Wolff & Co. considering 35,000 seats ballpark

Please NO new stadium!!!

I love the collesium!!!

by novaoakland on Jul 19, 2005 12:52 AM PDT reply actions

Do you want the A's to leave the East Bay?

Please reconsider that opinion

by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Jul 19, 2005 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions

New stadium is a bad idea!!!!

IT will make the team have LESS MONEY LESS FANS. SO yes I would rather than move than build a new stadium.

by novaoakland on Jul 19, 2005 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions

No, it will make the team have

MORE MONEY MORE FANS. Or, at least, MORE MONEY MORE PAID ATTENDEES.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions

More paid attendees = more money able to throw around (I know our ownership is already rich as hell) = A's stars staying and more stars imported = No more depression over guys like Miggi/Giambi/whoever = Better teams = Deeper in playoffs = Happier fans

"Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some groundballs - it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

by JLaff on Jul 19, 2005 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions

If Nova was a Giants fan, he'd miss Candlestick.

And yes, there are probably more than a few of them who miss just walking in, buying a ticket, and not having to deal with everyone on their cell phones. You don't hear from them much, but I'm sure that when Bonds is officially gone and the first wave of trendy season ticket holders fall away, we'll start seeing more of them. However, they SO don't get it. Maybe they'd have rather seen the Giants move to Tampa.

...which would have been great for us, but back to the topic at hand.

"I'd rather the team leave than build a new stadium"....It's that kind of attitude that causes so many people to categorize the Bay Area as a bunch of wacko nutcases. And before you make assumptions, I'm about as opposite from George W Bush as you can get.

There's nothing wrong with diverse opinions, but this topic needs to hit close to home for all A's fans. If someone can come up with a REALISTIC solution other than building a stadium, I'll listen to it. But to just make broad generalizations about millionaires and corporate greed just aint gonna cut it if we're gonna keep our A's.

by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Jul 19, 2005 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Giants are perfeect example

They are playing 27 milliion in rent. THis costs them money. People attend winners in the long run. Giants will be back below 2.5 Million attendance within 3 years.

by novaoakland on Jul 19, 2005 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions

thats rediculous

nova, common, we all love the coliseum, but it has to go. However, i am a little upset with the low amount of seating, it seems that Wolff is intent on satifying high-paying customers to fill the suites. I dont wnat to see it be like SBC where bleacher tickets cost 18 bucks. I understand the necessity to bring in big paying corporate partners, but we can do better with accesibility for all income levels, especially in oakland.

"If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball." -Patches O'Houlihan

by apocalyptica @ Athletics Nation on Jul 19, 2005 2:12 AM PDT reply actions

Ever buy a ticket to a Red Sox game?

That is ultimately what the A's compete against - very high prices and sell outs. You may not like it but ther is no Dollar Dog Night in Boston - no cheap seats. The A's have a ton of cheap seats now that go unused. You can't whine about not keeping Miggy and the rest and not realize a $3 seat and bringing your own chow doesn't help the A's.
The fact is the A's have provided playoff and near playoff quality MLB for almost minor league prices --to a half empty stadium - that is their fundamental problem - that and a small fan base without the cash.
I think 35000 seats is too small also - but they are probably looking at stadium costs - the extra 10,000 seats and supporting toilets, hot dog stands etc. probably cost $100 mil.

by Carerra on Jul 19, 2005 6:04 AM PDT reply actions

35,000 seats are right for the A's

It's the simple law of supply and demand. Less supply, more demand. I know tons of people who "go to one game a year" that haven't been in years. Why? Because they can go to any game they want, no sellouts. Therefore, they procrastinate. It's human nature. Once sellouts end, attendance drops by the thousands. Check out Milwaukee and Detriot.

If you don't want to be locked out, buy season seats. If you don't live close enough, share a 20-game package with a few other ANers.

A packed house each night will help this team. I think for Oakland, 35,000 seats is perfect. I can't WAIT for the new 35,000 seat ballpark!!

by Alameda Greg on Jul 19, 2005 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Hmph

Hope I can afford to go after they pimp out the new stadium. By the way, our financial problems have little to do with the fact that we don't sell out the Coliseum. If we want to spend with the big boys, we need to up our media contracts - and that means agressive marketing.

Fearing Mecir since 2000.

by salb918 on Jul 19, 2005 6:33 AM PDT reply actions

It's the marketing, or lack of it

If we don't have decent attendance numbers with one of the most exciting teams in the majors, how will we fill a new stadium? I'm guessing a new venue will attract lookie-loos for a short time, but the lack of agressive marketing has to be addressed at some point.

by NotJohnnyDamon on Jul 19, 2005 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions

I like it

First of all, limiting the stadium to 35,000 seats means you put pressure on people to buy tickets early -- no more day-of-game walkups. The A's have been dependent on day-of-game walk-ups for years, which means inconsistent revenue. Limiting the stadium to 35,000 means that for every big series, the stadium will be sold out well in advance... which is good, not bad.

