Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Reflections on the Best Blazers Month In Forever Bar-right-arrows



Lewis Wolff Athletics Nation Interview: Part III

Yesterday you read part II.  Monday was part I.

Here is Part III.  Enjoy.

Blez:  Bob Costas reported on his Costas Now show that MLB teams start out with $40 million due to revenue sharing.  Is that fairly accurate because it would mean that the A's are close to breaking even before even selling a ticket given the current payroll?    

Wolff:  I think we're closer to $30, but that number is probably OK when you factor in everything.  Salaries aren't the only expense we have though.  We have to buy bats, balls.  We have to have an accountant or two.  (laughing)

Blez:  Those ash bats are making things especially expensive.  It feels like a different era in baseball then when you're talking about payroll versus revenue sharing.

Wolff:  We would rather be a contributor to revenue sharing.  Or at least neutral, so just having revenue sharing isn't a reason to be in the business. 

Blez:  But doesn't it encourage you to spend more?

Wolff:  Oh yes.

 

Star-divide

Blez:  Is that something where you feel more free to do something like the (Michel) Inoa signing?

Wolff:  That was just what I was going to say.  I look at salaries in three ways.  One is the draft picks.  Two are the free agents.  And three other opportunities like Inoa.  If you take revenue sharing and put it in your pocket, I think that's despicable.  And Major League Baseball, plus the union, watches that very carefully.  It's hard for us to compete in free agency.  If some guy says he wants $25 million a year for four years, that's not for us.  Even if we had the stadium filled, it would be very hard to do that.  It would be easier if we had a ballpark that had a bunch of the sources of income that come along with that.  So we go out to the Dominican and with a lot of thought, more than most people do in their own businesses, we decide to pay this young man $4.25 million as a bonus.  He's 16-years-old.  I met his parents and they didn't speak English but the mother was the athlete.  She was a softball pitcher.  What Billy's thought was, along with the guys around him, this guy would be in the top ten in the draft.  When you go to pick a draft choice, the league can't tell you what to pay, but they give you guidance.  Everyone knows about it.  So maybe the first guy gets a bonus of $3 million and it goes down from there.  The rich clubs can go, and everyone gets mad at them, but they can say everyone is saying $3 million and we'll give them $9 million or $6 million or something like that.  Up until this year, we have never, to my knowledge, gone over guidance.  Because that is a way we think we should be a part of the whole partnership.  In various years, other people do.  This year, we did go over.  We signed our top five picks at guidance or below.  But the more people do that the more quality we'll have.  If you pass on a guy, you keep him out of baseball for a year.  Then the Yankees can come along and take him later and pay him three times what he was asking for up at the top.  So what we're trying to do, like other teams, we're trying to look at international, draft and free agency as one bundle of money and where we spend it.  So it isn't that our payroll is only $50 million this year.  We probably spent two or three times what we spent over the last few years on the international market.  And we finally beefed it up.  It's a great way because when they come up, we have them for six years.  So this idea of leaving isn't going to be quite the same because you have the three years at a fixed salary and then you have three years of arbitration.  Our goal is that if they do well, sort of like with Swisher, instead of arbitration we'll give you X, Y, Z for three or four years so we can probably lock someone up for seven or eight years.  Because if you take arbitration there's a risk that you might get hurt, so they might as well take a little bit less now and go to bed at night and not worry that I'm not secure.  We're in that balance and we're going to make it work.  Players will be with us six to eight years that way.

Blez:  Do you view the Inoa signing as pretty risky since he's so very young?

Wolff:  Yeah, I think it is.  But I'd rather risk that on a young player than committing six years to some outrageous situation where the guy is 33 and he's going to be 38 at the end.  We look at this very closely.  It's a balance.

Blez:  Did you offer the baseball operations, meaning Billy and his team, any resistance when they informed you they wanted to start moving forward with the rebuilding process?

Wolff:  No.  It was so logical to me that even I could understand it.  (laughing)  It was really logical because if you look at the other side of it.  What happens if we didn't do it?  Where would we be?  Other teams didn't have the trading fodder that we had.  They really have a problem if they don't have anything to rebuild from.  It was just the opposite because it was so logical.  There were so many people involved with this.  Billy Owens and the staff.  Billy (Beane) relies much more on scouts than that book (Moneyball) suggests. 

Blez:  You mentioned the inelasticity of the market.   And you seem to have a set number of people regardless of whether you win or lose.  Does that make it much easier to make the decision to go into rebuilding mode?

