The future of financing + Holliday trade

Before I get into the credit scene, a word about the Holliday trade. Regardless of what the final outgoing pieces of the trade are, and regardless of how long Holliday stays (unless he's immediately traded), this move can be attributed to one factor: relevance. The A's, despite having been in the ALCS only two years ago, are in danger of becoming irrelevant on both the local and national sports scenes. Having traded away much of its young star core, something needed to be done to excite the fanbase and keep some level of buzz with the team until its next phase, which presumably would be Cisco Field. I don't doubt that the move is being made to make the team competitive - heck, when was the last time the A's had a really good, in-his-prime, righty slugger?

It's also nice to know that the team, according to Ken Rosenthal, might raise payroll considerably. The 2007 payroll was around $78 million, and this year's edition could reach $80 million. That's an indicator that even in the tough economic times, they could field a decent team, with $80 million as the ceiling if - and this is a big if - attendance is good. Of course, the glue that will hold a high-payroll A's team together is its performance. If they're 7+ games behind the Angels in mid-June, the fire sale will likely begin. Until then, we can remain optimistic. Unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again that a good record doesn't automatically correlate with great attendance for the A's. It might take bringing in a great player at the beginning of the season to jumpstart attendance, instead of the usual lag during the first couple of months before bigger crowds in the summer.

---

In Miami, where pols rammed through a stadium deal and waited out legal wrangling, the Marlins and Miami-Dade County have decided to delay seeking financing for the retractable roof ballpark until next spring. County officials have admitted that the delay is due to the credit crunch and market's inherent instability. In addition, several votes are slated to occur before the end of the year to approve an adjacent parking garage, among other ancillary issues.

Delaying the financing piece puts the Marlins in a bit of a crunch time-wise. Their final season at Dolphin Stadium is 2010, so they have to move into new digs by April 2011. If they get financing in the spring, they'll have less than 24 months to get the ballpark completed - and that includes the retractable roof. To date, no retractable roof ballpark has taken less than 28 months to complete. The Marlins are helped by the fact that the Orange Bowl, which previously sat on the site, has already been demolished, so the site is clear and ready to build. Yet they haven't even released renderings of the stadium, choosing instead to tease the public about the field's new dimensions. If they can get it done in time, more power to them.

Even big market teams are facing the credit crunch. The Yankees just received clearance from the IRS to seek up to $336 million in tax-free bonds. Bruce Ratner's Nets will benefit from the same loophole if they ever get the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project off the ground. In the past, tax-free bonds were simply a good way to save money for teams. But for the Yanks , who are in the middle of construction and actually need the funds to complete, government sources are effectively the only source as banks have been stuffing their mattresses.

Jerry Jones' new Taj Mahal of a football stadium may be the bellwether for the industry, according to Sports Business Journal. The Cowboys are looking to get $350 million in new bonds to complete their successor to Texas Stadium, and they want it by December 1. The NFL decided to bankroll themselves to the tune of a $1.4 billion loan, though this may be more related to possible labor strife in 2011. Perhaps only the NFL, with its unified revenue structure, has the ability to insulate themselves in this fashion.

Considering all of the turmoil we've heard about lately, it's not altogether a bad thing that the A's have pushed back their opening date to 2012. They won't have to get financing until spring 2010. That 18 months might be just what the market needs to correct back to real stability.

Measure B intrigue

I've been checking on Santa Clara County's Measure B (BART-to-Silicon Valley) since Election Night, and it has been inching closer to the magic two-thirds mark with each update. The Merc's Mr. Roadshow (Gary Richards) reported yesterday that some 164,000 absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted, a vast number that could certainly prove to be a game changer.

As of today at 4:19 p.m., these are the results:

Santa Clara County Measure B (Two-thirds majority required to pass, 1142 of 1142 precincts reporting)
Yes - 345132, 66.41%
No - 174528, 33.59%

That's a bit higher than last night's tally:

Yes - 305729, 66.27%
No - 155582, 33.73%

That leaves roughly another 100,000 votes to be counted. So far, the additional voters have been coming in at a 67.53% Yes/32.47% No clip. I'll put my Nate Silver hat on and project the remaining 100,000 votes, based on the new distribution:

Yes - 412662, 66.59%
No - 206998, 33.41%

Oh, missed it by that much. Assuming that there are 100,000 votes outstanding, Measure B will require a 68% Yes/32% No clip for it to pass. That would put the results as:

Yes - 413132, 66.67%
No - 206528, 33.33%

The difference between passing and EPIC FAIL would be 470 votes. Who said a single vote didn't count for much?

Fremont: Wasserman, Wieckowski re-elected

12:06 a.m.: Three issues potentially have some effect on the A's future in the Bay Area. They are the Fremont mayoral and city council races, as well as Santa Clara County's Measure B, which would finance operating costs for the county's BART extension.

1:24 a.m.: Mayor Wasserman is keeping his job, along with Councilman Wieckowski. There is no runoff in Fremont elections, so the candidate(s) with respective plurality win their seats. That makes the second council member Suzanne Chan, who will replace the outgoing Steve Cho (who placed second in the mayoral race).

• Fremont Mayor (96 of 96 precincts reporting)
  Robert "Bob" Wasserman - 20406 votes, 42.67%
  Steve Cho - 15429, 32.26%
  Gus Morrison - 9875, 20.65%
  Paul Reeder - 1953, 4.08%
  Write-in - 165, 0.34%
• Fremont City Council (2 seats, 96 of 96 precincts reporting)
  Bob Wieckowski - 22223, 27.47%
  Suzanne Chan - 16709, 20.81%
  Vinnie Bacon - 12735, 15.86%
  Trisha Tahmasbi - 11773, 14.66%
  Larry Montgomery - 3922, 4.88%
  Hou Leong - 3873, 4.82%
  Linda Susoev - 2934, 3.65%
  Charles Bartlett - 2256, 2.81%
  Alan Stirling - 1815, 2.26%
  Fazlur Khan - 1813, 2.26%
  Write-in - 248, 0.31%
• Santa Clara County Measure B (Two-thirds majority required to pass, 1142 of 1142 precincts reporting)
  Yes - 305729, 66.27%
  No - 155582, 33.73%

The Measure B tally went deep into the wee hours and based on the numbers has fallen short by about 5000 votes so far. Absentee and provisional ballots are still being counted. If the count holds up, BART proponents would once again have to go back to the drawing board to figure out the length of the extension and its construction schedule. The tax was necessary in order for the extension to be eligible to receive federal matching funds. It's possible that the extension would have to be pulled back, perhaps stopping at Berryessa instead of downtown San Jose.

Incredibly, the results paint a rather favorable picture for the A's and their hopes to get the baseball village built. Several potential obstacles in Fremont have been removed. Incumbent mayor Wasserman, who has been the staunchest public proponent of the project, will stick around to see it through the EIR process at the very least. Wieckowski, also a supporter, will be there as well. They'll be joined by Chan, who is also a project supporter. Neither of the project's biggest critics, former mayor Gus Morrison and Sierra Club chapter leader Vinnie Bacon, placed higher than third in their races.

Is it smooth sailing from here on out? Not quite. Wasserman may have violated election laws in recuiting students from local high schools to campaign on his behalf. The fallout from that is unknown. The EIR still has to pass muster. The council has lobbied hard for concessions and so far the city and the A's have been able to find common ground. There remain issues to work out with private parties such as nearby businesses and landowners, but those are very doable. The upshot from tonight is that there won't be obstructionists making the decisions. That's not to say that the council are yes-men - far from it, in fact. Instead, the governing body should be of an open-minded view to make a deal that works for Fremont's residents, not one that derails it in service of a narrow agenda.