Second of all, a 35,000 seat stadium gives it the more intimate feel that a baseball stadium should have. I'm tired of playing in our huge ass cavernous stadium... Baseball should be viewed up close. It's not like football where a third-deck seat is still a good seat. The third-deck seats at the Net are terrible baseball seats.

Third of all, new stadium equals more revenue equals bigger TV contract... More wealthy "people" (meaning companies) at the games means more "true fans" (who can't pay big ticket prices for every game) watching at home means more money that advertisers are willing to pay means more money the A's can get out of Fox and KICU to televise games.

This is good in every way... I really want a new park. You'll want one too when it means that we can keep 2007 Cy Young winner Rich Harden and 2008 Cy Young winner Dan Haren on the same team.

We've been fortunate to be able to watch a playoff team at AAA prices for the last few years... That's not the way it works anymore. I'm perfectly happy to let the businesses in the area buy up all the tickets, allow Beane to sign some of these young studs and watch the games for free on television. In the end, I don't care about actually going to the games as much as I do about winning a friggin' World Series.

by Uncle Charlie on Jul 19, 2005 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Hear, Hear!

by gotgreen on Jul 19, 2005 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmph II

They should figure out where they're going to put their new toy first. I'm with Nova and Salb, I love the Coliseum and doubt I'll be able to go to 40 plus games a season in an expensive boutique stadium. Probably more like 10 (that's a -30 on attendance so far, Wolffy).

by Brian in 317 on Jul 19, 2005 8:10 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah, but presumabley he's getting just as much

of your money, since it's based on how often you can afford to go and he's doing it while providing fewer services to you - that's a great deal for him. Not only that, it means you're staying home and watching the game on tv, being advertised to, and driving up the profits from his TV deals.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Hmph III

Yer right, and actually, come to think of it, I'll still go to lots of games (I just love that I can actually afford it the way it is!).

by Brian in 317 on Jul 19, 2005 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I hope I make more money than I do now

Otherwise I won't be hitting up a lot of games at a new park. We've all been spoiled, as Carrera wisely describes. Do we really want the A's to become a fashionably trendy hang out event for rich urbanites who don't even know what's going on on the field? I like the A's blue collar thing, and as long as our front office is ten times smarter than every other team, it's a win-win, with the occasional tear shed for the departed Tejada or Hudson. I'll take it. The cheaper solution is to hire a bunch of eco-terrorists to dynamite Mt. Davis sometime in February and put the wooden bleachers back in before the season starts.

by EastBayTeam on Jul 19, 2005 9:31 AM PDT reply actions

Every time

I've heard Wolff talk about the new stadium, he's emphasized (without being prompted) affordability. Maybe he's just talking out his a$$, but at least he's saying it.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -- Gil Meche

by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Jul 19, 2005 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

two words

Athletics Nation Minisuite.

I'm sure we can get 162 of us to split the cost... and pairs of us could share a home game.

Always look on the bright side of life.

by Apricot on Jul 19, 2005 9:50 AM PDT reply actions

Brilliant!

Sign me up. That's a genius idea.

Laugh while you can, monkeyboy!

by monkeyball on Jul 19, 2005 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah!

That's a great idea. I'm down with it. :)

by limecat on Jul 19, 2005 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

dont you mean

three words? boy, i bet you cant wait to share the suite with me!!!

by OAKobsession on Jul 19, 2005 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions

As long as it can be expanded

35,000 or less IS small, to say the least. However, most new parks are not going over 40K anyway (What's SBC...41-42?)

As long as it can be expanded at some point in the future, this is probably the most realistic solution. And with the smaller size, it could also turn out to be a very nice place.

Perhaps they could put in temporary bleachers for games against the Yankees, Giants, Red Sox, or any other event they know would draw 45-50K. That could also address the issue of affordable tickets. The bleachers could be moved away easily for the rest of the season and not look ugly when empty.

But I'm sorry. I get very angry when I see so many AN posts that say the Coliseum is fine as it is and that we should just run the Raiders out of town and tear down Mt. Davis. If affordable seating is your issue, then we should all figure a way to lobby Mr. Wolff to accomodate this in the final plans

But if it just comes down to "I don't want change", then you're ultimately going to hurt our team.

by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Jul 19, 2005 9:51 AM PDT reply actions

I like the smaller stadium

I think this is the best stadium type for the A's. It has nothing to do with ticket prices, but the fact that even with a brand new stadium, it will be hard to consistently sell out 45,000 seats throughout the years. While ticket prices will most likely be higher, nowhere does it say that they will be outrageous. It really all depends on where the stadium is built.

I remember a poll here on AN about the new stadium type and the one with the most votes was one resembling PNC Park in Pittsburgh.

by pickinmachine on Jul 19, 2005 9:53 AM PDT reply actions

A possible problem with a new stadium

For the past several seasons the A's have done very well at the Coliseum and very poorly some of the time on the road, such as this year. Wouldn't it be ironic if the A's somehow reacted to a new stadium as if it were not their own but someone else's ball park, since it is not the Coliseum itself.

Beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

by bigfanjohn on Jul 19, 2005 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions

really?

i could have sworn the last few years when the A's were doing their little playoff run they were only outdrawn by the yanks and red sox for away games? i could be wrong, but im pretty sure they didnt make other teams struggle with attendance

by OAKobsession on Jul 19, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Performance

I think its a reference to home v. away win-loss records.

by sslinger on Jul 19, 2005 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Small stadiums create sellouts

sellouts force people to plan and buy their tickets ahead of time. People planning and buying their tickets ahead of time creates more sellouts. More sellouts reduces the need for higher prices and makes your team more drout and famine resistent. Unless you are the Yankees or the Dodgers and are the A team in one of the two largest cities in the country and play in a historically significant park, you are not going to sell out a large stadium consistently and you're better off with the smaller park.

The only thing is, the smaller park is liable to make playoff games more expensive than they would be in a new, larger park.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 10:09 AM PDT reply actions

good point about sellouts

Also, one of the current complaints about the fan population is that it's majority walk-up, so it's hard to predict how much staff you need, etc. etc.

by Apricot on Jul 19, 2005 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Baseball Economics

Attendance revenues are a fraction of total franchise revenues. As someone said earlier, it's all about the media contracts - that's the difference between the rich teams and the rest. Unfortunately, given the current available media outlets and the A's ratings, there just aren't many options. That's why there contracts are so low.

Seems the only out is a pretty risk one that Wolff mentioned at the purchase press conference - Regional Sports Network.

by BleacherDave on Jul 19, 2005 10:25 AM PDT reply actions

I'm sure

that Comcast would love to get CSN going in the Bay Area. Perhaps we could hop on board early and get ourselves in a position to be their A team. If Comcast decides to compete with FSN, they will win - sounds like an undervalue commodity worth exploiting to me.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

comcast

would easily win. All they have to do is include their channel as part of the basic package, and make FSN a premium channel.

I dont think the A's will push into a kind of big risk big reward deals into they know exactly where the new stadium will be located.

by pickinmachine on Jul 19, 2005 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions

FSN and Comcast can coexist

The competition will be good for all local teams, pro and college. CSN is already on Digital channel 400, and they are just biding their time until existing contracts with FSN expire. It could become a bidding war. When CSN gets a team or two, they'll move them straight into the expanded basic slot currently occupied by FSN+, which was doomed to fail from the beginning even though it's a joint venture by Comcast and Fox.

by vertig0 on Jul 20, 2005 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Perhaps ... but what in their history together

would make us believe that Comcast would allow FSN to coexist? They have all of the power in that relationship.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 20, 2005 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions

It's all about the deal

There are two factors for local cable companies: the cost of programming (games and related shows), and the carrying costs for the cable operators (which are passed onto customers). Having the two compete for teams should drive up the prices (#1). Comcast does exert some amount of control in terms of dictating where a channel is placed, but if for instance FSN gets the Giants and Warriors, and Comcast refuses to carry FSN or puts them in a bad spot, there will more than enough complaints and service cancellations to make Comcast cave in. The potential bad spot would be if the A's were on FSN and the Giants, Warriors, and Sharks were on CSN. Then it'd be up the A's TV fanbase to raise hell.

by vertig0 on Jul 20, 2005 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions

But all Comcast would have to do

is outbid FSN for most of the teams the first time around - then drop them into a poor slot and, voila, when contracts are up for renegotiation, there's no one to bid against them.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 20, 2005 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Why would they want to do that?

The teams themselves are going to try to negotiate for 4-6 year terms, 2 years at the very least. There's language dictating where the channel gets placed, carrying/per-subscriber charges, what happens when there are scheduling conflicts, etc. If somehow the contracts were drawn up in a way that the teams got such a huge disadvantage, they'd be idiots. If they were legitimately hoodwinked, they could easily band together and start up an RSN when the contract ends, or sue the crap out of Comcast for breach of contract. One last thing: the most important thing for Comcast out of all of this is ad dollars. If they put CSN in a bad slot, they'll be losing ad money for several years. All just to put them at some supposedly competitive advantage? I doubt it.

by vertig0 on Jul 20, 2005 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

revenues

For the Yankees and Red Sox ticket/stadium revenues are a significanlty smaller percentage of total revenue. However the total dollars NY and Boston take in are not insignificant (probably well over $100 million just from the stadiums). For teams who don't/can't have a huge media contract stadium revenue is very significant. The third and fourth highest grossing teams in MLB are the Mariners and Giants. Both of them are in those spots because of their stadiums and the revenue they generate. While it would be nice to up the media revenues having media revenues which exceed stadium revenues is the exception, not the rule in baseball.

by skwid on Jul 19, 2005 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Exactly Right! Fannies in the seats do count.

otherwise you don't need a stadium and you can do it in a studio like old style pro wrestling. Well over $1M per game for the Big teams. That is also why they have the big media bucks - they are sold out - seats are expensive - -so huge TV ratings. Supply and demand. Go anywhere in the North East -even in the Maine backwoods- Red Sox Country.
The Yankee and Red Sox fan bases are much, much larger than the A's ....and with much more cash. Like you never notice the Colisium fills for those teams - and not with that many more A's fans.
Have you been to an A's game in recent years other than Red Sox,Yanks, Giants and Angels where there was a great crowd---that is an all A's crowd?

by Carerra on Jul 19, 2005 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Sure.