Wolff:  Well yes, it sure does.  That (the inelasticity) isn't just my ownership.  I looked back 10, 12 years.  Yeah it does because it's sad, and I don't want to penalize the fans who come,  because there is no reason to come if you aren't going to get what you want.  We have to earn that right.  But I have to tell you the year after the playoffs we had to think that fans were thinking, gee whiz they have those guys coming back whether we changed it or not.  We didn't have any change in whether or not we had fans signing up for season tickets or advertising.  It's inelastic.  The word is a facetious word but it should be that the better you do, the more people want to come.  We may be the one or few teams in the Major Leagues that are in a market area that is saturated to a point where it's inelastic.  I use that a little bit facetiously. 

Blez:  I saved this until later because this is your baby, but you recently seemed frustrated, I think it was during a Rick Hurd interview, about the slow pace of the Fremont stadium progress.  Do you still believe that Fremont will happen?

Wolff:  If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't be doing it.  I was in an owner's meeting last week in Washington D.C. and one guy said to me, "Well in our state they may put a law in that there can be no public money to help sports teams."  I wanted to raise my hand and say, "Well in California there is going to be a law that no private money can do it."  (laughing)  I think Rick Hurd helped me because it got attention to the issue.  Our problem isn't with the city.  We don't want to be in a city that doesn't want us and we think they want us.  There are so many constituencies that are outside. 

Blez:  That aren't a part of the city you mean?

Wolff:  That aren't city functions that want their piece of the pie where they think we're giving a gift.  We're paying for everything we're asking for.  All we're asking for is the process to help us.  I wasn't faulting the city.  I don't want to call out any one thing.  But there's a bunch of other governmental things and non-governmental that would like a voice in baseball and sports.  So it's sort of piling on.  So if we're going to devote four acres to some public use in our ballpark, that public use might want 10 acres.  I'm used to this.  I've been doing this all my life.  This one is just a little odd.  Especially with what we're contributing to the area.  I don't care what the economists say, I'll be happy to debate any economist on this.  If our scheme could go ahead, even if it isn't in the same exact form it is.  It certainly isn't going to drain the community of anything, it's going to add to it; jobs and tax revenue and identity.  California is very tough.  If we were building a hospital, we'd have the same problems.  I give a speech that's called, "If there's a cure for cancer in California, someone would be against it."  (laughs)  I think the progress is fine.  It would be nice to have a process that moves faster.  There's no reason not to move it faster.  It's not like we're displacing anyone and it's our own land.  It's strange but the reality is that it is hard to do it.

Blez:  This is all a little complicated for the average fan, but you mentioned that there was seemingly too many hands in the cookie jar when it comes to getting the ballpark done.  Are those the biggest obstacles remaining to getting it done and finally having a groundbreaking?

Wolff:  My analogy is that, and I stole this from a friend of mine who was heading Chrysler when they were having their problems many years ago, all the banks came along, 20 or 30 banks or whatever they had and he tells me that he went to the meeting with them and brought a bunch of fake hand grenades.  He put one in front of each one of the bankers' seats and asked, "Which one of you want to pull the pin?"  (laughing)  I don't think this is quite as serious an issue here yet the answer is that it's up to us, not these constituencies to bring them together.  We have a lot of power to do that in the sense that we're not trying to build a nuclear power plant.  We're not going to hurt anyone with what we're doing.  But if some merchant or national retailer says that we're going to mess up their street up seven days a year for day games for 45 minutes and wants to make a big deal out of that, we have to counter that.  The question is why we have to counter that, but that's the nature of it.  If a major employer there wants to have their trucks come in at a certain time, do we add to that?  One of the things that no one notices or says much about is that the property that we're on was zoned and is ready for four and half million square feet of office space.  What we're putting on is less obtrusive than that.  And we only operate, not including playoffs, less than 90 days a year.  It's crazy that people are attributing our 90 days as if we were flooding the area 365 a year.  Not all people are saying this but the smarter people see it very clearly.  I'll be very direct about it.  There are ones that want their day in the sun and want to exert their power or whatever it is.  There are very few of those and we'll get past them.  It's just, why do we have to?

Blez:  How much of your day do you spend getting this project up and to a point where you can finally start the groundbreaking and building?

