2008 FCI - WTF?

The A's are off the charts, folks.

I'm not referring to the team's popularity or TV ratings, nor is it an attendance phenomena. Remember this chart?

This year's Fan Cost Index by Team Marketing Report has the A's average ticket price for 2008 at:
$29.20
It's way off the above chart, a whopping 22.3% increase over 2007 ($23.88). That's good enough for third highest in MLB, behind the Yankees and Cubs.

The increase contributed to an overall FCI of $206.80, 11.5% over 2007 and good for 10th in baseball. That's higher than most teams with recently built ballparks, including the Nationals ($195.50), Padres ($201.72), and Giants ($183.74). The Giants actually posted a FCI drop of 0.7% relative to last season - but only because they were allowed to go back and adjust prices after the season was over.

But is $29.20 right? Compared to last year, several seating sections received $4-6 ticket hikes, whereas roughly one-third of the stadium has only a $1 increase. There's premium game pricing for the Yankees, Red Sox, and Giants, but that's only 11 out of 79 games (Tokyo doesn't count). There's also the addition of the all-you-can-eat seats, but even that only equates to a $1-1.50 hit. (I've sent Team Marketing Report a request for clarification but have not received a response.)

If one were to follow simple supply-demand rules, a ticket price hike (whatever the final number) would appear to be a major cause for the significantly reduced attendance this year (see sidebar). Reduced expectations and a revamped roster with few big names haven't helped, neither have the oddly cooler temperatures observed for A's homestands as opposed to Giants' games. Now that the team is leading the division and Frank Thomas has returned, there should be some uptick from the bandwagoners and youth, along with warmer weather. However, I don't think they'll catch last year's total or eclipse 2 million unless they go on a massive winning streak or run away with the division - thoughts that were unheard of in the winter.

Dodger Stadium improvement plans announced

Dodgers owner Frank McCourt announced his long-awaited plans for Dodger Stadium. McCourt was assisted by a Vin Scully-narrated promotional video. 3-D models and renderings abound.

The largely outside-the stadium project will cost $500 million on top of the $250 million spent inside the stadium over two years ago. They have the buzz words down, talking up the Stadium's transformation into a "lifestyle destination for all of Los Angeles for all twelve months of the year." Also emphasized is a change in the way the venue is operated to a more environmentally responsible one (no mentions of specifics other than a nod to technology).

Among the improvements:

• Dodger Way - A new "front door" to the stadium in center field framed by a tree-lined walkway. The center field plaza would connect to a promenade featuring shops, restaurants and a Dodger Experience museum.
• Green Necklace - A landscaped, tree-lined perimeter surrounding the stadium. Fans will be able to access their seats and concessions via the Green Necklace.
• Top of the Park - Behind the highest point of the park behind home plate would be a a outdoor plaza with views of the Los Angeles skyline, Santa Monica bay, the San Gabriel mountains and the field of play inside Dodger Stadium

In addition, the Dodgers plan a "transit plaza" (read: bus station) with a dedicated bus lane and garages to replace terrace parking lost to construction. Two of the garages are on the left and right edges of the above rendering. Additional parking will be underground. As for extending rail-based transit, McCourt left that up to the city to figure out. Even though MTA's Gold Line has its Chinatown stop just slightly over 1/2 mile from the stadium, it's also a 300-foot vertical climb. Perhaps they could use a funicular like Pittsburgh's Duquesne Incline or the incredibly cool Katoomba Scenic Railway in Scenic World, west of Sydney, Australia. Half-seriously, they could even contact Six Flags when Magic Mountain inevitably closes for their funicular. They'll need to figure out how to enhance pedestrian access as well.

What's going to pay for the Dodger Stadium improvements? Scuttlebutt is that McCourt will sell off development rights to pieces of surrounding land. As much as the Dodgers are advertising the great views from the stadium, some of those views will be undoubtedly altered by the stadium's ancillary expansion, as well as the presence of condos all over the nearby hillsides.

Forbes new valuations out: A's worth $323 million

For a commissioner, Bud Selig makes a pretty good CEO.

League revenue is up again, this time 9.3% over last season. That's actually down from the last three seasons, when they typically had 14% gains. Revenue is still impressive and will only go up through the end of the current CBA. Yield like that would be an excellent investment for those looking for a mid cap. Of course, MLB is entirely private so no one outside the Lodge could entertain such notions. Regardless, it's impressive.