A's leaving KICU?

Towards the end of Susan Slusser's Chronicle article about the A's hiring Mike Gallego as third base coach is a blurb about the A's opting out of their current deal with KICU. This appears to be another step towards the rumored deal with Comcast SportsNet California (formerly CSN West). KICU had been broadcasting A's game for over a decade, and while the team is leaving the door open to returning to KICU, the writing's on the wall.

In 2008, 45 games were on the KICU part of the schedule, supplemented by 66 on CSNBA. All signs point to an exclusive deal with CSNCA, which will hopefully lead to at least 140 games, perhaps 150. No, that's not the complete schedule, but it creates allowances for national broadcasts (Fox, ESPN, TBS, and the fledgling MLB Network). Depending on how the CSNCA deal is done, the A's may have more control over advertising revenue.

The unspoken rationale for such a move is the digital TV transition, which is scheduled to occur next February 17. As it stands, only 6% of the Bay Area audience watches analog TV only via an antenna. The rest watch primarily through cable, satellite, or broadband connections. That 6% is almost guaranteed to drop once the digital switch occurs. The FCC's traveling band of commissioners visited Oakland last month to educate and survey area residents. The live demo didn't exactly go smoothly.

Many over-the-air viewers will get fewer channels due to their locations, which brings up two issues. The Bay Area is pretty well spread out thanks to some big body of water in the middle, and here OTA transmissions start to peter out after a few dozen miles. That means if you're in San Jose and want to watch a digital World Series broadcast from KTVU, you'll have trouble unless you use a well-powered outdoor antenna that is properly aimed at San Francisco. Ironically, some residents in the various valley neighborhoods of SF have complained of not being able to get OTA digital reception even though they geographically in the transmitter's backyard.

KICU, which has long been a San Jose-based station, moved their transmitter a few years back from Loma Prieta to Monument Peak near the Milpitas-Fremont border. It's not a terrible location, but there have been complaints from North Bay A's fans about the signal. Moreover, the A's and KICU chose not to do HD broadcasts due to cost. That won't be such an issue on a regional sports network. With uncertainty about OTA digital coverage on the horizon, it's not hard to see why the A's might look at something more predictable.

The flipside of a change to CSNCA is CSNCA's own carriage. CSNBA has a long legacy of being carried on local cable systems, going back to its days as Fox Sports Net Bay Area and previously SportsChannel Bay Area. That, and the broadcasts of both baseball teams, Warriors, Sharks, and Pac-10 sports, made carriage of CSNBA throughout Northern California/Nevada and Southern Oregon a no-brainer. On the other hand, CSNCA is a relative newcomer. CSNCA only has the Kings right now, and they're blacked out in the Bay Area. CSNCA has struggled to get carried on non-Comcast cable systems throughout Northern California. While inking the A's would make CSNCA a more compelling channel, having the A's would also boost the channel's subscriber fee, especially if the channel were on basic cable as the A's are requesting.

Follow-up: ars technica has an article this week citing a survey by ABI Research. According to the survey, 20% of antenna-only viewers will cease to watch TV altogether. Additionally:

70 percent of the surveyed TV watchers plan to hook a digital converter box up to their over the air antennas, while another 10 percent plan to switch over to cable or satellite pay-TV. According to analyst Steve Wilson, though, the rest of the current over the air households will simply stop watching traditional television altogether.

That translates to only 3% of American viewers that will stop watching TV come February. That's not a bad percentage considering the kind of upheaval the transition is being hyped to be.

EIR Process - A Preview

The baseball village is not the only development happening in Fremont. Almost 5 miles south on 880, at the county line, is a planned big box/retail center called Creekside Landing. While the merits of having yet another set of big box stores on this stretch of freeway is debatable, Fremont is certainly interested in the sales tax revenue.

Should the shopping center have its EIR approved, grand opening would occur in Fall 2010. The concession the developer is expected to give is an extension of Fremont Boulevard, from where it dead-ends at a flood control channel just north of the property, to Dixon Landing Road. The road there already runs south from Dixon Landing through Milpitas' McCarthy Ranch development and into San Jose, right by a series of Sandisk and Cisco buildings. When completed, it's likely that the completed western approach would be part of an alternate route to Pacific Commons and the baseball village.

In keeping with the rollout plans, a draft EIR is on file for Creekside Landing at the City of Fremont's Environmental Documents website. As is often the case, this large EIR has been split into some 25 documents. The first several PDFs cover the background on the development. That's followed by sections on air quality, aesthetics, geology, water quality, transportation, and land use, just to name a few. The executive summary covers all of the various environmental impacts in brief.

An EIR is meant to look both forward and backward, but it does this in a fairly narrow manner. For instance, the transportation study focuses mostly on traffic effects at 31 intersections within approximately 5 miles of the project site. Within the 82 pages of the transportation section, only one page covers public transportation, and it only describes existing service in the vicinity, not future planned service. No assumptions are made on future service availability. That will not be the case with the baseball village EIR, since the A's are making the claim that a similar percentage of fans (15-20%) will not drive to Cisco Field as they are traveling to the Coliseum. Still, the uncertainty of future transit planning makes it difficult to gauge impact, so it's likely that a worst-case scenario will be discussed at length. Interestingly, the Creekside Landing EIR does not factor in other developments' impacts, such as the baseball village. The village's EIR, coming right on the heels of this EIR, probably will have the same treatment. This is despite the likelihood that both developments operating simultaneously will have measurable impacts on the area, on each other, or they will compound each other's effects. Keep this in mind as the election season ends and we enter the EIR phase.

MLB TV ratings drop, A's stay steady

Sports Business Journal reported earlier in the week that MLB's ratings slipped compared to last year. The hit was taken for both national and local broadcasts. Some of this can be attributed to the Yankees' on-field performance. Typically, they're a massive ratings grabber that pulls the league's weight, but as it became clear they wouldn't surpass either the upstart Rays or the World Champ Red Sox, ratings plummeted. Surprisingly, the Red Sox had an even bigger percentage drop than the Yankees despite their success (are Red Sox fans getting spoiled?).

A look into all of the local ratings for 2008 (courtesy Sports Business Journal) shows some interesting market characteristics.

Here in the Bay Area the Giants took a big dump, as was expected with their first post-Bonds lineup. The A's, who came off a disappointing 2007 season and went into full rebuilding mode, didn't show a significant ratings drop and generally held onto their audience. That's good news, as it indicates there may be a baseline from which the A's TV audience can be built - especially on a different network that features them more prominently.

The table also shows which markets are "baseball towns" as opposed to "football towns." Midwestern markets with the exception of the two Ohio teams and Kansas City pulled in ratings of 6 or 7. Three of the four AL West teams don't do great within their own markets, whereas Seattle holds up fairly well. And the combined Washington-Baltimore market is absolutely pitiful. MLB and the O's have to be looking long term with MASN, because they're severely overpaying the Nats for TV rights.