Wolff:  Actually I'm just the gray hair.  I've got my son on this who has pretty much given up his development career.  He's working on this in the Bay Area.  He's on this every day with our staff.  We don't want that to interfere with the baseball operation.  We also have our soccer venue situation.  I guess if you can build one, you can build two.  I never measure by time and how much we spend.  I measure by how we perform.  So if we need a better radio station and we get one, I say, give me a check mark or a plus for that one.  It's getting across the goal line that's important to me whether it takes an hour or 1,000 hours.  Same thing with Billy.  They're very productive.  I don't measure how much time they put in.  I never liked that. I used to be in the consulting business and you get paid by the hour.  An hour of one guy could be 10 times worth what an hour of mine would be worth.  (laughing)  The answer is that I don't really keep track.

Blez:  Do you think things have been pushed back in terms of the timetable of the stadium opening? Originally it was talked about possibly 2011 with more likely being 2012. 

Wolff:  Yes, I think so.  For no legitimate reason, but yes.  I'm prejudiced on this topic.  My worry isn't so much the stadium.  Baseball is baseball and we're going to build this great franchise thanks to Billy and other owners, they're growing in value whether we do anything or not.  That isn't the goal.  But I worry about California.  I worry about a state where the process has become the end product.  Too many people live off the process.  If a community needs a hospital, it shouldn't be delayed by someone at the end of the block who doesn't want a hospital and files lawsuits and doing whatever to stall the process.  There should be a better way, forget about baseball, to get something done that is proper to be there.  I'm not saying they should forget about environment and traffic, but the report should be done within a reasonable timetable.  The original environmental studies needed to be done and submitted within a 12-month period and by the time all the attorneys and government people and all the people who don't want anything good to happen, it's now an extremely long process.  And I'd rather be spending the money on ballplayers. 

Blez:  The environmental impact report...

Wolff:  It's almost done.

Blez: OK, I was wondering if it had been released yet. 

Wolff:  It takes a year, but they've had one on this project before a few years ago.  You'll get someone on the other side who will say there should be 10 environmental impact reports before they do anything.  Baseball is not my issue here.  It's bigger than that.  Much bigger.

Blez:  So does it frustrate you to a point where you want to throw up your hands and say, that's it I'm done with California, Vegas here I come.  I'm not saying specifically Vegas, but I'm just using that as an alternative.

Wolff:  No because I've been doing this stuff, not on this scale, all my business life.  I would like us to have another option in the Bay Area if it's good, but we don't as of today.  And therefore we're not leveraging anything.  I could fly to Las Vegas and meet with the mayor or whomever, but that isn't our nature.  I have to also admit to you that in thinking about it, and baseball doesn't want a team in Vegas, but I'm not sure Vegas is a good baseball town because it would require a dome stadium and this and that and it's a transient population.  We're in the hotel business so we know some of the key people and there was a great site at one point with Harrah's, but I want to be where we're at if at all possible. 

Blez:  Is it basically Fremont or bust right now?

Wolff:  If I say that and you print it then the guy who has one of the hand grenades will say, "Ooooh".  (laughs) Our focus is this.  We don't have any other options that are in our mind directly.  I like the Fremont location.  I don't think it's as big a traffic deal or anything as what could be built there.  The answer is that's about it.  In Alameda County, I don't think there's another site we could do and we're not going to go to Contra Costa County.  Those are the only two territories we have from baseball. 

Blez:  If you could go back in the process which you obviously can't at this point and explore other options including other locations in Oakland, would you do just that?  From everything that you've told me, it sounds like you think Oakland is simply too close to San Francisco.

Wolff:  I think it is, but I don't think that's the issue. I spent over two years, and it didn't cost me anything, helping the former owners, but I could not find a way to get it done in Oakland. 

Blez:  For what reasons?

Wolff:  There was no real property available.  And Oakland has a huge number of other priorities from security to education to health and so on.  Both mayors while I was there, Jerry Brown and Ron Dellums, said look whatever we can do, let us know.  Even to acquire a piece of land that we paid for was difficult.  It was almost impossible.  It just bothers me because it's in the path of growth.  It's got great weather.  The Coliseum site is fantastic.  I don't know if we could do any better if we had a new stadium or not, but it certainly is a great location relative to BART, the freeway system, the airport and visibility.  But it loses $20-30 million a year on their bond issue.  Everywhere we turned there was a major stumbling block.  And no one has come back and said, we can deliver this site to you.  I think that most of the professional people who work at the city and whatnot recognize the difficulty of getting something done at this scale in Oakland. 

