2g. Subject to the Authority reaching a mutually agreeable agreement with the Oakland Athletics, the Raiders may sell and retain all revenues from specified fixed advertising inventory in the Stadium on a year-round basis. The parties acknowledge that the Authority has made a good faith representation that the Athletics are agreeable to such an arrangement and the Authority will use its best efforts to finalize such an agreement with the Athletics. Additionally, Raiders shall be permitted to sell and retain all revenues from temporary advertising (banners) during football games provided that sponsors do not conflict with current Athletics exclusivity arrangements. The Raiders do not share any advertising revenue received by the EBEs.In short, the A's won't be receiving revenue from much of, if not most of, the advertising in the Coliseum. From the looks of things, the only revenue they'll get is from the baseball-specific signage: the rotating board behind the plate, tarp covers, dugouts, and the outfield fence. The Coliseum has no dazzling ribbon board on the plaza level facade, and the signage panels next to the scoreboard are smaller than those at other parks. Why would the A's agree to this deal? There are a few possibilities:
- The revenue the A's realized was fairly inconsequential, and to help the public entities out (and to curry favor with them as well for a future ballpark), they decided to forego the revenue.
- The A's want to be able to point to the limited advertising revenue as another one of the Coliseum's "deficiencies."
- Tha A's want to limit revenue, which could mean a lower payment into the revenue sharing structure and higher revenue sharing receipt.
- The A's were simply being magnanimous.
Update (11/3, 11:03 AM): A little historical context is in order. A three-year-old article from the East Bay Business Times covers a lawsuit brought by the Raiders (of course) against the A's for allegedly withholding advertising revenue. Though I haven't seen any news items related to the suit after it was filed, it appears that the A's giving the Raiders the ad money may settle the matter. The baseline revenue the A's had received was $3.9 million per year, with the Raiders and A's splitting money above that amount. It's definitely nothing to sneeze at, but it's also not enough for the A's to score a big-time righty slugger, either.
8 comments:
I know this is an A's Ballpark blog Marinelayer, but do you have any idea where the Raiders might go in 2011? I've heard Vegas being thrown around as a possible destination. How about the SAN JOSE RAIDERS?!
Raiders in San Jose? I'm guessing no. A new NFL stadium will cost upwards of $500 million. San Jose will have a hard enough time approving $60-100 million for an A's stadium, and no one in the Bay Area outside of the Raider Nation trusts Davis.
What Davis got out of yesterday's deal is an easy escape route to LA. If attendance picks up in Oakland he might just keep the team there, but the next 5 years should be considered an audition for Oakland to keep the team. If they don't get sellouts they'll just pick up and move. The issue for Davis is whether or not the NFL beats him to the punch by relocating the Saints there permanently, though that may not stop him either.
Wouldn't Davis need some political will in LA to move back there? What do you suppose the chances of that are after he ditched them before? The scene of Oakland politicos groveling at his feet to come back here is not likely to be repeated by their counterparts down south. In fact, I don't know if there's another place on earth that wants to deal with someone as slimey as Davis. He might just be stuck here. Lucky us...
Anonymous,
Along with the financial difficulties ML sites, San Jose has little interest acquiring an NFL franchise. Residents may, but the city as an entity and the region would benefit far more from MLB. The moves to attract the A's are just as much about steady downtown revenue generation as they are about baseball fans. I would argue, more, in fact.
The idea of blowing up Mt. Davis and then rebuilding the Coliseum is close to preposterous. $100 million isn't going to fix the "baseball-related deficiencies" in the place that Wolff is using as justification. The foul territory, the back-of-the-house improvements, separate concourses, accessibility - with the rise in construction costs, it'll cost almost as much as a new stadium. Wolff isn't going to wait around for a refurb with an image problem, not if he can get new somewhere else.
And Murf's right about San Jose's reasons for pursuing the A's. It's as much about having year-round sports-related business downtown as it is about having a home team.
Arizona (Glendale), St. Louis, and Jacksonville are not endangered NFL cities. All have newish or soon to be new stadiums.
I would add San Francisco to the list of potential cities courting with no team in the NFL. Frankly, San Francisco and Oakland are probably the two most endangered cities due to the lack of "adequate" stadiums or plans to create one that suits the NFL's needs.
I believe New Orleans will take one of two roads: 1. let the team go instead of replace/repair the Superdome.
2. Refurbish the Superdome to meet hte requirements of the NFL (Super Bowls are big business and the Big Easy has seen their share).
I see the NFL having franchises in either Portland, Sacramento, Las Vegas or Los Angeles in the forseeable future. Loof out SF, Oaktown, Minnesota and Indy.
Angels Stadium is a different story. The Big A was originally built as a baseball facility, so it already had baseball-friendly features like good sight lines and intimate seating. That can't be done easily at the Coliseum.
Then you've got the locker room situation. Ever been in the locker rooms there? They're anything but optimal, and gutting the stadium innards and renovating them to be up to par will be costly.
Then from a structural standpoint, imagine the new upper deck concourse behind sections 109 through 125 having to be extended all the way around the upper deck. Then further enclosing the old plaza level concourse so it functions as a club level with separate access. Oh yeah, and add a couple of escalators for "comfort."
Then what about having multiple sections of premium seats along the field level with a concourse there to boot? A separate concourse for suite holders? What about adding ADA-compliant accessible seats, of which there are woefully few in the main bowl? Don't forget the cost of eliminating a few sections of seats to create the ticket scarcity that Wolff wants. What about the cost of new scoreboards?
Even with all of that addressed, it doesn't resolve the foul territory issue. As much as many of us like Eric Chavez's mastery of the meadow behind third, the foul territory is not good for most fans in seats down the line. How exactly does that get rectified?
These are not trivial issues. BTW the Angels Stadium renovations, which were less complicated than what would be envisioned for the Coliseum, cost $118 million, not $50 million. With added construction costs and inflation, watch the costs soar. And it would STILL be considered inferior to China Basin.
You can scratch Jacksonville from the list too. The team and city came to an agreement that reduces the team's rent and settles the advertising control dispute.
Post a Comment