Fireworks, opening day, and playoffs. Just like most other teams, frankly.

"Yucky Head Bad Guy!" - my 5-year-old daughter to Manny Ramirez. She got ice cream immediately afterward.

by DMtShooter on Jul 19, 2005 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Not just media contracts

The two biggest sources of revenue are corporate sponsorship and media contracts. At Coors Field, for example, each luxury suite has a corporate sponsor that pays more than 6 figures a season to rent out their box. You'd have to sell a lot of bleacher tickets to match that. That's where the real money is on attendance. The A's will probably try to maximize that source, but the problem is that there aren't many corporations headquartered in Oakland. All the SF corporations have their boxes at PacHell. We can pretty much kiss media revenue goodbye, since we split the market with the Giants and since everybody likes football around here anyway.

by EastBayTeam on Jul 19, 2005 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

The view from out here

I left the bay area 15 or so years ago, but, well, I bleed green and gold, and I'm raising my sons as A's fans. Of course, to us, the location doesn't matter much. I won't go the the monstrosity north of Harlem, but do get to Baltimore and Boston when I can see the A's.

If you parachute into any location in the Bay Area, you'll find a Giant's fan. In fact, you'll find seven of the idiots with the half and half hats, and also two Giant's fans.

That could change if the A's move south, but it doesn't look like the Giant's owners will extend the same courtesy to the A's as did the A's to them.

I really think the A's need to move to a market where there's a better media deal for them. The one thing I do hope for is that the Coliseum's tradition is respected.... I love the foul zones, and, for me, they're an important part of A's ball.

by Bronx A's Fan on Jul 19, 2005 10:42 AM PDT reply actions

New ball park?

I would love to have that but the Coliseum lives forever in our hearts. 35,000 sounds nice enough but the only huge problem is raising ticket which is either a hit or miss.

You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club wont be worth a dime.-Babe Ruth

by doublehustle22 on Jul 19, 2005 11:08 AM PDT reply actions

just a thought...

not sure if this affects attendence / revenue, but I started sitting in the bleachers because the seats in the lower level are REALLY uncomfortable for anyone of normal size (not a 12 years old girl size).
The sides of the armrests dig into my legs, now granted I am 6'1 275, but I have NEVER had this issue at any other stadium / arena.
The outfield seats seem bigger. I would uusually but a premium seat behind home, but instead I sit in the cheap seats.

Has anyone else noticed this? Do I just need to lay off the nachos and stadium dogs?

by sactowncharles on Jul 19, 2005 11:19 AM PDT reply actions

I am a fairly normal sized human being

5'10, 180 and I've never noticed any differences in the seats throughout the park.

I did notice a tremendous difference at Shea, though. The seats were horrifically lacking in leg room - very uncomfortable.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Stadium seat size

The seats at the Oakland Coliseum do vary in size by up to a couple of inches. One of my friends measured them once in various places around the stadium and IIRC the differecnes could be up to three inches.

by skwid on Jul 19, 2005 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions

You've obviously never been to Fenway

Because the seats there are tiny. I was there for T-Long's miracle catch in 2003, in fact.

"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe

by EastCoastA on Jul 19, 2005 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions

awesome game

i was totally at that game too. one of the most fun games i've ever been to.

yeah, the seats are tiny, but that's not the point. the fans totally make the fenway experience.

by ragnarok on Jul 19, 2005 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah

A completely disgusting, abominable, excruciating experience. Thank goodness it's so small. Gather 50,000 Red Sox fans in a ballpark and I think the universe would collapse. :)

by OaktownTribesman on Jul 19, 2005 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed!

Also, I'm a tiny guy and had no problem sitting in my seat. The big guy next to me did, and there was significant spillage of him onto me.

Fearing Mecir since 2000.

by salb918 on Jul 20, 2005 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Happened to me last time

I was at Fenway... large, pasty, yucky sox fan. Ick.

by ArakSOT on Jul 20, 2005 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions

Cost of stadium

I'm wondering if a smaller stadium would less less to build, allowing the A's to pay a greater % of the cost and starting off the upcoming public relations battle that is sure to ensue on the right foot.

I'm the guy with the Carney/Jared Lansford jersey

by gojohn10 on Jul 19, 2005 11:34 AM PDT reply actions

Bottom line

If a corporate suite sells for $30k a year, that's 3000 $10 bleacher seats they don't have to worry about selling.

The more corporate boxes they have, and the more they sell, the better our deal will be, because they don't have to gouge us to make a profit.