Blez:  If you had to put a percentage chance that you thought the Fremont stadium was going to happen, what would that be?

Wolff:  Happen at all as opposed to not happening?

Blez:  Yes.

Wolff:  I'd say where I thought it was 75 percent, it's probably more like 65 percent now.  But as we get through more things it changes almost daily.  I would say that our chances of staying in the Bay Area in a new stadium if we can't get Fremont but I think we can get it, are probably very high.  I think baseball would have to say that they want us to stay here and have to open up our territories in some manner.  But that isn't the overriding issue.

Blez:  You were interviewed by the Angels broadcasters during an Angels game and since I live in the area now, I have to listen to those guys but I heard the interview.  You had said something to the effect of, "of Fremont" if the Fremont move happens.  I think most people have speculated that the name of the team will wind up being the San Jose Athletics of Fremont in thinking that was enough of a differentiation between the team and the San Francisco market.  A lot of people also speculate that you love San Jose area. 

Wolff:  I'm in love with any place I can build a building.  (laughing)  That's actually totally wrong. 

Blez:  People have said that that is why Fremont is so appealing to you because of the proximity to San Jose. 

Wolff:  That's true, but unless someone else has another site for me anywhere in Alameda County, and the only reason we got a site there is because Cisco didn't want it anymore.  The answer was that I hadn't even thought of that until this piece of property became available.  I didn't say, let's go move closer to San Jose.  It's a matter of where we can go.  This really is not an array of choices.  However I do think that on the naming thing there are 10 different names out there, including keeping our Oakland fanbase.  We're really not thinking about that at this point.  Someone said that the Silicon Valley name could help get more corporations but this is a fun thing that we're going to sort of leave to the end.  Listen, I made my career in San Jose and I love San Jose.  It's got some issues to it too, it's got a public vote you need if you get help and things don't happen there overnight either.

Blez: I've read where people have said that this project is becoming a bit more of a nightmare because of the downturn in the real estate market.  Because so much of this project was dependent on the real estate built around it, and I know that you were planning on having commercial and residential around it to fund things.  Is that an accurate statement to make?

Wolff:  No, for a couple of reasons.  We are not foolish enough to go into any long-term project with only one option in terms of how we finance it.  Somebody thinks we are, then they're wrong.  So the housing element was critical and interesting, and we don't know that if by the time we get going again that it won't be booming again.  We've got some other options which I'd prefer not to discuss but they're logical business options.  And we have our own resources.  So we're not without capital if we need to do something.  Listen 3,000 townhomes don't sell in 20 minutes even in a good market.  So it's a matter of how you flow funds.  The best part about us is that we can say if it takes an extra five years to sell these homes, we'll bridge it now and you can take us out when that happens.  You know, things like that. 

Blez:  In other words, be creative.

Wolff:  Creative is a good word for it.  Creative but realistic.

Blez:  You mentioned leaving the team in good shape for your son and the Fisher family.  Are you in this as an A's owner for the long haul?

Wolff:  Absolutely.  I tend to be a hypochondriac and I get off the phone with someone my age who is ill and I say well, there is an end.  I hope it doesn't come for many years, but I like succession planning.  Billy's twins, I've got them taking Billy's job. 

Blez:  (laughing) Wow, you really are in it for the long haul.  My question to that would be who winds up taking it, Brayden or Tinsley? 

Wolff:  I think it's both of them. (laughing)  Sort of like the McCourts.

Blez:  The two Beanes are better than one theory.  I can get behind that.  You said 65 percent for Fremont and while that's better than 50/50 odds...

Wolff:  Well, I probably shouldn't do percentages since one day I feel pretty good the next day I don't.  Then the next day we conquer something else.  We're trying to move forward every single day.  Some days we can't because someone wants to push us behind but we are not weak in terms of our dedication.

Blez:  What's a more realistic timeframe for the stadium now?

Wolff:  I don't want to quote it because I just don't know.  I just don't know.

Blez:  A's fans are obviously anxious about this.

