It would look strange, but so what?  People who have been sitting up there should still be able to if they choose.

Cuz then they have to pay people to be up there like ushers and security.  Closing it down altogether saves money too.

you read it here first.  At the end of last year, they snuck in a couple of commercials on the big screen (one I remember was a promo for a movie).  I seemed to be one of the only fans who noticed this, and I boooooooed heartily, trying to get people pissed off about it.

The ballpark is no place for commercials, but I'll bet you anything they're planning more of this BS.

How many people can the coliseum hold without the 3rd deck?

what does this have to do with keeping the A's in Oakland?

instead of whining (or at least once the initial whining is out of your system), get season tickets if you want the a's to stay in oakland.  

and bringing in new corporate money.  I think that strongarming your existing fanbase into buying more expensive seats is the wrong approach when the seats are STILL there.  Its fine if you want to push this in a new park.

for East (and North and South) Bay fans (and SF fans who like the AL and the A's) certainly can support a MLB team. But it has to be marketed right and supported in ways that make people want to fill a ballpark.

Make it difficult to go to games and support the team, and any place can be made unsuitable for MLB.

It's hard for me to believe that this is the type of move that would substantially increase the number of A's season-ticket holders.  It seems to me that a team's season ticket base is based on the quality of play on the field, the marketing of the team, the attractiveness of the venue--not the paucity of available seats.  

I think that 70-75 games a year, this is a good move.  The small crowd the A's usually draw will be easily accomodated without the third deck, there's less maintenance, less ushers, less costs.  There's a cozier atmosphere--perceived scarcity.  That's good.  

But to throw away the sell-outs of 48K for those Yankees, Giants, and RSox series in hopes that some of the 15K fans turned away will go buy season tickets--that makes little economic sense.  They already had scarcity at those games--they were selling them out anyway.  The unpredicatbility of walk-up crowds is costly to deal with?  Well, selling out the third deck for those games is entirely predictable.  I'll agree that if they're expecting 35K to show up and the first two deck only hold 32K, it might be better to turn three thousand fans away.  But to keep the third deck closed for 81 games, that would be taking it too far--and ultimately I think they will open it when failing to do so would be pretty much like refusing to accept a big bag of cash, no strings attached.

There is NO doubt those seats are MUCH worse than being behind home in the Upper Deck.

I know that 317 is far better for watching the game than 200 or 230.

The park holds about 46k (not including Mt Davis) with the third deck open. There are also three sections that are very thin - probably leaving about 34k seats.

3rd Deck is gone for the duration.

3rd Deck is gone for the duration.

...and that's not even where my tickets are.  :(

I wonder if they could compromise by continuing to at least allow season tickets only in the innermost infield sections, like 315-320 or 316-319.  That way, the organization could still save money on not having to put as many ushers/security up there (just enough to cover the more condensed crowd in fewer sections, which -- as generally well-behaved season ticket holders -- would most likely not need any "policing" in the first place).

right in line with many of the newer parks.

given their inability to get tickets the day of games for big games, many people may decide to get season tickets.  it's all in the interview blez did with wolff if you want to understand the reasoning.  

also, middle class families may be drawn to more games if the crowds are now less rowdy.  
i know i've seen a bunch of gangster-types (usually in raiders gear) starting fights at games.  and i remember an incident at the home opener just this year (in addition to the two fights i saw at that game) where some drunk idiots were yelling and pounding on the seats in front of them, and when a group of middle aged fans asked them to stop, they tried to start a fight.  the other people had to leave the area.

See BobbyCrosbysGirl's post above--they SAY they won't open the third deck at all, but for the Giants/Sox/Yanks games, are they really going to turn away THOUSANDS of fans opening up their wallets?  How many businessmen would do that?  

This move actually makes a lot of sense for the attendance pattern that you mention above.  The A's attendance is consistently 45K+ for Yanks/Giants/RedSox and maybe Angels, but LESS THAN 30K for everybody else.  

Thus, for 70 out of 82 games, closing the third deck a good idea--they don't draw more than 30K in those 70 games, so why let fans roam the outer borders of the stadium when they can make it cozier and cheaper to supervise/maintain by restricting them to a smaller area?