The A's experienced an 11% jump, from $292 million to $323 million. They continue to ride the revenue sharing gravy train, as local revenue pales in comparison to most of their brethren. The welfare check should only become bigger next season as early attendance figures from the first two weeks portend a low season-end total. Forbes' summary of the A's financial situation is incorrect in that it identifies TIF as a funding mechanism for the ballpark. TIF requires bond money be raised. They're not doing that in Fremont. Instead, privately generated proceeds from the sale of housing rights will help foot the bill.

I'm surprised that this year's edition didn't cover the debt issue. Quite possibly, the toughest task for Selig was to whip owners into shape by getting them to spend less. Over the last four years, teams have dropped from a collective 39.7% in debt to 32.7%, and that includes the two new stadia being built for the NY teams.

click for a larger chart

Look at the values on a team-by-team basis, and you'll see a major trend downward for most of them. The old 60-40 debt rule may be obsolete, but it still informs club executives on how to run their teams, just as 50-60% of revenue is comfortable salary "guideline" for the teams.

Nowadays, there's a simplification of the debt rule: teams can't be in hock over 10 times the average EBITDA over the past two seasons. Notice that the A's current valuation is exactly 10 times that of their average operating income from that period? I doubt it's a coincidence. Moreover, the first $36.5 million in debt grandfathered from previous years doesn't count, so if you're Fred Wilpon or Frank McCourt and you borrowed heavily to buy your teams, it's not that bad. And as an incentive to upgrade to new digs, any team incurring stadium debt gets to bump up to 15 times EBITDA for up to 10 years after the facility is complete. The difference between 10 and 15 times doesn't sound like much. It's only $75 million. Since income is expected to rise thanks to the massive payroll drop, so will that debt ceiling. Look for this:

• $30 million in earnings each year in the two years prior to the ballpark opening
• Multiply that figure by 15 to get max debt load, $450 million (which equals the projected ballpark construction cost)

There is, of course, the matter of player salaries. They're the biggest expense and so they factor in. However, that fat $36.5 million deductible comes in handy, especially as a team's payroll drops to approach that figure. Again, the rule is not a hard and fast rule like the NFL's salary cap, with Selig or Bob DuPuy getting all punitive every winter. Referring back to the chart, it appears to be set up so that when teams are forced to go into major debt like the Yanks or Mets, the other fiscally responsible teams help soften the blow. In that sense, MLB and other leagues are akin to conglomerates, with each team acting as a single business unit. When a major profit center (Yanks/Mets) has to invest to invest in a new plant (stadium), the other units tighten up in response. After all, it's the company's overall health, not a business unit's, that gets trumpeted by Selig. As the new plants open and become amortized, others take their turns.

Call it MLB's "Circle of Life."

Opening Day pushed back to at least 2012

A new article by the Argus' Matthew Artz confirms a circulating rumor: the environmental impact review process will go the whole nine yards, pushing its completion until the end of the year. Nothing can proceed until the study is completed, reviewed, and voted upon. Tack on the normal construction time, and it makes 2011 unlikely. The A's were hoping that portions of the previous Pacific Commons study could be used, but the presence of the old document makes the review more complicated, requiring a comparison of projected changes to actual changes.

Those of you looking for a political angle may look at the study's availability after the November general election, when incumbent Bob Wasserman will face off against four-time former mayor Gus Morrison and councilman Steve Cho. Without even a draft, there isn't much substance to debate. That's not to say that Morrison won't feature the anti-ballpark stance prominently, it's just that he won't have any specifics to point to unless he wants to put together his own independent study. Meanwhile, proponents will have the Economic Impact study from last year as ammunition, which I covered in several posts last spring.

A simple economic angle also can't be dismissed. By pushing the opening back a year, investors may be hoping that they'll be an additional year removed from the recession and the housing market drop.

The teams need elbow room on TV

Last week, we hit one of those so-called "perfect storm" situations that can occur with scheduling. On the main CSN channel, the A's and Jays were locked up in a tight, late inning battle in Toronto. Waiting in the wings was the first playoff game between the Sharks and Flames. And the Giants were playing the Padres on the side stage, CSN Plus.