Wolff:  They're not nearly as anxious as I am.  (laughing)  I can guarantee there's not one as anxious as I am.  Look we also want to build the most spectacular ballpark in baseball.  We want to take full advantage of technology without, as my son says, getting rid of the smell of the hot dog.  We have so many things we haven't even started yet.  We're not going to put up a B+ when we can get a solid A.  It just isn't going to happen.  Why spend $400-500 million and not do it right?  The owner of the Washington Nationals, and it sounds crazy, took Mike Crowley and I on a private tour of their new ballpark.  We've been sharing information with him as the guy has never owned a ball team, Ted Lerner.  He sort of inherited a free stadium in that it was there and built by the public.  He had a chance to modify it a little bit.  He was there late.  But he says, you've got to see the women's restroom.  I said, what the hell do I want to see the women's restroom for?  But a lot of times women go to a restroom and the stall door is closed then they don't know if someone is in there or not.  Talk about getting down to minutiae.  There was no one there when I was there of course and I go in and they've got something like 60 stalls in this one restroom.  The doors were fitted as to when you're finished they stay half open so you know it's vacant.  The speed of what that does to getting in and out is incredible.  And I mentioned this to my son and he said, oh my God, I have to worry about that?  That's the kind of detail we want in this thing.  And it will never be perfect.  There is no perfect ballpark.

Blez:  You mentioned the Nationals stadium.  Do you have a favorite stadium in MLB where you say, that team nailed it, I want to emulate what they did?

Wolff:  We've also looked at a lot of arenas too.  We think that some of the more inventive things have happened inside arenas.  For example, I think I've mentioned this before, but we're going to have the lowest boxes in baseball and they're going to be four-person boxes so you don't have to buy 20 seats.  Things of that nature.  We will have the closest to the field fans, including Wrigley Field and Boston.  We have so many features that it's driving me crazy that I can't get to them.  Instead we have to worry about someone who is worried that a truck will be noisy at three in the morning delivering our hot dogs. It's not a retro ballpark and it's not a copy of a space ship.  Every seat will have a reason to be there.  We have sections for families which would go at a special rate.  We just have so many things going on that I feel like I haven't even started the good part and I'm walking uphill.

Blez:  Feeling like Sisyphus at this point.

Wolff:  Right, exactly.  It's the ballpark that interests me. 

Blez:  What are some of the arenas that interest you?

Wolff:  Well arenas have these small boxes.  They have terrific ways that they handle their concession stands, when you have 18,000 people you have to do it quickly.  You should probably have a similar interview with my son one of these days because he's much more into the details.

Blez:  Since the A's seem to be stuck at the Coliseum for the foreseeable future...

Wolff:  I didn't use the word "stuck" so don't attribute that to me.

Blez:  That was my word. 

Wolff:  Look we want to be as happy and as good a thing there as we can be until we can't be there any longer.  We might be there a lot longer than we're anticipating if something happens. 

Blez:  You've sat out in the bleachers (at the Coliseum).

Wolff:  I've been dying to do that but every time I go to a game I have people with me.  And that day I just happened to be by myself.  I had more fun that day than I've had since I've gone to other games.

 

TOMORROW:  The Athletics Nation exclusive interview with A's managing general partner Lewis Wolff comes to a conclusion as he discusses one of the funniest interactions with a fan that I may have heard, his working relationship with Billy Beane and finishes with a pitch as to why fans should still come out and see the rebuilding A's.

0 recs | Comment 148 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I'm not so sure about this attitude

"The word is a facetious word but it should be that the better you do, the more people want to come. We may be the one or few teams in the Major Leagues that are in a market area that is saturated to a point where it’s inelastic. I use that a little bit facetiously. "

I mean, in general, yeah, the better you do, the more people want to come. But when you’re invisible on the radio, and you’re invisible on TV, and you do things like tarp off the cheap seats, and your organization rates about a 2 on the competency scale when it comes to marketing, then, no, people aren’t going to want to come.

Is he right in that there’s a degree of market saturation that prevents them from drawing, like, say, the Yankees or Red Sox? Well sure. But if they weren’t such an invisible entity, there shouldn’t really be any reason a good A’s team can’t at least draw somewhere close with, say, the Giants, ballpark and all.

RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.

by walk off bunt on Aug 27, 2008 7:24 AM PDT   0 recs

Inelastic

This has been bothering me so much I finally decided to use this account, something I have not done since well before AN 2. How can he ignore the fact that an entire section of the stadium was closed? The tarps forced people who were used to paying 8 bucks into a section twice as expensive and with only marginally better seats (especially considering how easy it was to sneak into the second deck).
I think most people on this site could have told Wolff that closing the most popular section for youth and casual fans was a bad idea for attendance. With the third deck I could talk friends who were Giants fans into going to A’s games, now I can barely talk fellow A’s fans into going… We are just broke college students now, but will be the future fan base. It is incredibly misleading to say that demand is inelastic with the changes that have occured, and his point of view on that really bothers me. Everything else is interesting though, thank you both for doing this!!