And for the other 8-12 games, well, keeping the third deck closed would be absolutely asinine.  "Creating scarcity" makes no sense as a rationale for closing off the deck for games which THEY WERE SELLING OUT ANYWAY.  Let's call their bluff here; they'll open the third deck for those 10 or so games at which it seems like they'll lose a helluva lot of money by not doing so.  

is a good idea.

with a $4 AAA discount they cost $6

It was never officially announced, they just accidentally posted a draft of the new page too soon - the typoes also strengthen this idea.

the whole POINT is, if you want to see the red sox / giants / yankees, you have to also see the devil rays / royals / mariners.
if they opened it for those games, that would defeat the whole purpose.

I went to 40 games in '05, but with these prices I'll only be able to go about half as often.  So at least as far as this fan is concerned, attendance will be about minus 20 from last year.  Oh yeah, and last year I took my daughter (and treated numerous friends to tix) to some games.  I might be able to afford to take her to ONE game next year.  She'll be really happy about that too, Mr. Big Bad.

wolff and company are billionaires, what makes you think they will add payroll.  The only way that happens is if the owner is committed to a specific budget/payroll, it doesnt matter how much money the team makes a year.  Schott and Hoffman made profit from the A's, they just choose to have the payroll in a set ammount.  

Now, if I was still in high school, I would be throwing a hissy fit.

So I am now justified in throwing a hissy fit.

It's a shame... I wish they could open 315-319, or at least 316-318 or something.

The last game I went to last year was in 316, right next to the tunnel, next to 317.

They were fabulous seats. And you felt justfied in booing the ump (Brinkman) because you KNEW his zone was inconsistent, not because you THOUGHT it was. Gunna miss the third deck.
Much better than the ones in 202 or whatever the hell I sat in the second to last game I went to last year.

And no way in hell am I gunna pay 14 bucks for those crap seats. They weren't worth 18, they're not worth 14, and they probably aren't even worth 10.
Guess I'm gunna head out to the blearchers several times next year. Provided, of course, that all the 317ers haven't moved out there and filled the place.

It's not that the A's fear leaving disgruntled Oaklanders behind...that's going to happen anyway.  It's that they wish to avoid the Colts-to-Indy, Browns-to-Bal'mor, Raiders-to-(fill in sucker city du jour) bad blood in their wake.

I rather suspect the dollars and cents will be something of a wash, and I'm sure the A's know this.  Wildly best case scenario maybe they make some more dough from the cash-for-attendance tradeoff; most likely scenario they stay about the same.  If someone can produce a substantiated estimate of 2005 attendance by ticket type (season vs single game, by 1st, 2nd and 3rd decks) I think we could replicate this math.  Remember, though, the A's of recent vintage have been a profitable concern.  This is not a franchise besotten with red ink trying to stay ahead of the creditors at the door.

But either way, Wolff will stand up with a straight face in November 2006 and decry the team's 15% attendance decline.  "We put a competitive product on the field and the Oakland fans ignored it."  This will happen whether or not the team actually makes more money through the supply-demand game they're playing.  It's a beautiful case:  propose a ballpark which can't possibly get built, sink attendance while maintaining the same profit margain, and convince the pols and people of Vegas/Portland/Secto that they're nice guys who tried everything they could to stay in Oakland.

Bridge for sale...get your red hot bridge here!

-- even if they make more on those who show up -- is a real downer for the players and the fans

• Drives up demand:  yes, but enough to make up for lost total attendance?  Maybe, maybe not, but it's silly to just assume this means more bucks for the team (and downright foolish to assume that means more money for payroll).
• Crowd closer = more exciting:  In my experience a whole buncha View-skates moved down with the Plaza level crowd.  And will the 15,000 fewer people at every Yanks, Sox and fireworks game be more exciting than those larger crowds?  Again, unproven (and likely unprovable).
• Cheapskates stay home and buy from advertisers:  Day to day baseball TV ratings are pretty small.  Would a 10% jump, a huge amount to expect, cause A's TV revenues to jump accordingly?  No, and what's more, the value of TV contracts to most stations is the lead in to and plugging of the next show.  Not going to the Coliseum ain't gonna boost my 70's Show watching much.
• $2 ticket fan is better revenue for team by staying home:  This is simply falacious.  The $2 dates were less than 10% of all A's home games in '05.  Beyond that, what about the people that $2 Chuck would have brought with him?  And the beer they'd buy, and the the shirts, and Stomper dolls?    There's no reason to blithely write off that revenue.  The fact is that concession and security staff come dirt cheap, and closing a deck ain't going to save much at all in the scheme of things.
• It's only way to boost revenue, and the A's profit is due only to revenue sharing.  Demonstrably untrue. Shott and Hoffman profited every year, even pre-sharing, I believe.  Not to mention the windfall of their asset appreciation come sale time. For a good guide of what works, check the Giants' early McGowan years, when they invested a little cash and a lot of good will into the Stick before Pac Bell was even discussed.  The Giants wisely felt that it served them poorly to simply badmouth their park all the time.  Instead, they cut some prices, promoted the team better, cleaned up the joint a bit, and banked some positive vibes for their ultimate successful new park push.