Going back to the baseline, the A's respective numbers (1.7 rating/42,000 households) set a bar that other cities would have to significantly clear in order to attract the A's. Let's see how these numbers hold up against three would-be out-of-state candidates. First, a comparison of the Bay Area to the three candidates in terms of Nielsen market size:

• Bay Area (#6 in nation): 2,476,450 households
  
• Sacramento (#20): 1,399,520
• Portland (#23): 1,175,100
• Las Vegas (#42): 728,410

That puts the Bay Area as 77% larger than Sacramento, over twice as large as Portland, and over three times the size of Vegas. So for those three to match the A's rather lackluster ratings in the Bay Area (each rating point here equals 24,400 households), they'd have to hit the following local numbers:

• Sacramento: 3.0
• Portland: 3.6
• Las Vegas: 5.8

Sacramento's target would be the easiest of the three to reach, but their lack of corporate dollars and their own difficult economic status would drive the ratings requirement higher. The Northern California/Nevada television region, which is shared by the Giants and A's, would also likely be redrawn to divide it between the Bay Area, Central and North Coast (Giants) and the Central Valley (A's). The net result would diminish the market size for both teams. Portland isn't as hard hit economically as Sacramento, but their bar isn't exactly low as they'd have to approach a 4 to make it worthwhile, a number that would make it second to Seattle among West Coast teams. As for Vegas, fuhgetaboutit.

This is a good sign for the A's as we await an announcement about their television future. I don't expect the A's to surpass the Giants anytime soon. The Giants are sinking back to earth after repeatedly doubling the A's ratings in their Bonds period. If the A's ratings can consistently stay above 2 (or roughly 50,000 households), they'll be in pretty good shape for the foreseeable future, even with the economic crisis we are currently muddling through.

The post-Fremont strategy

Georob writes:

As awful as this sounds, this may be a good time to revisit the subject of contraction and why it could or could not happen.

I know you and others have stood by the theory that the only reason it was brought up last time was as a premptive threat leading up to renewing the players association contract.

People forget though that at time we were still getting over the high tech bust as well as 9/11; and that the economic future looked very shaky.

So as the dow tanks yet again this morning, I ask the question: What about now? If the Fremont project is put on hold for an extended period, the A's won't stay in Oakland beyond 2012, and it makes no sense to move out of the Bay Area, what's left to do?

Perhaps this is where San Jose finally comes into play, but I'm sorry Tony; the Giants will still want to be compensated for it. And in this economic climate, who's gonna come up with the money to do it?

Sorry, but we need to discuss contraction.

Let's separate this into the two core issues. First, is contraction possible or likely? Second, what is the A's next move should the Fremont plan fail?

Contraction
I've maintained a pretty consistent stance regarding contraction over the years. The current economic downturn won't change that. Over the last decade, the commissioner has timed talk of contraction to gain concessions - either from cities deciding whether or not to publicly finance ballparks, or from the players union during CBA negotiations. Of all MLB teams, only three remain in outdated or suboptimal facilities: Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Florida. Florida had the bulk of their legal obstacles removed in their quest for a ballpark at the Orange Bowl site, so they can be removed. Tampa Bay ownership's waterfront ballpark plan was shelved in June, and though they may want to take advantage of the team's success to piggyback a new deal, a fast-track situation such as the proposed plan isn't likely. That leaves the A's, and we know what that situation is.

In retail or the service industry, talk about closing locations comes up because they underperform as individual entities. That doesn't really apply here thanks to revenue sharing and the fact that teams rarely if ever lose money. MLB made $5 billion last year. I don't think they're struggling in the least.

Contraction doesn't work with a single team. Two would be required, thanks to MLB's constant, serial scheduling format. Realignment would also happen, bringing two NL teams into the AL (Colorado/Arizona and one Central/East team), a prospect either target team's owner would surely fight hard. Then there's the issue of buying out both teams. Team valuations aren't likely to drop much if at all, compared to the stock market and real estate. Why? Because the valuations are based on long-term deals such as stadium and suite leases, naming rights and sponsorship agreements, broadcasting deals, and of course, fans attending games. These factors tend to be locked in for years at a time, and while fans tend to be transient for the lower revenue teams, those teams aren't going to become insolvent just because they lose a half-million fans from one year to the next. Let's say that despite these issues, MLB decides to contract anyway. The combined price for the two teams will approach $700 million, because they couldn't be contracted until after the current CBA expires after the 2011 season. That translates to $28 million per team. Perhaps new Giants managing partner Bill Neukom might be interested in paying $28 million to get rid of the A's, but would any other owner? I doubt it. Even if you drop the Rays and A's from the current revenue structure, other teams' shares and net payout/receipts don't budge more than $1 million (assuming the basic terms of the CBA are carried over), creating little financial incentive to perform the contractions. And would MLB be able to make up for the loss of revenue in affected parts of the country? That's hard to say. The Giants certainly won't change from being a $200 million revenue team to a $300+ million revenue team due to the factors described previously.

It's for these reasons that I can't see contraction happening anytime in the next decade.

Move, or contract and expand
The simpler prospect would be to move either or both franchises. Coincidentally, Forbes published a new article two days ago titled, "The 10 Sports Franchises Most Likely to Move." Surprisingly, the A's aren't on the list. The article appears to be a bit behind in its assessments of teams, especially the Marlins' situation. That said, the list isn't surprising at all - other than the prospect of the Phoenix Coyotes possibly moving back to their original home, Winnipeg (Go Jets!). Moving a team is now a competitive situation. As alluring as Las Vegas once was, it has suffered significantly from the real estate crisis and probably can't support more than one major league team. No one there is talking MLB, preferring to focus on either the NBA or NHL (hockey is more likely). An arena is planned for east of the strip, the principals being sports giant AEG and a consortium including financiers and blockbuster movie producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Other cities such as Portland and San Antonio may not be in financial dire straits, but the current credit market makes even publicly financed venues much more difficult than they were a decade ago. Sacramento is as bad off as Las Vegas, and there's already one team there struggling to get a new venue.

I suppose there is a chance of MLB doing the same sort of "sale" that was done with the Expos when they were moved to DC. MLB and the owners effectively contracted the team, then expanded anew, extracting a franchise fee from new owner Ted Lerner. It's a akin to a publicly traded company initiating a stock buyback program, then issuing new stock down the road. That was made more complicated due to the "musical chairs" method of shifting ownership groups among teams, and that's one among several reasons why I don't think MLB could pull it off again. Despite the fact that the move process IMHO was rigged in favor of DC, all sorts of machinations had to take place for it to occur. There's no large market out there that would elicit such large offers should either the A's or Rays be contracted and moved like the Expos. Having both available would drive down their potential post-contraction sales prices since they would be competing with each other for the same bidding pool of prospective owners. If the remaining MLB team owners' primary motivation is to make money from the purchase and sale of one or more teams, there's no guarantee of it now or in the immediate future.

Stay put
Wolff angered many Oakland partisans by claiming on multiple occasions that the A's won't stay in Oakland. Still, I wouldn't put it past them to stay, especially if the economic mess remains for years to come. The reckoning will come in 2011, when the Raiders have to decide what to do next. It won't be possible to house both in different stadiums within the Coliseum site due to the expense and upheaval required. Oakland and the Coliseum Authority will have to choose who to deal with. Take away your green-and-gold colored glasses, and it's hard to say which team they should choose. Should the A's have difficulty getting a stadium deal done outside of Oakland, they can continue their lease through 2013, stifling the Raiders' ability to transform the Coliseum - if that's what they want to do in the first place. The political and economic realities of getting something done in Oakland remain, though it's possible that the next mayor may be more sports-friendly.

San Jose
That leaves the elephant-in-the-room option, the South Bay. I've said for a while that if Fremont falls through, the A's will look there before they look anywhere else, including out-of-state. That's where the A's biggest corporate support will come from, that's where Lew Wolff has such deep roots in the community. San Jose has the certified EIR, transit links, the land for the ballpark, and available adjacent land to be developed for other purposes.

