ website went dark. BBSJ still kept going, as did the City of San Jose. To me that looked like a directive from Selig to keep quiet about the issue, that if it was going to be worked out at all, it would happen internally. I called the threat of a lawsuit the nuclear option because of the ramifications. There's no way the city can pursue it realistically.
However, Purdy's column can't be dismissed. The strategy is plausible, and Fremont isn't writing off San Jose - not now, and probably not until the first shovel hits dirt.
Not only can Purdy's article
by Ben25 on Mar 20, 2006 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
Not sure where that issue is of concern
The only way for them to get a team under the present circumstances would take more chance than should they win a court suit.
by Genaro on Mar 20, 2006 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Not necessarily
Worst of all, they'd be alienating the very group they'd be trying to attract in the first place by challenging the exemption. Selig's advice was probably, "you'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."
The only way SJ can get benefit is if someone outside City Hall, some rich guy with nothing else to do, decided to singlehandedly challenge the exemption. He also couldn't have any vested interest in the matter, lest it cause problems for any group or city he's linked to.
Your assuming that there
I can't envision any scenario where a Federal Judge will allow a monopoly to abitrarily decide civic matters. And preventing a team from moving to SJ becuase MLB doesn't like the idea is certainly going to be met with the response it deserves. At that point things are effectivly over. All this would take place in a matter of weeks, not years. MLB will quickly back down and rescind the TR's of the Giants. To do otherwise would be counterproductive to their financial well being. Once an injuction is issued the city will proceed with a ballpark. Their suitors will be many, ie the Marlins, Twins, and the A's to name a few. MLB is not going to risk their Anti trust exemption any further than this. They will quickly settle with the city and there will be smiles all around, because truthfully, the other owners would have no problem with a team becoming a contributor to the revenue sharing pool rather than a taker. And a team in SJ will surely reap huge profits.
Really, the whole TR issue benefits only Mcgowan. The other owners will quickly throw him under the bus on the issue. I imagine that BBSJ has been fully informed of that fact by the Commish. It's my opinion that he has asked them for time to resolve the matter internally and for them to be patient. The city holds more cards in the issue than MLB and Selig is fully aware of that fact. Why else would he even deign to speak with them?
It wouldn't surpise me if the whole affair hasn't been orchestrated by Selig from the beginning. How often has he said that Oakland is not a viable team without a new park? Indeed, how many parks has he already strong armed from other cities? A lot of folks tend to mock the old guy, but he's nobody's fool. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing....and he's good at it to boot. On top of this, his good friend Lew is the new owner of the franchise, albeit not the majority owner, with extensive business contacts in the SJ area. Come on, there is just a little to much "coincidence" in this whole affair for me not to be a little cynical.
All that said, I look forward to the SJ A's of the East bay located in the city of Fremont, close by the Pacific ocean....with a nod to Arte way down south.
Loyalty isn't just for fans
what % of the fan base ...
loyalty to the 14,000 fans?
Perspective from a non-Oakland resident A's fan
I love mixed metaphors
I love them more than the early bird wins the race.
Oakland . . .
by jarforcefatherofforce on Mar 20, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Fu**ing Oakland
I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs. I really really hope that they go to Fremont then.
I may not be from Oakland...
I'm loyal to all those memories tied in to the Coliseum and every day I spent inside that stadium. I'm loyal to the team that seemed to best represent the East Bay and oppposition to That Other Side of the Bay.
It just looks more and more like Wolff's gonna be pulling a Giants on us, where we're going to be the ones priced out of the park and watching from the outside, ala the Candlestick crowd. If I'm gonna have to be left out of the new park, I'd rather at least have the knowledge that they still bear the name Oakland, if nothing else.
I don't trust this guy as far as I can throw him. I really don't. And while I'm now a Santa Cruz resident for 11 months of the year and Fremont or SJ would cut a huge span off my drive, I don't care. I'm gonna be making the drive up to Oakland proudly this summer and take the extra time in my car to enjoy the ride.