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 10:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not that I disagree that it sucks for the fans ...

but since tarping the third deck, the average ticket price has nearly doubled (up to 8th in the league). If attendance goes down 10% but price goes up 90% … well, you can do the math … I don’t think Lew Wolfe is concerned about the ~2k per game loss of attendance due to the tarp.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 27, 2008 11:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually, Lew called those savings minimal

in a previous interview with Blez.

Arte didn't get much Home Run Derby. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 27, 2008 3:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe that's why he said prices wouldn't go up much in Fremont...

…they’re being pre-emptively raised before they get to Fremont.

"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds

by UncleLeo on Aug 27, 2008 10:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

They have been raised ...

doesn’t mean they won’t continue t o be raised … we’ll see …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 28, 2008 12:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dude, how broke are you?

I can get $9 seats to any game I want to and sit anywhere I want to. Check your prices. Maybe dust off the link to oaklandathletics.com. Did that increase in $1 really break your bank? If so, I’m sorry. If not, it’s just another example of the “whiny and fickle” nature of a cheapskate. You have to pay $13 to go to the movies – the A’s (notwithstanding Cal football) are the best deal in town.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 11:05 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Amen to that

it’s about time someone else other than myself have said this.

by sf drift king on Aug 29, 2008 12:24 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Do any of you go to the games?

There has been maybe one game all year I haven’t been able to WALK up and score a $9 ticket and then proceed to sit pretty much anywhere within reason. I go to a lot of games.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 11:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Let me Clarify...

I’m not saying the tickets are expensive per se, I was simply pointing out that the closing of an entire section has probably affected attendance, despite making the ALCS the previous year. The increase in attendance that resulted from finally advancing past the ALDS was overshadowed by the closing of the third deck. Also, the $9 tickets are for the plaza level outfield, which are not baseball seats. Now I personally know that one could pay that price and sit in the second deck without fear, but the casual fan probably does not. What I was trying to say is that the casual fan is now less likely to go to games, and although the hardcore fan (who has disposable time and income) would be excited about the teams playoff success, those who are less fortunate than us are now excluded.

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 11:33 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

2006 ALCS appearance was "overshadowed" by the closing of the third deck?

Really? Don’t think so.

Also, if I remember correctly, the third deck was closed PRIOR to the 2006 season. Argument is flawed in my opinion.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 11:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Again missing my point...

When looking at average attendance since 2005 we see a distinct pattern starting at 26,040, dropping to 24,402 in 2006, and continuing that trend to 23,726 in 2007 (According to Baseball Almanac). Now I am not saying closing the 3rd deck is a bad idea, it makes sense from a business stand point. I am merely trying to say that it is unfair to put all the attendance blame on us, the fans. It is over simplistic to claim that demand for Oakland A’s baseball is “inelastic”. There are other factors that played a role in this regression in attendance, and it is again over simplistic to assume building a new stadium will increase attendance as well. Would resigning Thomas our MVP have helped attendance? Would not increasing food, ticket and parking prices have helped attendance? Again I am not saying any of these aspects are necessarily beneficial, (can you imagine if we matched the Jay’s deal, yikes!) I am just trying to explain that from my point of view demand has been hurt by some of the changes that have taken place under Wolff’s tenure, and to not acknowledge those changes is unfair.

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 12:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'll agree with you that it's not acceptable to place all the blame on us as the fans...

Growing up near Anaheim, I attended hundreds of Angels games when only “real” (see those in existence prior to 2002) attended Angel games. I didn’t like the Angels, but I loved baseball. The Angels had attendance problems then and it has clearly changed since then. Arte Moreno has done many things to increase attendance and he has done a masterful job at doing so. The A’s can do the same thing and building the new stadium is ONE of MANY things they need to do. While the demographics are tilted in the Angels’ favor, the A’s can move the market if they really tried. The stadium, in and of itself, will not cure all of our problems and I hope Lew can see that. He’d be ignorant to think the new stadium would be end all be all. I’ve been harping on this for ages and I truly believe that the A’s from a PR/Marketing/Business standpoint are very horribly run. We both clearly agree on that front.