However, there's a question of how a ballpark would be financed. A lifestyle center shopping village couldn't be built there. Housing could but it would be of limited height. Lastly, there's the issue of territorial rights. There's no reason to believe Neukom won't be as recalcitrant as Peter Magowan.

Look at it from a different perspective. Which option, of the ones I've described, sounds easiest? Contracting teams is incredibly expensive and doesn't show any tangible financial benefit for the remaining teams. Moving, or contracting and expanding, is a difficult proposition for the governing parties and also doesn't move the needle appreciably. Staying put is still at best an interim step until the permanent move is made, wherever that is. Territorial rights negotiations may be the least difficult proposition because of its fundamentals: it's done only within the confines of MLB, doesn't require changes to the basic tenets of t-rights, precludes an owner from suing, doesn't require another team such as the Rays to accomplish, and has real prospects for better revenues coming from the A's. I continue to think that much of this still goes back to Selig, who wants to cement his legacy by having new or renovated venues and unprecedented "prosperity" in place for all 30 teams before he leaves office. Should Fremont fail, one of these options appears to be far easier to accomplish than the rest.

Fremont election coverage

This week's East Bay Express has an article on the three (four?) -man race for Fremont mayor, and how it maps out in terms of the baseball village issue. The piece was penned by Robert Gammon, who also co-wrote the excellent "How we got to this point" article from two years ago. This comes on the heels of Wes Bowers' coverage (Fremont Bulletin) of a candidate forum from two weeks ago.

During the initial discussions about the plan, both Mayor Bob Wasserman and Councilman Steve Cho painted themselves as supportive of it, though Cho distinguished himself in remarking that a public vote would be a proper thing to do. He also said at the time that he felt that voters would support the plan. Wasserman and the other council members did not support a referendum, declaring that they didn't support ballot box planning.

The third mayoral candidate is former Mayor Gus Morrison, who was termed out prior to Wasserman assuming the reins. Morrison has been to date the most vocal critic of the plan, even after a one-on-one with Lew Wolff.

Morrison's interest anti-growth stance has been well documented in Fremont. There's an interesting wrinkle to it, captured in this quote:

"Originally downtown was supposed to be equidistant between 880 and 238. We had a plan for a life center when I left office the only life center between Oakland and Santana Row and it sort of died after I left," he said. "Now the A's want to come along and build a project with a life center the only one between Oakland and Santana Row and we can't have two. There seems to be a conflict."

So is the issue so much about the development in general, or where the development is located? There's no chance of the A's looking to downtown Fremont even though it has BART, because the area is 2 miles of traffic lights away from either 880 or 680. Are there business interests who'd prefer to push such a development downtown? Is that realistic?

He's not alone in his disapproval. Local Sierra Club chapter leader, Vinnie Bacon, is running for city council. Bacon has also been against the project from the beginning. Two city council spots are up for election, and those could also have a huge effect on the plan's status. Cho's term is up at the end of the year, as is Councilman Bob Wieckowski, a noted plan supporter.

A look at the LWV roster of candidates for the two council seats shows a laundry list of interests: public safety, budget/revenue matters, growth, business development. Another council candidate, Alan Stirling, is obviously anti-stadium when he said this:

"Not one sports stadium in the history of this country has been built without public money," he said. "You have to look at your money when looking at this process. (Teams) have walked away from deals when public money wasn't offered."

I can name a stadium that was built without public money: Stanford Stadium. And it was built in record time, by a developer who knew what he wanted, and partnered with public and private entities to get it done. The quote above smacks of vague generalism, and isn't reflective of the current political/economic environment in California, and to a finer point, the Bay Area.

I can't say I know much about any of the other candidates. Planning commissioner Suzanne Chan and Larry Montgomery are supporters of the plan. Curiously, Montgomery supports building a convention center adjacent to the baseball village. As a San Jose resident, I'm an outsider to the process and have my own home issues to worry about (BART to San Jose).

The desirable outcome for plan supporters would be to have incumbents Wasserman and Wieckowski to keep their seats and leave the final seat up for grabs. Even if Bacon were to get the final seat, that would leave the Mayor and four out of five councilmembers as supporters of the plan. The nightmare scenario for the Wolffs would have Morrison winning and Bacon displacing Wieckowski.

CSN West name change

While looking through my Comcast onscreen program guide this weekend, I noticed a channel name change. Digital channel 400, which was previously abbreviated CSNW (Comcast SportsNet West), is now CSNCA. As you might guess, that CA stands for California, making the new name Comcast SportsNet California.

Curious about this, I immediately hit the CSN home page to see what happened. The CSN West page is still up, but it has been updated with a new logo to reflect the name change. All of the corporate scrubbing will assuredly follow suit soon.

There's nothing in the press releases section or anywhere else about the name change. The Wikipedia entry for CSN shows that the reference to the name change was edited on Friday.

Was the change precipitated by the A's possible TV deal with CSN? Perhaps, but I'm guessing "No" because I don't see any conceivable difference in brand recognition between CSN West and CSN California. Instead, it may be that the launch of Comcast SportsNet Northwest in the Seattle area prompted the change, in order to avoid confusion. CSNNW had already been operating in Portland for some time, so there's a hole in that theory there. Whatever the case, I'll try to find out later today. Interestingly, CSNNW is not carried by either DirecTV or Dish. According to this press release, some Sharks games will be carried by CSNNW.

This isn't major news. Still, look for a November press release announcing the deal between CSNCA and the A's.

Tarps and wires and catwalks, oh my

You may notice that, on some of the wide shots of Tropicana Field during the Rays-Pale Hose series, there are tarps on the uppermost seats along the first and third base lines. This is despite the fact that this is the Rays' first ever postseason adventure. Local opinion has largely been for removing the tarps, which would add 6,000 seats to the Trop's current 36,048. The team's position on the matter is that should they reach the World Series, then and only then would the tarps be removed to expose the nosebleeds.

State to allocate $239 million for BART-to-SJ extension

Gary Richards, a.k.a. Mr. Roadshow, reports that the California Transportation Commission is expected to approve $239 million in additional state funding for the Silicon Valley BART extension. In the process, $91 million is being moved from the Dumbarton Rail project to the BART extension.

The last bit of funding completes the state responsibility. It's now up to Santa Clara County voters to approve Measure B, which is meant to cover operations costs of the extension (it does not claim to guarantee covering those costs). Should the measure pass, the matter would go to the Federal Railroad Administration, which would have to authorize matching funds to pay for $750 million in construction costs. Previously, the FRA didn't support the project in part because of the lack of a method to cover operations costs. The FRA's 2004 decision forced VTA and BART extension supporters to go back to the drawing board in hopes of getting the line built.

Richards ends the article with this appraisal:

But the 2000 measure centered on BART won with a 71 percent approval, by far the biggest margin of victory of five transportation taxes that have gone before voters since 1976. And this week's money boost gives BART backers a head of steam heading into the election.

"Big projects need momentum," said Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesman Randy Rentschler. "And BART is picking up big momentum."

From a regional transit perspective, losing funding for the Dumbarton Rail project hurts. I sense that priorities shifted a bit when the High Speed Rail commission chose the Pacheco alignment over Altamont, which would likely have required a revamped or all new Dumbarton rail bridge to cross the bay.

November 4th is shaping up to be the biggest election day in a generation.