The A's game ran a not-so-tidy 3:31, forcing the Sharks game to start without a TV broadcast. Instead of doing a picture-in-picture or split screen, CSN chose to keep the A's game on while providing delayed updates on the Sharks game. Even though there was no HD broadcast of the A's game while the Sharks game was to be in HD, the Sharks game could not be carried in HD until CSN switched feeds. Only after Bobby Crosby's bases-clearing double and the final A's out in the top of the 9th did the switch occur. Just as the switch happened, the Ryan Clowe scored for the Sharks over six minutes into the first period. Unfortunately, the Sharks were down 2-0 leading up to that point. It was quite a debacle as angry Sharks fans called CSN to vent their frustration.

There are really three issues here. First is the production choice made. AFAIK it's pretty much the same staff from the FSN days with some promotions and attrition thrown in, but it mostly feels the same. Hopefully they've learned from this. Second is the HD problem. If there is an SD away baseball game and an HD home hockey game, why can't they split it so that the HD channel carries the HD broadcast? I'm not up on the technical side but it doesn't sound that difficult. At least the folks with the HDTVs - the bars and the regular folks who've plunked down a couple grand for a flat panel - can be taken care of. There is a long term issue of having only a single HD channel to begin with, but I'll get to that later. Third, and most important, is that the juggling act that CSN does with the four area teams needs to stop. It was confusing from the first day that FSN Plus launched with its dozens of different channels on different systems. I'm sure that Comcast is attempting their best given the circumstances. But the situation as it stands is untenable. If you're a subscriber of Comcast's digital cable service or the sports packages on one of the satellite companies, you're paying a premium for this. It's just not a good way to do business.

If you're wondering how the Bay Area fares compared to other similar markets, you might be surprised to find out that we are entirely unique in that in this market there is a single regional sports network, majority owned by the predominant local cable provider. So it shouldn't surprising that when the Giants bought a stake in the new CSNBA, someone would object - the Warriors and owner Chris Cohan. Especially because Cohan in a previous life was a local cable operator, which probably means he knows something about the business.

Take a look at the chart below. I've mostly included other markets with two baseball teams, because they're the only ones with similar scheduling dynamics. In LA, there are two full-fledged channels with exclusivity agreements for the three major teams there, leaving the lesser teams to battle for scraps. It's not a perfect situation, but at least it lends stability for Angels, Dodgers, and Lakers fans. In NYC there are no less than four independent RSNs, all of which are owned in large part by their respective teams. While this makes it tough to push cable providers to include all of these RSNs in their limited space, at least it allows the market to determine the outcome. In Chicago, the two baseball teams are helped enormously by splitting games on the Superstation WGN and CSN Chicago. And in a still-puzzling, archaic move, the Wirtz family continues to not broadcast the majority of Blackhawks home games, freeing up space on the local RSN. In Baltimore and DC, MLB and O's-created MASN carries the two baseball teams, while the local Comcast RSN sued MLB and the O's because they felt they had the right to negotiate a deal and were blocked from doing so when MASN was launched. Currently, CSN Mid Atlantic carries the winter sports.

Comcast appears to be addressing the Bay Area's logjam by adding yet another CSN Plus channel, called CSN Plus 2. There's currently a placeholder for it at channel 412 if you're on digital cable, plus DirecTV and Dish also have it. Perhaps they're waiting to broadcast on it until next season or until more of the smaller cable systems pick it up, which is not a given. Having yet another Plus channel is only going to create more confusion.

That leaves one major issue looming: What about HD? Having two standard definition Plus channels does nothing to add HD offerings when in the coming years the local teams will do nothing but expand their HD schedules. This is a real quandary for Comcast, as they are stuck with real bandwidth limitations that restrict how quickly they can add HD channels. The normal convention is that on what we would consider an analog channel, there is space for two HD feeds and even an additional SD feed should Comcast choose to compress the signal a bit. For instance, the HD feeds for both KPIX and KTVU are carried on channel 78, while KBCW and KNTV are on 79. Contrast that with a possible 10 SD channels that can be placed in that same space. Comcast is stuck with this until the analog-to-digital switch is done and the old bandwidth is freed up. For them, the switch won't all happen next February as consumer concerns will draw out the transition another year or two.