This change may bring a fairly small amount of additional cash in.  And it may not.  But it's simply wrong to assume it's a great business strategy simply because...well, because others assume it too.

Could I Be A Bad Fan?

I went to 33 A's games during the 2005 season. I cheerfully admit to you, my fellow A's fans, that I am one cheap bastid; for all but a few of those games, it was beer and burritos in the BART lot followed by a seat as close to 318 as possible (obtained using every possible discount, though rarely using the much-loathed-by-A's-management walkup method) for me. Sure, the A's organization didn't clear as much profit from me as it did from the fan whose consumer habits fall closer to the optimal Target Demographic envisioned by the guys with the tedious PowerPoint presentations, but should I have stayed home? Would the exposure of my demographically-undesirable eyeballs to those ads for Mr. Chau's Red Dye Stir Fry ™ and the Vigilance Committee Edition Ford F-150 really do more to enable Billy Beane to push a taller stack of chips onto the table when it comes time to sign a sought-after free agent?

OK, let's look at the negative side. My presence at the game required the services of paid stadium personnel- sure, I didn't start any fights, tear the paper towel dispensers off the bathroom walls, use family-event-inappropriate language requiring ejection and possible jail time, or throw any objects- including home run balls- onto the field, but being 1/12,275th of the crowd at a typical weeknight evening game meant that the A's had to pay to have some quantity of cops, janitors, bartenders, Stomper, etc, plus liability insurance and similar costs, there for me. Just to put a wild-ass guess on it, let's say that cost was $8 (yes, I know it costs more than that per guest to have a ballgame, but fixed costs such as electricity, grounds crew, etc, would be the same with or without my ass in a green plastic seat).

Now, the positive side. Well, I did pay for tickets. When I could get the AAA discount, I paid $6, plus I used an assortment of coupons for other games, went to $2 Wednesday games every chance I got, and so on. Factoring in the few games for which I bought second-deck tickets and/or for which discounts were unavailable, let's say I averaged $7 per game. Damn, the A's are still losing money on me! My presence is actually making things easier for the hated Angels! I should be watching Mr. Chau's ads at home!

But wait: I bought the occasional beer or Frosty Malt at some games and even splurged on Harden and Blanton shirts. 33 games, $44 worth of shirts and an estimated $80 worth of food/drink. That comes to $3.76 per game, making my presence a mildly positive thing for the organization, to the tune of $2.76 per.

Now, the advertising revenue generated by an additional pair of eyes watching the game on TV (actually, I don't have cable- yeah, I'm that cheap- so my eyes were only available during Channel 36 games, but I listened to all the games on the radio and ears must be worth something as well) is seriously wild-ass-guess territory, but just to push number at the bottom of the balance sheet back into the (Hated Angels Assisting) red, I'm going to call it $3.00 (I'm not going to complicate matters by trying to put a value on the advertising to which I'm exposed at the ballpark, although this number is sure to grow larger as ever-more-intrusive means of advertising during the game are introduced). So now I'm handing 24 cents over to Arte Moreno every time I set foot in the stadium. Bad, bad fan!

Yeah, but... during the course of the season I persuaded numerous friends and coworkers to accompany me to games- individuals who, in some cases, had never been to a baseball game, and in most cases wouldn't have attended a single 2005 A's game without someone talking them into it. Most of them bought multiple beers, pretzels, etc, and several enjoyed the experience enough ("Hey, this is fun!") that they brought their families to subsequent games (paying for Fourteen Dollar Parking and buying seats in the Daddy Warbucks sections in the first deck). To continue stacking wild-ass guess upon wild-ass guess, I'm going to say this effect added a whopping $4.00 per game attended, meaning $3.76 dumped straight into the A's coffers. Good fan!

day of game?