Memorial Stadium retrofit solution

Carolyn Jones, who has recently covered the A's stadium beat, has her sights set slightly north in her new article. This time the stadium in question is Cal's Memorial Stadium, which as longtime Bay Area residents know, sits smack-dab on top of the Hayward Fault.

Lost in all the hubbub about the new, adjacent athletic training center and the oak grove that it is displacing, is the sobering fact that the old stadium was in poor shape in the event of The Big One. For the Bears to continue playing there into the distant future, a retrofit is needed.

Thankfully, it appears that a group of seismic engineers has figured out a way to do it for about the cost of Mt. Davis (not adjusting for inflation). Here's the description of the major part of the solution:

At Memorial Stadium, the sections directly on top of the fault will be cut into three large free-floating blocks. The blocks will be separated from the surrounding structure by five feet of open space, which will give the blocks room to wobble and twist - but not topple - in the event of an earthquake.

Normally stadia have simple expansion joints in decks and walls to handle various types of jostling. This takes that idea to the extreme. By cutting gaps in the two fault-affected stadium sections and splitting each one into three independent pieces, the edifice is being split into two "halves" with what could be considered free-floating end sections sitting on plastic. The free-floating ends could slide around when an earthquake hits, while the two halves would move in accordance with their respective plates.

$150 million won't just pay for a few saws and plastic sheeting. There's a regular retrofit too along the western side:

The western half of the stadium will undergo a standard retrofit, with bracing, sheer walls and an extra layer of concrete coating the interior. The concrete will have breaks at either end over the fault, so if the stadium cracks it will crack in a designated and relatively clean way.

This is important because unlike the eastern side and the old Stanford Stadium, this side is not built into a hill. It's old, decaying reinforced concrete with access tunnels and vomitories.

I for one am glad to hear about this simple, sensible plan. At a time when numerous Division I-A/Bowl Subdivision teams are building bigger and more expensive expansions onto their existing stadia, it's nice to see that UC is working to preserve the current experience while fulfilling a great need in seismic safety.

Now the remaining question is: Will Jeff Tedford still be there when the retrofit is done?

A little advice to Lew: Change the tone

The Rusty Simmons-penned article about Lew Wolff's Q&A session with the A's booster club and Ray Ratto's follow-up brought me back to the old adage: If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. That brings up the following exchange:

Q: What will transit options be in Fremont?

A: Instead of just saying, 'If you don't have a BART station, you can't survive,' we're trying to figure out if we can. If we can, we will. If we can't, we won't. Of course, then we wouldn't be in California any more.

The media and fans have been focused on that last, cringeworthy sentence. It hides a fundamental problem in his response. Assuming that the mayoral race and EIR come through, he's going to build it without an adjacent BART station. It's not a matter of someone telling him the team won't survive without it. There's no way to determine that until the ballpark is built and operational. BART's importance ranks behind the development plan and financing, corporate sponsorships, and ongoing patronage from the existing fanbase, which overwhelming comes by car, not BART.

It really comes down to a few facts about the situation. First, there's nothing that can be done until election day with the mayoral election, which I suspect sticks in Lew's craw more than he's outwardly indicating. Then there's the EIR, which won't happen until late November or December. There's little else to discuss, whether it's a move out-of-state or to San Jose, since massive obstacles confront both possibilities.(FWIW, I haven't seen many yard signs advertising mayoral candidates in Fremont.)

As long as the waiting game continues to be played, he might as well have a more open, ongoing dialogue with the existing fanbase. Explain why the move needs to happen - and yes, that means being truthful about the Silicon Valley overtures. Talk about how the team will make every effort not to abandon the loyal hardcore fan, and then follow that up with action. As alluring as the South Bay is, the South Bay is not enough all by itself. Just as the East Bay isn't enough by itself.

Wolff's been making great strides building good PR in Fremont, but I sense that not enough care and feeding has happened elsewhere. It's akin to the current presidential campaigns, whose efforts are almost entirely focused on a handful of "battleground" states, but not to states where the base is expected to turn out en masse.

Perhaps the most important issue is for Wolff to keep his foot out of his mouth. A couple more comments like that and he'll venture into Jeff Loria territory, and that is truly poisonous for all. Well, maybe not for columnists like Ratto, for whom controversy is their stock and trade.

Goodbye, McAfee

Say it with me now: Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.

Feel better? You might knowing that the stadium whose original name, above, was changed to Network Associates Coliseum and then McAfee Coliseum, is reverting back to the original after McAfee's naming rights contract ended yesterday. And to think that I unknowingly attended that final game. I didn't even get a souvenir!

While the naming rights, at $1.3 million per year, were a pittance compared to newer facilities, that money couldn't have hurt with the bottom line, especially considering the outstanding debt on the facility. I was told once years ago that had the A's moved out, McAfee had early termination rights. McAfee's shares have grown fairly steadily since the dot-com bust, but their disinterest in renewing the deal says a ton about how ineffective it was for their marketing efforts. It'll be interesting to see what happens with future broadcasts and the mention of the stadium's name. Will those bright red "McAfee" logos on the backs of the scoreboards be repainted soon or after the football season is over?

As for a naming rights successor - I wouldn't count on it.

Block these dates out: June 12-24

I've had the pleasure of going on several ballpark sojourns in my day. It started during college breaks, as it has for many. When you're a broke college student on the west coast, you can only get so far even if you're camping and gas is cheap (circa 1996). The adventures extended well into post-education life. I even have a pretty good routine down for scheduling business trips to coincide with sporting events of different types.

In these troubling financial times, it might be easy to be dissuaded from taking such a ballpark trip in the near future. It is, after all, the era of the staycation. However, next year there will be a unique period in which California fans will have an opportunity to take in a veritable cornucopia of baseball experiences - all practically within the state of California. We can thank MLB's schedulers, who have released next year's schedule in time to start planning.

Next year's interleague schedule has the AL West facing their counterparts in the NL West once again. During the second period of interleague play in mid-June, all five California teams will play each other in a sort of unintentional round robin. It's the scheduling equivalent of a total eclipse. From June 12 through June 24, the schedule looks like this within California:

From this an A's fan could fashion a pretty nice road trip focused entirely on A's road games. It could get more interesting by throwing in one of the Freeway Series games. If you wanted to make it really cool (and you had the time), insert a few minor league games to boot. We already know about the Sacramento River Cats and the Fresno Grizzlies. Las Vegas will continue to field a AAA team, though it's not yet known what affiliation it will carry - other than the fact that it won't the be the Dodgers, whose AAA team will once again live in its rightful home, Albuquerque. Vegas' Cashman Field may not be swank or even modern, but as a one-time temporary home for the A's, it could merit a visit. Besides, it's Vegas, right?

To make the minors more exciting, Reno is building a new stadium for the old Tucson Sidewinders (Diamondbacks affiliate). The team will start play there in April. Add that to the mix along with Stockton's Banner Island Ballpark, and you've got two weeks of baseball bliss without having to fly anywhere or drive more than 8 hours at any point along the trip, most often much less. Minor league schedules haven't been released yet so inclusion of minor league cities is speculative for now. As that information is released we'll have a better idea of what is feasible. Fortunately, the schedule allows for some flexibility.

The itinerary:

• A's @ Giants, 6/12-14. If you're like me, you tend to avoid the A's-Giants series unless a large group gathering (read: casual fans) makes it worthwhile. As Yogi once said, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
• TBD @ River Cats, 6/14 or 6/15. Hopefully the big league team stays healthy enough that the River Cats don't bear an uncanny resemblance. While you're there look for the AAA championship trophy.
• TBD @ Reno team, 6/15 or 6/16. One more reason to head to the Reno-Tahoe area in the summer. The ballpark site is downtown. You could even take Amtrak's California Zephyr train from the Bay Area and walk to the ballpark.
  