Case in point, I used to pay $8 a ticket at Dodger Stadium for second level seats behind home plate (back before I got sick of fans that would leave during the 7th inning stretch and decided to change allegiances), because they sold so many season tickets and boxes to wealthy LA-types who never bothered to show up for games.

Boston is an extreme example, because the demand for tickets is WAY higher than they could ever fit into the stadium, so of course their tickets are overpriced, but a good-sized 35,000 seat stadium with a ton of corporate boxes is a smart way to take this team from small-market to medium-sized market without killing the fanbase.

by Ozzz on Jul 19, 2005 11:35 AM PDT reply actions

Dodgers' Fans

Yeah, what's with the Dodgers' fans? I was at the Dodgers-Giants game on Sunday. Game is tied 1-1, going into the 9th, and people are getting up to leave. Leave!?! Where are they going? Tie game, huge rival, what's going on? Then, of course, Michael Tucker hits a 3-run homer, and people really head for the exits. But still...

by ragnarok on Jul 19, 2005 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions

In a word...

Traffic. They all need to leave early so they don't get in traffic jams heading home.

That and they really don't go there for the baseball. They go there to be seen. Dodger fans are the least baseball-educated fans around, worse even than the Yankees.

by Ozzz on Jul 19, 2005 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions

And A's fans are unruly thugs

who throw explosives at children and make players fear for their safety on the field.

Or we could just choose not to stereotype people.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Or we could choose...

...to go on what we've seen with our own eyes over several seasons at Dodger Stadium.

by Ozzz on Jul 19, 2005 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions

I've seen fans by the thousands

pouring out of the Coliseum in the 7th and 8th innings of any game that has enough attendance to qualify.

I've also seen a 3/4 empty stadium because nobody except the most dedicated fans bothered to show up that night. There is only one team in America that can fill their park with diehard, dedicated fans and it ain't in Oakland.

I've seen passionate and diehard Dodger fans who bleed blue as strongly as anyone here bleeds green and gold.

I've seen people who simply wish to bash a particular team, facts be damned, so they accuse all of their fans of doing something that the less devote (or more child endowed) fans everywhere do.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 20, 2005 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Seat Size

I too have noticed that bleacher seats are more comfortable. More leg room. I'm 6' tall and the rows in the rest of the stadium are just too close.

As far as local revenues go, suites and club seats are the difference makers. For anyone that hasn't checked it out, the late, great Doug Pappas did a series of articles that is an excellent primer on franchise finances. Unfortunately, there isn't anyone else out there carrying on this work...

http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/labor.htm

by BleacherDave on Jul 19, 2005 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

As sadly as it pains me to say this...

the park does matter. A lot.

Last night, I got free left-field bleacher tickets to Braves-Giants. I IM'd a friend of mine who is new to the area, but likes the A's more than the Giants.

I haven't been able to meet him at an A's game all year... but when the prospect of free SBC seats was dangled in front of him, he jumped at it.

There was 42K people there, for a Monday night game in fog and drizzle, against a Braves team that while good, isn't exactly compelling. The match-up was Jorge Sosa vs. Kevin Correia. Giants lost 6-1; no one seemed too upset about it.

Now, if there were a SBC-like park on the other side of the Bay in Oakland, would those 20K extra fans show up every night? Probably not; part of the reason why SBC is such a draw is the walk-up and trendy location. But here we are, in mid-July of a season that any Giants fan knows is going flat-out nowhere, and there's still big crowds. There's something to be said for that, even if no one at the stadium seems to care that much.

"Yucky Head Bad Guy!" - my 5-year-old daughter to Manny Ramirez. She got ice cream immediately afterward.

by DMtShooter on Jul 19, 2005 12:22 PM PDT reply actions

walk-up and trendy location

You're right, the park absolutely does matter -- and so does the setting and location and accessibility.

SF had a kind of "perfect storm" with their new park -- booming economy, available land in an underutilized/underdeveloped nabe, easy extension of existing roadways and PT lines to site, location turning into a hip nabe, etc.

It's hard to see all of those elements (especially the economy in the next four years) coming together in the East Bay.

Laugh while you can, monkeyboy!

by monkeyball on Jul 19, 2005 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Huh

I think 35,000 sounds a little small... maybe more like 40,000.

by dchu on Jul 19, 2005 12:26 PM PDT reply actions

Revenue

I posted this in another thread, but it's more relevant. Estimates I've seen by guys who do this sort of thing for a living are that a new ballpark adds $35-$40 million A YEAR in revenue for at least five years, all other things being the same. Now you know why every owner wants one. Now you know why it is imperative for the A's to get one. Now you know why the A's will play wherever they have to get one.

by rsquared on Jul 19, 2005 12:38 PM PDT reply actions

I need a grammar checker...

The last sentence should read: Now you know why the A's will play wherever they have to in order to get a new ballpark.

by rsquared on Jul 19, 2005 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions

I call shenanigans

I've seen analysis that worked both ways of this issue. Here is what I know:

Owners do like to have new ballparks. It is not clear that they make money on them unless they sell naming rights and someone else pays for the park
Cleveland and Baltimore are superlative parks. This probably ought not be in this list, but I've never heard a coherent or cogent disagreement.
Houston, Detroit, and Pittsburgh received 1 year boosts for their new parks. After that, attendance went back down to slightly above the normal range for prior years. Texas got a two year boost.