The A's would be better off financially from getting 10*$10 bought in advance than 20*$6 bought day of game.

I also grew up a Cubs fan and can remember going with my Cub Scout troop on an empty Thursday in 1965 to a forlorn Wrigley where the entrance to the upstairs was blocked by a rope with the sign "Upper Deck Closed Today." Henry Aaron and Eddie Matthews were playing for the Braves. The Cubs were definitely uncool then. "Upper Deck Closed Today" won't be any happier an experience in Oakland.

I totally see the economic sense of this: Let's just kick a bunch of our loyal fans out of the seats they've had for years so we can squeeze more money out of them. And even better, let's not even have the cohones to tell them beforehand.

reward: more money

risk: alienating loyal fans.  You're right, who gives a crap about the fans (we just want their money)?

Once again the fans lose.

Where are you Walter Haas?

Im all for progressive ownership, building a new park. Two deck ballpark?  All for it.  Second deck in the coliseum isnt what it would be in a new park.  

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and Im sure they will open the third deck for big games, I dont see how they wouldnt.  

It seems mighty callous to tell people who just saw their A's game chances slashed to "just stop whining."  So you're on a lower deck budget...hooray!  I'll console my son and daughter with that knowledge when they only see Zito and Stomper (their two faves) once or twice next year instead of ten times.  And to label us quitter fans who'd just as well watch the Angels because we're unwilling/able to pay more money for worse seats is despicable.  You may believe this move makes sense for the A's financial future...others here have made that reasonable case...but there's no call for vilifying we who aren't convinced the revenue boost is real or substantial.  

It's a bit curious that so many here assume the cash benefits to the team are true absent any evidence whatsoever.  If I loudly opined how sure I was that a 50% boost in A's steal attempts would bring home a pennant I'd be properly set straight by legions of well-supported stats.  Are faith-based declarations acceptable in matters of ownership and revenue, and nowhere else?

Actually, you're re-making my day... I thought Blez's front page diary about Halloween costumes was the funniest thing I'd read all day, but this one tops it...  ;)

maybe they could paint pictures of fans on it in the view level, and the tarp over mt davis could feature a painting of iceplant in bloom.

I already avoid the concourses like the plague -- well, "avoid" them as much as feasible.  From Section 215, the relatively uncrowded West Side Club restrooms are just a few steps away... then after the game, I just go down the stairway (near the elevators, behind 217 or 218) and out the exit near Will Call, and down the ramp to the parking lot.  The ramp is usually crowded, but at least it's outdoors. The concourses have always given me the willies.  :(

but I really like being surrounded by lots of bseball fans, and have never had problems with anybody at the 'Net

it's about longterm viability and increasing overall value. Lew Wolfe, et al, are not concerned with getting an extra mil or so of profit in 2006. They're interested in getting an extra $1-200 mil in profit when they sell the team in a decade or so. How can they do that? By creating a better product. By creating tickets that are sought after and by producing a team that will contend even if the next GM screws up a draft or three. They don't want to be the Twins or the Indians, they want to be the Red Sox.

And, not for nothing, but Lew Wolfe directly said that he's not looking for a dime of taxpayer money. He and his team are looking to invest their money and build something - a stadium that we can be proud of, developments that bring jobs and tax revenue into the city, a team that consistently wins and an improved image for Oakland regionally and nationwide. This is not a charity, it's a business. There are two kinds of businessmen in this world. The kind who take money and the kind who make money. Wolfe and friends have shown every indication that they are the second kind - that they want to build something that we want and need and, naturally, make a nice profit in return.

team.

Yes, Al Davis is a prime example of a money taker. He put no money at all into stadium related investments and demanded all of the profit - that is sleazy.

Wolfe, etc have not asked for any public money and have indicated that they plan on paying for their construction with the profits from other construction - without asking for taxpayer money. That's a good, sound business model. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

This move absolutely makes ledger sheet sense, because it will dramatically decrease costs and only affect attendance in about one quarter of the games. Not only that, but it creates a better atmosphere and forces people to think of the A's as something they have to plan to do and not just decide to go on a whim.