• TBD @ Las Vegas team, 6/16 or 6/17. The team is getting rid of the 51s moniker with new ownership. Side note: the former owner was Mandalay Entertainment (film producers, not casino), a group that was interested in buying the A's in 1999.
• A's @ Dodgers, 6/16-18. Even if you've been to Dodger Stadium multiple times in your life and it's old hat, the place still has a magical quality to it. Maybe you'll catch a game on a relatively smog-free day.
• A's @ Padres, 6/19-20. I'll go out on a limb and predict it'll be a low scoring affair. Even when accounting for the aggregate score of all three games.
• Dodgers @ Angels, 6/21. Catch another rivalry game despite your hate of both teams.
  
• TBD @ Grizzlies, 6/22. With any luck the River Cats and Grizzlies games will involve the two teams playing each other. Chukchansi Park is a nice, modern ballpark.
  
• TBD @ Stockton Ports, 6/23. Might as well, it's on the way home.
• Giants @ A's, 6/24. It's unusual to schedule any Giants-A's series during the weekdays, but that's what's happened here. I suspect that this game will be a 12:35 PM tilt as is customary on Wednesdays. That might allow for a switch at the end of this trip. After the end of this game, you might be able to drive out to Stockton to catch the Ports game.
  

Again, this is all contingent on the scheduling of the AAA teams. Still, at least two of the four teams should have schedules that can accommodate the trip. It's also possible to switch Las Vegas and Fresno if scheduling conflicts warrant it. A trip like this can be done cheaply (couchsurfing) or expensively (long hotel stays). The NorCal and SoCal segments can be separated. I'm looking forward to next summer, when I can take the whole trip myself.

What's in a stadium name?

The Minnesota Twins announced the naming rights sponsor for their new outdoor ballpark: Target. The deal is for 25 years. Financial terms weren't announced, but it's likely the deal is worth at least $100 million for that period.

If you're wondering why Target Field sounds familiar, that's probably because the downtown arena named Target Center is just across Interstate 394 from the ballpark site. The two venues will be linked by an above ground (and freeway) public area called Target Plaza. A series of pre-existing parking garages also stand above the freeway.

I was curious as to how many other companies have their names scrawled on multiple venues. So I did a quick search on Wikipedia to get the lists of American arenas and stadia. When I culled the list, an interesting pattern emerged: companies with multiple naming rights deals are generally in the telecommunications, transportation, and financial services industries. To wit:

AT&T

• AT&T Bricktown Ballpark (Oklahoma City)
  
• AT&T Center (San Antonio)
  
• AT&T Field (Chattanooga)
  
• AT&T Park (San Francisco)
• Jones AT&T Stadium (Lubbock, TX)
  

Alltel

• Alltel Arena (North Little Rock)
  
• Alltel Center (Mankato, MN)
• formerly Alltel Stadium (Jacksonville)
  

American Airlines

• American Airlines Center (Dallas)
  
• AmericanAirlines Arena (Miami)

Bank of America

• Bank of America Arena (Seattle, U of W)
  
• Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)
  

Citi

• Citibank Ballpark (Midland, TX - A's AA affiliate)
• Citi Field (Queens)
  

FedEx

• FedExField (DC-area)
  
• FedExForum (Memphis)
  

Fifth Third Bank

• Fifth Third Field (Dayton)
• Fifth Third Field (Toledo)
• Fifth Third Ballpark (Comstock, MI)
• Fifth Third Arena (Cincinnati)
  

Ford

• Ford Arena (Beaumont, TX)
  
• Ford Center (Oklahoma City)
  
• Ford Field (Detroit)
  

PNC

• PNC Field (Moosic, PA)
  
• PNC Park (Pittsburgh)
  

Qwest

• Qwest Arena (Boise)
  
• Qwest Center Omaha (Omaha)
  
• Qwest Field (Seattle)
  

Reliant

• Reliant Arena (Houston)
• Reliant Stadium (Houston)
  

Target

• Target Center (Minneapolis)
  
• Target Field (Minneapolis)

Toyota

• Toyota Center (York, PA)
  
• Toyota Center (Houston)
• Toyota Center (Kennewick, WA)
• Toyota Park (Bridgeview, IL)
  

U.S. Cellular

• U.S. Cellular Arena (Milwaukee)
• U.S. Cellular Center (Cedar Rapids, IA)
• U.S. Cellular Coliseum (Bloomington, IL)
  
• U.S. Cellular Field (Chicago)
  

Verizon

• Verizon Center (Washington, DC)
• Verizon Wireless Arena (Manchester, NH)
  

Wachovia

• Wachovia Arena (Wilkes-Barre, PA)
• Wachovia Center (Philadelphia, PA)
• Wachovia Spectrum (Philadelphia, PA)
  

Wells Fargo

• Wells Fargo Arena (Tempe, AZ)
• Wells Fargo Arena (Des Moines, IA)
  

There's the potential for diluting the brand by slapping a corporate name on multiple venues, but the strategy is clear: target specific markets or regions that you can either claim as your homestead or venture into new markets where you can try to gain a foothold. In American Airlines' case, they dealt with two markets where they have huge hubs. Wachovia and Comcast focused on their relative strength in Pennsylvania (though Comcast got a package deal with they ponied up for both the new and old arena). AT&T inherited deals made by its former corporate name, SBC. All told, the value of the deals named above approach $1 billion.

Over in the Tri-State area, the Yankees and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority are grappling with naming rights issues. The Yankees are under pressure to preserve the name Yankee Stadium, despite the $1.3 billion price tag. Across the Hudson, the Authority recently fielded an offer from German insurance giant Allianz. Area Jewish groups protested the possible deal due to Allianz' WWII-era Nazi ties, forcing the deal to be nixed. Coincidentally, Allianz has its name on a massive stadium in Munich, Allianz Arena. Its architect, Herzog & de Meuron, also drew up the Beijing National Stadium, a.k.a. the "Bird's Nest."

Reconstructing the Coliseum

To follow up on Monday's Raiders/Coliseum post, I put together a few mock-ups that show how the renovation would progress. To set it up, we'll make the following assumptions:

1. The A's begin construction of Cisco Field by the end of 2010.
2. Cisco Field fully signals the Raiders and the Coliseum to fully pursue an extension.
   
3. The NFL either wants an expansion team or a franchise other than the Raiders to move to LA, thereby locking the Raiders out of stadium financing, or they don't want a team there at all thanks to LA market TV ratings and revenues.
4. The A's open Cisco Field in April 2012.
   

Let's start off the the good ole' Coliseum the way it looks now (courtesy Google Maps, pic taken prior to a Stones concert?):

Now let's look at how it would look if the original bowl were demolished and the portable seats removed, leaving only the permanent portion of Mt. Davis.

Next, new permanent lower level seats would be built around three-quarters of the field. The old portable Mt. Davis seats would be re-utilized on the other side of the field as temporary seating while the rest of stadium is under construction. New locker rooms and team facilities would be built on the roughly 50,000 square feet under the yellow sections, while back-of-the-house stuff would be placed beneath the blue sections. Since the old press box would be gone, a new one would be built within the third level of suites in Mt. Davis. New temporary capacity would be around 47,000 only for the 2012 season.