End of known facts. # 3 is not uncommon. I believe that the same happened in Texas (but that was nearly 15 years ago). I also believe that the house that Sterry Stonds built next to the bay gave the Grunts a decent attendance boost (but, well, Veteran's stadium was worse than Candlestick, .... nope, can't think of anywhere else. Oh, the old Milwaukee County)

[[ I don't like Pittsburgh's park. I don't know why.... Kosher food, nice views, (REALLY) good beer, clean, pleasant.... it's just that it doesn't seem like the focus is on baseball.....]]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

Canards:

A winner puts fannies in the seats.... Cleveland has lower attendance (absolute and percentage) than the A's, yet a better record, and is in the thick of the wild card race. Baltimore isn't in the top 10, nor is Washington. Atlanta is # 17 for pete's sake!!!!
Anti-Corollary: A losing team makes people stay out of Dodge: Really, would you want to go see KC or Tampa? Unfortunately, Seattle is #12 with the most disappoionting team in the majors... The Giants are #3, and they suck!
A new stadium puts fannies in seats.... The 3 oldest facilities in baseball (Wrigley, Fenway, and Yankee Stadium) are in the top 5. Caveat: 4 of the top 10 are relatively new stadiums.

by Bronx A's Fan on Jul 19, 2005 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Naming Rights

Warriors can't even sell the naming rights to the revamped Arena. $35 - $40M incremental revenues in this economy?

by BleacherDave on Jul 19, 2005 12:43 PM PDT reply actions

Agreed.

And it's not an auto-boost; the stadium also has have more working for it than newness. Witness how much those new yards in Detroit, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh have sent those teams through the roof in terms of revenue. (Er, whoops.)

"Yucky Head Bad Guy!" - my 5-year-old daughter to Manny Ramirez. She got ice cream immediately afterward.

by DMtShooter on Jul 19, 2005 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions

The Warriors have four things working against them

they are the #3 team in the area
their arena is much smaller and less known than the one next door
their arena, while very thoroughly renovnated is not new
they are the Warriors - they've had a good season if they win more games than the football teams

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 19, 2005 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions

i agree

The Warriors problems with finding a sponsor with the arena has to do with the Arena being 39 years old. It was built in 1966 (had renovations in '97.) Plus, the Warriors suck. And when are they ever on national TV? If you don't have cable they aren't ever on your TV period.

by uci anteater on Jul 19, 2005 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Smaller is better

It gives us a better chance of not getting outnumbered by fans of the opposing team. Frankly, I don't ever want to go to another game at the Coliseum against the Red Sox, because I feel like I'm in the opponent's ballpark. It's not FUN -- why go? I want to go and see my team play, and not get taunted by opponents' fans who feel comfortable doing so because they're in the majority.

A smaller stadium with a lot of A's season ticket holders could go a long way to making the experience more pleasant, which I think would make fans more willing to go.

"Everyone was saying, 'Swisher, you suck!' and I was like, 'OK, we've established that.' "

by oblique on Jul 19, 2005 4:03 PM PDT reply actions

i think the main tradeoff will be

giving the new stadium gimmicks like the coca cola bottle at sbc. right now when a person buys a ticket for the coliseum, they are buying it to see baseball. most new stadiums have something going for them, and a new one in oakland would have to as well. just because of the fact it is a "new" park may not completly guarantee succses at first

by OAKobsession on Jul 19, 2005 4:37 PM PDT reply actions

We won't need gimmicks

Just those four World Series Pennants along the outfield will suffice. Gimmicks are for losers.

by OaktownTribesman on Jul 19, 2005 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Any gimmick we have should be unique...

...something quirky, like retiring Banjoman's tie-dyed jersey. Or bring back Moustache Days.

Just no giant Coke bottle. Please.

Really, deep down in your heart, don't you think it's time to get rid of Stomper?

by 66th Hegenberger on Jul 20, 2005 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions

i think the main tradeoff will be

giving the new stadium gimmicks like the coca cola bottle at sbc. right now when a person buys a ticket for the coliseum, they are buying it to see baseball. most new stadiums have something going for them, and a new one in oakland would have to as well. just because of the fact it is a "new" park may not completly guarantee succses at first

by OAKobsession on Jul 19, 2005 4:37 PM PDT reply actions

call me crazy, but...

i understand everybody has their own thoughts on the new stadium idea, and every different viewpoint is so valid that i have a hard idea knowing what to think. but noone has mentioned the TAILGATING issue....

now my friends and i tailgate before every game we see, and those hours spent hanging out listening to the pregame, tossing rumors, and grilling out are some of the greatest of my year (with the exception of the games themselves of course). we're all busy, and it's an important social structure for my friends and i, so...