This situation just sucks because I don't blame Oakland for having other priorities. They've got shit that needs to be dealt with, and while I wish they'd realize how great the A's are as an asset to the city, they have to make priorities. And I understand that it means Wolff has to look elsewhere if he can't get it done in Oakland, but damn.
I don't want us to be another Giants, another set of fans who will be replaced with charter seat licenses and crappy Coke bottles when all we've ever needed in these past few decades has been a seat in Oakland and a team on the field.
personally
We're on the verge of calling a State of Emergency for christsakes.
I think in order for anything to work, Wolf needs to wait a little longer. It's just Oakland can't handle it right now... brain overload anyone?
by ConditionOakland on Mar 20, 2006 10:53 AM PST reply actions
I for one
by Ben25 on Mar 20, 2006 11:11 AM PST reply actions
Hey
ditto that
Bart wont
They will make tramendous revenue from the corporate sponsors in the silicon valley and many people that live in the south bay like Santa Cruz, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, ect. will be more likely to go to more games than they did in Oakland. People that previously werent baseball fans will become fans because of the new stadium and hype in their city.
And yes some Giants fans that live in the South Bay will turn their loyalty to the A's, maybe not many but some will.
by Ben25 on Mar 20, 2006 11:29 AM PST reply actions
As an A's far from the Modesto area,
by breedingewoks on Mar 20, 2006 1:22 PM PST reply actions
Business is Business
Translation:
by saint @ Athletics Nation on Mar 20, 2006 4:11 PM PST reply actions
Move solely and exclusively to enrich Wolffish
Wolffish proposed an undoable plan at the swap meet, then set an arbitrary deadline it knew Oakland couldn't meet to force the City's hand. Now they can claim they really, really tried to keep the A's in Oakland first. Which is true...if you accept that 300 million dollars in development options are an acceptable price tag for Oakland or any other would-be big league city.
(And in the best pox on both houses spirit, shame on the Oakland pols for the election season excuse, since this has been obviously impending for at least two years now).
So, Wolffish are moving to greener pastures. Allow me to again predict that Fremont=Irwindale=patsy, en route to the eventual San Jose home. But that doesn't really matter...the owners wanted more than Oakland could deliver, asking for more at each stage rather than negotiating towards a middle ground. And those of us who love the Oakland along with the Athletics are the losers (well, us and the taxpayers of future home TBA).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 6:00 PM PST reply actions
MLB
If the continued existence of the A's or their permanence in the Bay Area are counted as being for the greater benefit of the fans, I disagree.
If the A's get a new ballpark in Fremont or SJ, not only will revenue increase, but Bud Selig and the MLB "high council" will finally leave the A's alone, free of any pressure to relocate out of state or threats of contraction. MLB doesn't want the A's to take out of revenue sharing like they do right now, and they've let it be known. If the revenue-generating potential of the A's franchise can be increased (and they believe it can, through a new ballpark), MLB will do everything they can do to make it happen. You can't look at the A's as an independently run company. MLB is the company. The A's are like a division within the company. A division that's not adding to the overall revenue, only taking away from it. We're on subsidies.
I wish MLB were more like a European soccer league, a league of truly independent clubs that have no financial obligations to each other, but that's not the way it is, unfortunately.
by OaktownTribesman on Mar 20, 2006 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
We've had this argument before
What bothers MLB about the A's is that they field playoff-caliber teams without bank accounts bulging with corporate and taxpayer largesse. If that concept catches on, watch out! Joe TonerCartridge might not pay for the next Taj Maball, and owners can say goodbye to the nice 5-20% annual franchise value increase they've come to see as their divine right.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
Revenue sharing = Not a footnote
The NFL just had to deal with this problem and it came close to breaking their highly successful, enviable financial structure.