The final phase would involve the removal of the portable seats, which could have a future purpose - additional on-demand seating. Notice the large gray area beyond the blue end zone sections? There's plenty of room for concessions, restrooms, and additional seating, up to 5,000 seats.

The red area shows new permanent lower level seating, which would have behind it a level of suites (a la the suites behind the bleachers). In addition, a new West Side Club (teal sections) would be built as a near mirror image to the East Side Club. Above the club seats would be a slightly cantilevered level of luxury suites and third deck. This third deck would be lower than the Mt. Davis third deck because it would have one less level of suites. New ramps would be placed along the wings of the concourse.

One last thing. Beyond the gray circle on the left and right are the current scoreboards. They look pretty far away from the action, don't they? They could be pulled in and lined up immediately behind the end zones seats, which will have a couple of benefits. Not only could the supports and framework be reused, the displays will appear crisper and larger simply because they'll be nearly 100 feet closer to the action. There's space in each frame for a single ultra wide HD screen of 23' x 70', nearly as large as the display at AT&T Park.

Final capacity would be around 63,000, the current NFL sweet spot.

Marlins one step closer to ballpark

The soap opera-esque story of the Marlins' efforts to get a ballpark took a positive turn Tuesday. Well, it was positive for the Marlins, perhaps not so much for the citizens of Miami-Dade County. Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, who was presiding over Norman Braman's lawsuit regarding the legality of the stadium deal, threw one the last remaining arguments of the case: that the stadium did not serve a public good. That may not sound like much, but that's important when it comes to securing public financing.

One issue remains, the most important one. Braman wants to see the ballpark put to a referendum. That ruling is expected after September 15. He has also indicated that he will appeal the case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, although if he loses on this remaining count (he's lost the other six so far), the Marlins and Miami would be free to proceed unfettered.

Raiders revisited

Chris Thompson of the East Bay Express has a lengthy piece on the Raiders' past and possible future in (and out) of Oakland. While the article doesn't draw any specific conclusions on the Raiders' stay in Oakland, their future there appears to be only slightly above bleak.

Last January I posited an idea that the Coliseum, once the A's moved out, could be renovated to become a properly updated (new) NFL facility. Considering the cost of a brand new stadium ($800 million or more and rising every year), renovation is not an idea that should be dismissed too quickly.

I mentioned in my previous post on this subject that the EIR process could be shortened thanks to the existing use of the stadium. However, there are challenges for a renovation. Let's start with a timeline, assuming the A's move into Cisco Field in 2012.

• September 2011 - Raiders begin final season in "old" Coliseum
• October 2011 - A's play final game
• December 2011 - Raiders play final game
• January 2012 - Renovation begins
• August 2012 - Raiders begin playing in temporary facility
• August 2013 - Raiders begin playing in completed, renovated Coliseum
  

The plan would be somewhat like the construction of Mt. Davis, except that everything else around Mt. Davis would be torn down and rebuilt. There may even be a chance that the Raiders could play the 2012 season in a partly finished Coliseum. I'll explain this later.

---

Building anything on the current Coliseum footprint is challenging due to the shared nature of the venues. The plaza between the arena and stadium is not particularly wide and underneath it is a vast amount of back-of-the-house facilities. There's the old Exhibit Hall, part of which is now used as the Raiders' locker room. VIP and player parking flanks the plaza. Anything new would have to minimize disturbance of the plaza and the arena.

When Mt. Davis was built, the existing plaza's utility was maintained. The lower deck of Mt. Davis has a handful of risers and seats. Most of it was left blank to accommodate the baseball field. Football seats on portable sections are brought in before games. This situation misses out on a large amount of potentially available space. Thus, the first move would be to place permanent seats in the lower deck and build it out underneath. Locker rooms and supporting facilities could all be stashed underneath.

Next, start tearing down the old Coliseum, sections x01-x10 and x24-x33. The recent trend among football stadia is to minimize the number of end zone seats, so building one deck of new infill seating sections in each end zone should not be difficult. Suites and club sections would not be necessary and would be suboptimal anyway.

That leaves the last part of the original bowl, sections x11-x23. These contain the West Side Club, press box, A's clubhouse, and additional functions. In this case, pull out all of the lower level seats. They're too low and not pitched enough for football, so they desperately need replacing. Then start building in permanent lower level seats, like the ones put in to finish Mt. Davis. It'll take some work to "connect" them to the existing concourse but it can be done. The concrete supports for the upper levels, which are built into the vomitories, would have to be preserved.

This is where the timeline could be split. With the new seating sections in place, the Raiders might be able to play 2012 in the partly upgraded stadium. During the next offseason, the remainder of the renovations could begin. The issue there is the structural work that will be required. If it's lengthy (cast in situ concrete) then there's no way 2012 could be played there. If not it the split schedule might work. The upper decks would be removed and replaced with two levels of suites with press box, a full-length club level, and a large upper deck (like Mt. Davis but not as tall).

The cost? Well, the land's already paid for. There's demo and some new foundation work, but far less than would be expected for a new stadium. Wild guess is $500 million, far cheaper than a new place, yet with all of the location advantages and volume parking that come with the Coliseum.

A's begin to address traffic concerns

An article in today's Fremont Bulletin (Wes Bowers) notes that on Wednesday, Wolff Urban Development Sr. VP Paul Menaker spoke at length at the Fremont Rotary Club about the state of the Cisco Field and ballpark village project. Most of the news relates to traffic and parking management. There's nothing to report on public transit, other than the A's are in talks with every transit district that services Fremont and the surrounding area. Menaker noted that BART service to the Warm Springs station is scheduled to begin in 2015. Construction of the Warm Springs extension is slated to begin next year, with the Santa Clara County extension to follow pending approval of a countywide sales tax hike in November.

Menaker's discussion appears to have centered around infrastructure. While area freeway interchanges are plenty beefy, the A's propose additional lanes and even another on-ramp to accommodate the projected 10,862 auto trips for each game. I'll go point-by-point on several of the new developments:

To accommodate autos, Menaker said parking would be sited in various designated areas on the east side of I-880. He added parking had originally been slated to be in the Fountains Business Park.

That's a major departure from the original development plan. The area east of 880 is far more developed than the project area, which makes me wonder if the A's have acquired even more properties in Fremont. They'd also have to get the fans across the freeway safely, which would require either a long pedestrian bridge over the Nimitz or more shuttles. It's a bit of a headscratcher until there are more details. It's not stated how much parking would go in that area. 10%? 20%? 50%?

Saying the A's also know this will increase congestion in Fremont, Menaker said the team will make a number of improvements to existing roadways, including adding a second westbound turn lane from Stevenson Boulevard to Boyce Road.

A third westbound lane will be installed on Auto Mall Parkway from Cushing Parkway to Noble Way, and an additional offramp from I-880 to Auto Mall Parkway will be built.

A second right turn lane from Fremont Boulevard to Cushing Parkway will be installed, but only used on game days, he said.

He added various traffic light improvements will also be made, and also only apply on game days.

I believe that's Nobel Way, not Noble Way. The combined effect of these changes will be to make the additional traffic run more smoothly - though it may be as much aimed at the new residential and commercial traffic as it is the ballpark. The onramp is an intriguing proposition, though I have no idea where it would go.

As motorists near the stadium, there will be permanent signage directing where they can and cannot park. He said the team would pay for all aspects of traffic management, including traffic and security officers.

"Everything we do in parking management will be to keep people from parking in Costco's lot and Pacific Commons," Menaker said, adding the team will pay for security personnel, monitors, and enforcement which he called security zones.