what would a new stadium mean to tailgating? don't you have to be a seasons ticket holder to tailgate anywhere near PacHell? does parking revenue go to the team? think of the damage no tailgating could do to the Saags family!!!

any thoughts would be appreciated...

by IsotopesWinAGame on Jul 19, 2005 5:36 PM PDT reply actions

To each his own

Yeah, it could completely wipe out tailgating, but it could give rise to a completely new experience, like say hanging out in A's-fans-only bars surrouding the new park, or say gathering on bayside parkland adjacent to the park, etc. Tailgating is not ubiquitous in MLB. Nobody tailgates at Wrigley Field. They just hit the bars. Sure one tradition dies out, but another one is born. If you really miss tailgating, the Raiders will still be around.

by OaktownTribesman on Jul 19, 2005 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Finally, THE Pertinent Question

After yawning through post after post, I find kotsayiscool finally asking the substantive question. And we know that since Oakland is not going to contribute anything to Woolf, Fischer & Co.'s quest for a new stadium, this is just talk as it pertains to keeping the team in Oakland. It simply isn't going to happen.

But discussion of a smaller stadium based in San Jose, Sacto or out of the region does have merit. Let's just hope it is either the South Bay or Sacto as these are the sole options for keeping the A's in the region...

by reztips on Jul 19, 2005 6:06 PM PDT reply actions

don't you mean the "peter" question?

by Brian in 317 on Jul 20, 2005 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions

Size won't be an issue

Trust me, you'll be able to attend games in a 35,000 seat stadium. Yes, prices will go up a bit, but ticket demand won't shut out regular fans like ourselves.

Our new ballpark won't sell out like Boston - this region doesn't love the A's like New England loves the Red Sox.

Our new stadium will probably be like PNC Park in Pittsbugh. That stadium seats 38,000, yet has missed 60% capacity each of the last 3 seasons.

by sonomanate on Jul 19, 2005 10:38 PM PDT reply actions

The difference

Our team will be waaaay better that the Pirates in any given year.

by OaktownTribesman on Jul 20, 2005 5:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Understand

That depending on the where the Park is built annd if the A's are winning it will be a lot different than pittsburgh. I don't think the A's will sellout every game but they will be at 90% capacity or more to start off. Since hopefully Billy Beane will be around for a few more years and it looks like Mr. Wolff & Company are willing to put a little more money into a winning franchise. I think the A's will be competetive for the next few years.

"He's a freakin' Ace!"

by OakAs33 on Jul 19, 2005 11:41 PM PDT reply actions

35,000 is not a fixed number

The downtown KC ballpark plans, which are now dead, called for a modern facility that seated less than 40,000, but with the capacity to add extra portable seats for high-demand games, at least 2,000. It would work really well in Oakland, where you have the big 9-15 games every year and walk-up for most games is predictable.

by vertig0 on Jul 20, 2005 12:49 AM PDT reply actions

Baseball a public good?

I actually think that stadium subsidies lead to less of a committment to the fans by the team's ownership. A sunk cost carried on the books as both a capital asset and a long-term liability leads to an even bigger 'switching cost' for a team deciding on whether it will leave its market.

Big money socialism
John Stossel
July 20, 2005

Politicians want to build palaces for rich people. OK, they not palaces -- they're sports stadiums -- but the difference is subtle. In recent years, New York politicians have talked about a football stadium, a basketball arena, and two new baseball stadiums. All four projects would require financial help from the government, for the stadiums, nearby facilities, or both. Why? Why should they get our money?

If the wealthy owners of sports teams want new stadiums, let them build them with their own money. They're not entitled to our money.

Just as cities take people's homes so rich corporations can do what the politicians call "urban renewal," telling the courts economic development is a "public use," sports tycoons argue their stadiums are in the "public interest." Their politician friends tell voters that a stadium will "bring jobs," be "good for the city," "pay for itself."

Bunk. Study after study finds stadiums cost far more than they return.

"Assume it did create a thousand jobs," economist Mark Rosentraub, author of "Major League Losers," told me. Then a $170-million stadium costs $170,000 for every single job. "You could have done better just saying to the people who would have been hired, here's $50,000 -- start a business!"

Subsidizing stadiums isn't capitalism -- it's big-money socialism. When the government subsidizes a stadium, it takes your money, decides for you what form of entertainment is worth funding, and makes you bear part of the cost of someone else's business.

Most wealthy team owners would not talk to me about their subsidies. But Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox did. He told me the government "had to" fund his stadium. "I couldn't have" raised the money privately, he said. "You have to pay it back."

Welcome to the real world, Jerry. Students get loans and pay them back. So do homeowners and small business owners. You want a ballpark? Build it with your money.

"You mean, if somebody walks up to you and hands you money, you shouldn't take it?" asked Reinsdorf. "The fact is, I was offered this stadium by elected officials."

Bingo.

Reinsdorf got his stadium after James Thompson, then governor of Illinois, leaned on some legislators. When the park was built, the governor threw out the first ball. Thompson and Reinsdorf are friends from law school. Cozy.