Revenue sharing only results in a zero-sum game when looking at it in a simplistic view. I'm pretty certain that the A's can get $40-50 million more per year by getting a new ballpark. $20 million of that will go to debt service on the stadium, but if the team has that debt paid via an outside revenue stream (real estate), and they can write off the cost of the ballpark against revenue sharing in the process, they'll be head and shoulders above where they are currently. The buzz for the ballpark should also create increased demand for radio and TV advertising because of increased exposure. Combine those factors and you get the haves off the A's back, more solid revenue streams for the A's, more overall revenue for MLB, and a potentially huge increase in the A's franchise value.
I agree that there's some jealousy drives the have owners, but it isn't a key motivation.
Sure, the A's can make more
Sure, the "have" owners want to keep their dough. That's not news, it's what they say to make their keep-the-cash case. It would be news if these haves were effective at forcing have-not lame-o teams to clean up their acts...but then we have the Royals, Pirates, Brewers and D-Rays as evidence to the contrary. I don't doubt that it bothers the big boys a lot to write those rev share checks...but that remains far down on the list of reasons the MLB wants the A's out of Oakland.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 7:30 PM PST up reply actions
Flaws in the argument
The argument the haves are making is that the Royals, D-Rays, and Twins don't spend enough on payroll. It offends them that they're subsidizes other billionaires who are pocketing the money that should be going towards payroll or payroll development. This is where your argument fails, FSU. You make assumptions about the owners' actions when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Look at recent articles about the upcoming CBA negotiations, there's plenty of grist there.
There are a lot of people who want to paint themselves as a victim of a MLB-wants-to-destroy-Oakland conspiracy. It's the easy way out. It only allows for a singular point of view. The fact is that two sides have failed: the A's and the City. It may be that Wolff's moves have hastened the departure. But if that's the case, why didn't someone in Oakland call BS on the whole thing? I know there were whispers about it. Was it too politically risky? Were the A's simply not important enough? If someone had the courage to do it, it would've been the one chance to turn the tables and force the A's to deal honestly. Now, it appears, it's too late.
Right flaws, wrong argument
Of course some owners dislike the A's because of the rev share factor...I just said that's not the biggest reason. C'mon...what's more important to the full owner community: ten million from the Yankees to the A's, or another taxpayer funded ballpark pushing every franchise value upward? When 30 rich guys make obvious decisions to improve their worth it's not a conspiracy theory...it's Occam's Razor.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 9:00 PM PST up reply actions
Getting back to the original argument.
Revenue sharing redistribution amounts to at least $300 million annually leaguewide, and it's growing as long as salaries grow and luxury taxes are paid. That's almost 40% of national radio/TV contract money. Does that sound like a footnote? I don't think it is. In the grand scheme of things, $300 million is 7% of total league revenue. That isn't stopping the teams for fighting for every piece to which they feel they're entitled. If it wasn't that important, why would the commish allow the teams to deduct a portion of "stadium expenses" from their share? And why would the haves all rush to renovate or build stadia? Revenue sharing is anything but a footnote. It's one of the major issues the owners have to face, and more importantly, they have to do it among themselves, not as a united front against the union.
BTW, if the A's maximized revenue in a new facility, it would probably amount to a 1% uptick in total league revenue. Not trivial for the A's, and not trivial for the league either - unless you have no problem with throwing away a few million every year.
Save it for another day, Rhamesis!
We can revisit this when the dust settles.
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Mar 20, 2006 10:25 PM PST up reply actions
What next, tease a few kids?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 10:49 PM PST up reply actions
If they didn't see this coming, they deserve scorn
There are just too many with their "heads in the sand" that have been perfectly happy to buy their tickets at game time, walk into a stadium with about 15-20,000, see their friends, and watch the game. I can't fault you all for that, but it's not the way the business of baseball works in the year 2006. Sooner or later it was going to come to an end.
"Hide the blind man's cane"? Give a flipping break! I volunteer time at a homeless shelter, I think I know what "charity" is. And keeping yuppies with cell phones away from A's games is not charity.