However, I do not and can not agree with you that the low income earning fan has been priced out. That is a bogus argument in my opinion.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 12:43 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Too many of the A's recent moves or lack thereof have been lame knock offs

of other teams’ ideas. (see that lame trumpet puppet (er, rally monkey wannabe) and the all you can eat section). The A’s are behind the curve in this respect and really need to start becoming innovative and think outside of the box. I really do believe Lew is moving the team in this direction and I am thankful about that. The move to CSN West is definitely a step in the right direction. It takes a while to get the ball moving – Lew is trying.

I get tired of hearing people harp on the negative instead of 1) offering proactive ideas or 2) looking at the positives.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 12:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I see now where I lost you

I can not argue that lower income fans (including families) are being priced out, but I can speak from my personal experience. That is, that a lot of people I grew up with, have been turned off by some of the recent changes. The casual fan; whether they be a marginal sports fan, a bored person, or a giants fan who wants to see cheap baseball are less likely to come out to games because of the third deck being closed. I personally disliked the move, and was insulted by the all you can eat section, but still attend games because I am obsessed with this team. Is baseball in Oakland still relatively affordable? Absolutely. But that does not mean that the changes that have taken place should be ignored when talking about attendance issues. I also agree that Wolff is a good owner, he seems to have the best interests of the franchise in priority which is all I can ask for. However, I feel I have the right to question any move he makes, especially when they impact attendance, something he claims is only affected by the city the team is located in. Hopefully that was less confusing!

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 12:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Out of curiosity, what kinds of things should they be doing?

Can you contact them to suggest it? I’m serious.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Aug 27, 2008 3:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Uh, see my thoughts on this from last year in response

to that random dude from KICU who stops by every so often.

Cutting beer prices was the first thing Moreno did. Sure it was marginal at best, something like $1/beer, but it was a statement that he actually gave a shit about the fans.

Better marketing, better PR, better radio, get rid of Kuiper, innovative giveaways, ….that’s all off the top of my head. They have paid employees that can think about this stuff. If I was getting paid I could think of hundreds of things.

Oh yeah, can robert buan, who had the audacity to propose rooting for the Angels in the postseason as the topic of his extra innings show last night.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 3:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

NOW who's "entitled"?

Why should ownership pay for cheap beer, non-crappy (and numerous-enough) giveaways, free content for non-game-attendees (radio and tv), improve free broadcasting content, and engage in more dynamic outreach to the lazy/planning-deficient audience segments? What makes us entitled to those things?

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 27, 2008 4:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Right on the money

(and BTW, having that handle since before AN 2.0 is mighty prescient of you…any tips on what the stock market’s gonna do next spring?)

The tarping got rid of around 12,000 of the most affordable seats. So while bargain seats do still exist, of course, there are only about 40% as many of them as there used to be. And most of those are in the obstructed view bleachers. Devo’s quite right, that attendance drop juxtaposed with the price rise doesn’t cost Lew a farthing….but it costs a lot of low income folks, seniors, and kids a chance to see as many ballgames.

Arte didn't get much Home Run Derby. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 27, 2008 11:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm really dismayed with the line of reasoning that Wolff is out to screw the fan

who can only afford cheap seats. Were the cheap seats selling out before the tarping? Do the cheap seats sell out now? Answers to both questions are NO.

Simply amazing to me that you guys believe this garbage you are spewing. Price is not an issue. Plenty of cheap seats go unsold day in and day out. If these seats were selling out consistently, then you might have an argument. Until that happens I’m not buying it.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 12:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well the lower bleachers do sell out regularly

and all of the other cheap seats are really, really bad seats …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 27, 2008 12:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not necessarily, front row plaza seats are great seats (especially in CF)

I’m not sure if the bleachers sell out. Regardless, the $9 seats should be viewed as a ticket to sit anywhere and not to sit in that specific seat.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 12:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You can't often buy the very best seats in any section ...

day of game …

Some people (not me), especially parents with young children, prefer to abide by the rules.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 27, 2008 1:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly

If you have done it once you know that security seldom goes farther than halfway up the second deck sections to check tickets, but that does not help families, or casual fans who might not know.

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 1:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You're not liiiiiiiiisteninggggg!

There are many fewer cheap seats than there used to be. And a much higher fraction of those that are left are lousy obstructed views. No one’s saying there aren’t cheap opportunities…what we’re saying is that there are fewer, worse ones, which often dissuades low budget fans from coming as often.