It's Robin Hood in reverse. Politicians take money from taxpayers and give it to people like Reinsdorf and George W. Bush. (Years ago, Bush, along with his fellow owners of the Texas Rangers, got taxpayers to build the team a stadium.)

I confronted Governor Thompson: Wasn't he just taking money taxpayers were forced to give the government and giving it to a rich friend?

"It wasn't our tax money," he said. "I mean, the whole baseball field is built on the hotel/motel tax. Chicagoans don't pay hotel/motel tax. Guys from New York like you pay hotel/motel taxes. What a great deal."

Not for the out-of-towners, it isn't -- and not for the Chicago businesses where they might have spent the money. Thompson's reasoning is as muddled as the fallacy in economist Frederic Bastiat's story of the broken window:

In a small town, an idiot breaks a shop window. He's called a vandal, until someone points out that a window installer now must be paid to replace the window. The window installer then will have enough money to buy a new suit. A tailor will then be able to buy a new desk. And so on. The whole town apparently gains from the economic activity generated by the broken window. Of course, if this made sense, cities should hire people to run though town, breaking windows.

But it doesn't make sense. It's a fallacy because the circulating money is seen; what is not seen is what would have been done with the money if the window were still whole. The shopkeeper, instead of paying the window installer, might have expanded his business, or bought a new suit or a new desk. The town is worse off because of a broken window.

Subsidizing stadiums is equally foolish.

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on Jul 20, 2005 1:05 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks for posting the Biz Journal article...

...wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

There are some pretty pertinent posts in here, all the way up until the predictable Reztips dreck about Oakland.

I used to LOVE the Coliseum before the Raiders moved back. I loved that it was a relic of the 60s cookie cutter era. I loved the view of the hills, the proximity of the bleachers to the field, the knowledge of the fans, the weather, and the overall laid-back attitude of everything there. And the cool iceplant.

The addition of the Westside Club, the elevation of the bleachers, and of course Mt. Davis screwed up the Coliseum considerably. And what's with the shape of the outfield wall? (Remember the first season after Mt. Davis was built, they tried to market the new wall by calling it the "Jagged Edge"?)

All this doesn't keep me from going to the Coliseum. But the current and previous ownerships do have a point about needing a new stadium to attract revenue. So here are my ideas for an awesome stadium.

Smaller is good. I like the idea of a 35000 seat venue. This is a small market team with a pretty intimate fan base. Build the stadium to them.
Speaking as a guy who's worked in advertsing for 20 years, please don't sell every square inch of the place to corporations. Or every little event (FusionStorm has "owned" Dot Racing for years. Does anyone even know what a FusionStorm is?) When you're in SBC park, it's a veritable advertising assault on the senses. You can sell ad space and still be tasteful. It's a fine line, since advertising wants to be intrusive (that's actually a word we use in the agency world). But don't oversaturate.
For that matter, lose Dot Racing, or bring back its low-tech charm. It used to be goofy fun before it got all slick and 3D.
Important things to take to the new stadium from the Coliseum: Roy Steele (never, NEVER another Ranel in baseball, please!), Saags, the Black Muslim Bakery (sometimes a guy just has to have a fish sandwich), manual out-of-town scoreboards, and the weather (don't put it in a fog corridor). OH, and bring Everett & Jones back into the fold. Don't yuppify the food selection. Let Gordon Biersch go back to SBC where it belongs.
The new park, especially if it's small, should be about baseball. One of the most annoying aspects of SBC is the enormous amount of things to do outside of the game. Please, no "wi-fi hotspot" (make me barf!), childrens' playgrounds, cable cars in right field, or an ugly giant glove in left. What's that thing for, anyway?
How about a real organist? And enough with the big sound systems blaring Ozzy, or Rush, or whatever. I mean play 'em, sure, but I sat in 233 on Sunday and had to yell to talk to the guy next to me between innings.

Man, I got more ideas too, some of them insanely expensive and unrealistic (have you ever seen the beautiful tilework on some of the buildings in Oakland?), some of them mundane and kinda gross (troughs in the mens room are faster than urinals), but I think it's important that we let Lew know what we would like in a new stadium. Maybe some ideas will stick.

Strange, but I feel kind of like an Oakland Lazlo Toth now.

Keep 'em in Oakland.

O

Really, deep down in your heart, don't you think it's time to get rid of Stomper?

by 66th Hegenberger on Jul 20, 2005 5:02 PM PDT reply actions

"have you ever seen the beautiful tilework...

on some of the buildings in Oakland?"

Sure have. Did you see my post above suggesting a Deco style park w/ tile murals at the entrances? I think a stadium reflecting Oakland's character and history would be much better than a cookie cutter retro park. The new brick retro parks were great at first, but they're getting to be ubiquitous. Oakland would be better off being herself, rather than joining in at the tail end of the latest fad in stadium design.

The Oakland stadium design team needs to come take a look at the:
Paramount Theatre

I. Magnin

Breuner's

and the Floral Depot

among other Oakland treasures to start their creative wheels turning.