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Mar 21, 2006 7:05 AM PST up reply actions
I repeat:
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 21, 2006 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
Friendly figures
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
I can agree with this
Standing O
But what's more brill is: What bothers MLB about the A's is that they field playoff-caliber teams without bank accounts bulging with corporate and taxpayer largesse.
Precisely. That's what a lot of us, I think, miss in the whole ongoing Joe-Morgan-hates-Moneyball discussion: that (a) the Joe Morgans don't actually run things, and (b) hating the A's for the way they play or even the way they field competitive teams on a modest salary is nothing but a sideshow.
The other relevant point spinning off of this is that this is also why MLB got seriously cheesed off at Magowan for building the Giants' park without any public ransom money. Magowan still remains somewhat of an outsider in MLB (certainly not in the Selig Family Circle of Trust, anyway). And his outsider status is what, ultimately, will enable MLB to force him to cede San Jose territorial rights.
And I think Wolff has known all of this from the outset. Lew's a smart cookie, and I seriously doubt that he'd have bought the A's if there was any realistic chance of the team being contracted -- there are easier, faster ways for him to have turned a paper profit than a buyout deal.
Oh, and...
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
Again
by OaktownTribesman on Mar 20, 2006 7:55 PM PST up reply actions
Le ROI, c'est moi
11/95: Schottffman purchase A's for $72 million
3/05: Schottffman sell A's for $180 million
And that's while running a break-even to profitable venture along the way (yes, those rev share checks they cashed were real money). Pretty sweet deal. I wouldn't mind a piece of that action...you know, except for the soulless porker millionaire part.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 9:12 PM PST up reply actions
Slight adjustment
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 20, 2006 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
Right
by OaktownTribesman on Mar 20, 2006 10:08 PM PST up reply actions
To clarify
by OaktownTribesman on Mar 20, 2006 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
Bay Area baseball Fans
as long as they stay in the bay area
the other option is not even mentionable
( Ok now someone go and mention it)
by eastcoaster on Mar 20, 2006 7:22 PM PST reply actions
Unmentionables
If the Marlins are dumb enough to leave town for Norfolk or Portland or Vegas, south Florida becomes the most attractive available market. Huge and growing population, and if the Marlins leave then there might be enough political impetus to get a new ballpark in Miami.
The second best market, about which I wrote a diary awhile back, is the San Antonio-Austin area. Put a ballpark on the north edge of San Antonio, on the I-35 corridor with easy access to Austin.
Downtown San Jose is still the best and most workable option for the A's. But if it craps out, those are your unmentionable options.
Fremont is technically the best option
by stomperfan on Mar 21, 2006 6:09 PM PST up reply actions
Technically yes, money-wise, no
Fremont does have the best land-availability situation, but I don't think that's enough to overcome the fact that being in San Jose will be more lucrative.
I agree with the discussion above in this thread, that Fremont is the stalking horse. Wolff will go to Magowan and say, "If we take the A's to Fremont, the Giants get zilch and we're still right next to San Jose. But if we go five miles down the freeway and into San Jose, and you agree, Mr. Magowan, there's an eight-figure check with your name on it."
As long as the A's don't leave the bay area...
by stomperfan on Mar 24, 2006 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Oakland officials are too busy for A's!
by Billy Ball 2005 on Mar 21, 2006 1:58 PM PST reply actions
I am interested in the best interest of the club
I believe in the techniques of the A's front office - nad if they are an economically viable team, that can take more revenues and invest in the team - then that's a win for all of A's fans.
Now I don't live in Oakland - my dad did, I grew up in SoCal as an A's fan as a kid. But as I've gotten older I have become more passionate for what they represent.
They are everything that the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets and Red Sox aren't. The players play like it's a game - and there is just a certain aura about the A's.
If they actually had more money to spend on the team, then we could actually be excited that Zito would be here for 5+ more seasons with a contract extension, and not relegated to the fact that he is gone after this season.
All I am saying is that I want what's best for the A's - not necessarily Oakland, because I am going to travel up to NoCal to see them no matter what city they are in.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