Let me give you a real example. I used to take my young kids to 6-8 games a year. Now, if I decide I want to do that, if the six sections of Plaza OFs are sold out, as they do for many kid-demand games, my choice is a lower or upper bleacher seat. Well, the uppers are probably the worst seats anywhere in MLB in the last 40 years, possibly excepting RFK and Mile High in those teams’ move-in years. Besides that, the upper bleachers (where I sit myself at times), are not the most young kid friendly place around. The lower bleachers are general admission…if I’m not willing to enter the park an hour before first pitch, the leavings are also poor.

Yes, those are surmountable obstacles, but I’m a hardcore, Coliseum-savvy fan. I now take my kids to one or two fireworks games each year, for which I buy tickets months ahead of time. That’s a dozen tickets Lew’s losing…and if I was a casual, maybe-I’ll-try-taking-my-kids-once low-budget fan, and I ran into the above, I’d probably just blow it off.

Which is what Lew’s doing to the likes of me. It’s not that he’s evil and out to screw the fans (has anyone said that?). It’s that blowing off my segment of the market is an unavoidable consequence of Lew’s low attendance/high revenue plans. Capisce?

Arte didn't get much Home Run Derby. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 27, 2008 1:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I love the lower bleachers ...

but if I had young children, I would not take them there … aside from the general admission issue …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 27, 2008 1:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I took my 5 year old to a game and we sat in the bleachers. It was awesome.

Sure, he only made it 4 innings, but that included watching batting practice for an hour and checking out the stadium.

Oh, and one of the cute chicks that is a RF Bleacher regular gave him a BP home run ball.

I definitely have no reservations about the bleachers with a child.

by mikev on Aug 27, 2008 5:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I haven't actually set in the RF bleachers in many years ...

but the left field bleachers can get a little PG-13 pretty regularly …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 27, 2008 8:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I am listening. Even if there are MANY fewer cheap seats

those MANY fewer are still not being sold out. That is THE bottom line. I really don’t have any sympathy for this argument. Should uncle Lew start subsidizing game tickets so everyone can take their kids. Cheap seats go unsold almost every game of the year.

Also, as a fall back argument, if you really wanted to buy ensure yourself tickets to the kid friendly days I am 200% certain if you bought them a week, two at max, in advance you’d have NO PROBLEM securing your seats.

Laziness, lack of planning, and entitlement are really what we are talking about here.

This is the same argument of the guy who complains that the Cal v. USC game was sold out last year (or any year) and he had to pay $200/ticket to sit in the rain. You know what buddy, learn when tickets go on sale, and buy them when they go on sale. You won’t have any problems securing a seat. Plan ahead and there are plenty deals to be had.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 1:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Im so glad you used that example

Cal Football is a great example of how bay area sports demand is ELASTIC. (Hopefully Wolff is reading this) On September 20th 2003, I paid exactly $0 for my ticket, and saw one of the greatest games of my life, as Cal shocked #3 USC in triple OT. Two years later, no one was giving away free tickets for the game, so I bought a $15 youth ticket. Last year (as you mentioned) tickets were nearly impossible to get. It just goes to show you that a competitive team can draw fans. Yes there are many alternatives to sports in the bay area, but if you win they will come, as evidenced by Jeff Tedford’s bears.

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 1:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Demand for football games and baseball games are very, very different things ...

If Cal, Stanford, the 49ers and the Raiders each sold out every single home game, they would have less combined attendance than the A’s are going to draw this year.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 27, 2008 1:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah

It was a joke, but the story is true!

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 1:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Great... as if that wasn't obvious.

A’s have 99 problems and pricing out there fans isn’t one.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 1:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That same game that was impossible to get tickets for, last year's

USC v. Cal game, wasn’t in reality impossible. Tix were available up to a month after they went on sale. Yet come game time people were griping that tix were ridiculously priced. If said person would have bought tix when they were available at $45 they wouldn’t have that problem. Instead they are too lazy and bitch and moan about scalpers. Scalpers take advantage of your laziness.

by 33SwisherSweet on Aug 27, 2008 1:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It was a joke!!

Get it? the tarps? Never mind…

by GGonzalezz on Aug 27, 2008 2:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

just to clarify, whom are you calling lazy and self-entitled?

FSU? All day-of fans? Some day-of fans? All/some fans w/household incomes in the 5 digits?

And how does your “lack of planning” insult square w/buying tix as short as a week in advance?

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 27, 2008 1:40 PM PDT