As for parking, the A's are proposing a validation scheme for shoppers and employees. Previously I expressed skepticism about validation and remain so, simply from the notion that the big box retailers generally frown upon validation in general.

While I am impressed with the expansive nature of Menaker's traffic discussion, there remain questions about how to placate all of the various constituent groups in the area. The additional infrastructure, which the A's say they will pay for, will be expensive. I'm curious to find out how they will pay for it, as well as further traffic and parking plan details. The role of technology may be important as well, since RFID could help streamline parking management.

At this point I'm only certain of one thing: the traffic and parking study will be a bit larger than a fold-up pamphlet.

Inelastic demand

In Part II of the AN/Wolff interview, out popped the most curious exchange (emphasis mine):

Blez: I’m going to get to the tarp and the Coliseum a little later, but how do you sell a team that is in rebuilding mode to a market that at times can be ambivalent? The Coliseum wasn’t even selling out when the A’s were the class of the AL a few seasons back. Does it take a World Series victory or even two to motivate these fans again? Or is this just a dead market?

Wolff: I do think that the proximity between us and the Giants hurts. They’ve actually moved closer to us. The six years prior to the year 2000, the Giants outdrew us by around a half a million on average per year. In 2000 they opened the new ballpark and the attendance has jumped and pretty much has stayed there. The difference is now about a million and a half although I haven’t checked it this year. That (the new venue) has something to do with it. Maybe not 100 percent. Secondly, Barry Bonds was a big attraction there and we didn’t have Barry Bonds. The other side of it is the demographic. Both the Giants and ourselves have a lot of water in front of us so there isn’t anyone else living there. A couple of other owners tease us that we may be the only inelastic demand team in baseball. That means that if you won the World Series, the next year would you have two and half or three million out there? In other words, our band of attendance has been approximately 1.7-2.1 million, win or lose that’s where we’ve been.

The comments thread had a nice exchange regarding inelastic demand. What does inelastic demand mean? Simply put, it's a lack of demand change for a product relative to price change. The formula for demand elasticity looks like this:

When the value (absolute value) of this coefficient is between 0 and 1, demand is considered inelastic. You're probably wondering what how the A's demand has looked recently. To that end I compiled a table showing the FCI average ticket price and annual attendance (2008 attendance projected):

You can see that from 2001 forward, the demand ratio (coefficient) has been less than 1 or less, hence inelastic. This is despite a 102% hike in ticket prices in that timeframe. The rich teams have unique market positions. The Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, and Cubs are effectively monopolies. That's how they can continuously raise ticket prices with zero effect on demand. They are the antithesis of the A's. As long as the A's are in the Bay Area, they will always be in a competitive position, not a monopoly position.

So why has this happened? We've gone over most of the reasons in great detail. The Coliseum is long-in-the-tooth, disaffection from long-time fans, the Giants moving closer and poaching casual fans, on-field performance, susbtitute entertainment options, etc. ad infinitum. Is it a reason to abandon the market? Of course not. This market is plenty big enough for six or seven major sports franchises as long as they have good venues and are located properly. In light of this, I don't expect the current business model at the Coliseum to change much in the remaining years of the lease - no untarping the third deck, no cheaper beer or concessions, no ticket price freezes. There's little impact to project from such moves, and thus little reason to make any moves.

Parsing the AN interview: Television

Let's get started.

First, on the television situation. The possible move to Comcast SportsNet West is definitely positive, but not without its downsides. The main issues here are the number of games and on which tier CSNW will be carried in the Bay Area. To illustrate the first issue, I've dragged out the table from the May post on RSN's:

The obvious inequity is that CSNW is carried on the extended basic tier in the Central Valley, while it's on the digital channel 400 in the Bay Area. It really comes down to the number of televisions that can view the channel. Not every household uses the digital converter box offered by Comcast, and for those that do, not every television will be mated to a box. So if you want to watch a game while working on a car in the garage (where there's likely no box), you won't catch the game. Or if you're a kid that wants to watch the game in his/her room but your parents don't feel you need a box, you'll have to watch elsewhere in the house. For some it will be inconvenient. For some it won't.

Then there's the matter of CSNW being on 400. 400 has always been a placeholder as there's little content to put onto the channel at this point other than second-tier college sports. However, there's a unique feature to 400 that many aren't aware of: it's not encrypted. That means even though it's digital, a converter box isn't needed as long as you have a digital TV. The rate of adoption isn't high and there's a level of frustration regarding digital TV tuners, but at least for now the box isn't needed for a digital TV. That said, once the A's are on CSNW could easily become encrypted. The bottom line is that CSNW could be encrypted or not, or it could be moved around the channel lineup.

With the MLB Network launching next year, one fewer channel slot will be available on the analog tier. The Hallmark Channel is typically one of the first to get bumped to digital. In your area this may have already occurred. There are also a number of shopping-oriented channels. QVC is considered untouchable. Jewelry Television, which is typically on Comcast systems on a leased basis, is probably the next candidate. This channel is usually on channel 410 (CSNBA+) when a game isn't being broadcast. Complicating matters are a number of community access stations on a given city's analog tier, which could vary from city to city. Comcast could even end up competing against itself, as it has equity stakes in several other channels, such as Versus and The Golf Channel. (If you want to get an idea how inconsistent the systems are in the channel lineups, go to this Comcast form and put in some valid addresses around the Bay Area. You might be surprised.)

In the end, I think Comcast will figure out a way to put CSNW on the analog tier. They might have to put it high up, say in the upper-70's along with Versus and Golf. It's not in the "sports pocket" with the ESPN's and CSNBA, but at least it would be available. The motivating factor is Comcast's stake. They want to make as much from the network as possible, and that would be an order of magnitude more difficult to do from a digital-only slot.

Two other factors have real impact. A switch like this usually carries with it a massive schedule change. The Giants inked a deal with NBC 11 to broadcast 20 games, whereas 140 went to CSNBA. It's likely a similar split would happen with the A's on CSNW. They might even go to the extreme like the Florida Marlins, eschewing over-the-air broadcasts completely. High definition also will become paramount in the coming years. KICU doesn't do HD broadcasts. I'm pretty sure the other affiliates don't either. Blame that on either the A's or the affliates, it's still pretty costly. By moving over to CSNW, broadcasting expenses become more of a sunk cost as the partners become more interested in promoting the brand. There will be some figuring of what digital space is available to carry CSNW-HD, but that's only an issue in the Bay Area and can be easily accomplished with compression techniques and additional channel movement from analog to digital.

Behind the scenes, there will be an issue of talent and staffing. CSNBA hired a bunch more people and embarked on building a local studio. Would personnel and facilities be shared among the teams despite the split?

Who loses? Well, if this were five years ago, I'd say over-the-air-only viewers. Unfortunately for them, the digital switch is already going to make their experience difficult. Many people in the Bay Area will come out of the switch getting only 6-8 channels, and KICU probably won't be one of them.

5:16 p.m.: A couple more thoughts. There shouldn't be more than a handful of scheduling conflicts each year between the A's and the Kings because the MLB and NBA regular seasons only overlap during the first two weeks of April. That translates to 6-7 possible date conflicts per year. Those games could be easily accommodated by either team's affiliate networks. Also, weekday afternoon games should be available once the deal goes through. I'm guessing that the existing broadcast deal with CSNBA, which runs through the end of the decade, would be torn up and replaced by a long term deal. The Giants supposedly were paid $100 million over 25 years in addition to their equity stake in the channel.

Later today, I'll talk about the ballpark situation.