As recently as yesterday I said that the best situation for the A's would be to team up with the Sharks on their own RSN. In light of the Warriors' frustration, perhaps they are a better partner. Consider that there's only a two-week overlap in regular season schedules between MLB and NBA, and the fact that both leagues' postseasons are carried exclusively on big national networks. They could easily work around any potential conflicts. They would need Comcast to get a taste in order to get Comcast to carry the channel. At least with a new RSN, it's a stable home and a chance to build a brand, as opposed to being just another part of the Bay Area sports menagerie. Obviously, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the A's would be in more control over their own finances and advertising revenue.

Change is afoot. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to see it.

Quakes' soccer stadium deal announced

The "soccer village" is coming closer. Joshua Molina of the Merc reports that a team of developers and the city of San Jose have reached a deal for the developers to buy the bulk of the old FMC site from the city, upon which an 18,000-seat soccer-specific stadium and surrounding retail/commercial/hotel space would be built. Some specifics:

According to terms of the deal, Wolff and his partners would pay $132 million for 66 acres of the former FMC manufacturing plant. Of that, about 18 acres will be set aside for the 18,000-seat soccer stadium and parking.

The city bought the land in 2005 for $81 million.

Wolff and his team have until 2010 to pay the city the bulk of the sale price. In the interim, they have agreed to pay interest that San Jose will accrue on the bonds it sold to buy the property - as much as $12 million over the next two years. And Wolff must extend the city a $3 million letter of credit that would be payable if he walks away early from the deal.

Remember, this is a two-part deal. This part only covers the site on which the stadium and ancillary stuff would be built. To pay for the stadium, Wolff is pushing for rezoning of the Edenvale site in South San Jose, where 1,500 townhomes would be built. Looking at the FMC piece only, it's a good deal for the city that forces the developer to have some skin in the game, even defraying the city's "carrying costs" for a while. The Edenvale portion is what will create a burden on public services, but it's not fundamentally any different than what Fremont will encounter with the baseball village. Awesome for the Quakes.

Come for the food, stay for the baseball

As both local teams have ratcheted down on-field expectations this season, they've focused on a different means of getting folks out to the old ballyard - the food. The entire first week of Giants broadcasts have been full of plugs about new meal and dessert choices. One particularly brutal scene was earlier this week, when Jon Miller and Dave Flemming were nearly buried alive by dishes of strawberry shortcake when that particular subject came up.

The A's haven't been any better. They're pushing the all-you-can-eat section like it's the next great prescription drug. And during the radio booth's recent sampling of Kinder's barbecue, it seemed like an entire inning of play-by-play was lost. I can only hope that now the teams have the message out they won't have to needlessly flog the public with it. Some of us are just trying to listen to or watch a ballgame, y'know?

Then again, there are even better reasons to go to a game that have little to do with consumption. On Sunday I sat in the RF bleachers, Section 147. The game was well-pitched, the setting pleasant, the crowd rather sparse - except for the bleachers. On certain days when the bleachers are packed and you have the right people there, each of those little upper bleacher sections becomes a neighborhood. Yes, that same neighborhood feel that stadium designers ascribe to is already there. It's a design accident, really. Football stands these days are designed to prevent views of the field from the concourse. Instead they build up more seating rows right up to the next level of seats/suites. Given the right conditions, one of these sections turns into a happy little fan ecosystem, like a sunken ship will turn into a new reef.

So there we were, a bunch of strangers enjoying a game, some Indians fans, a maligned BoSox fan, some families. A couple of tikes were going up and down the aisle. Suddenly a fan at the back gave one of the kids a dollar. The child proceeded to do the robot, which thoroughly entertained everyone in the section. He did it again for others. Everyone laughed, many pictures were taken, all went home with smiles on their faces (even though the A's lost). I didn't see anyone with takeaway boxes from Kinder's. Few knew the names of the players on the field. It didn't matter. That's not to say that this phenomenon happens all the time or even frequently. Most weeknights those seats aren't filled. If it happened more often more would know about it. And more would go.

It's my hope that the A's and 360 recognize that the neighborhood concept doesn't occur just because you design a stadium a certain way. It takes certain fans, perhaps some decent weather, and a good ballgame. It's not something you can bottle.

---

One other thing disturbed my about Sunday. It appeared that an effort to start the Wave came from the LF bleachers. WTF? BleacherDave?

$611 million gets you mixed reviews

The Nats didn't sell out last night's home opener extravaganza against Huddy and the Braves (announced attendance: 39,389), but fans who attended raved about the new facility. Not that RFK was any kind of garden spot, but the as-yet-not-corporately-named ballpark is at the very least the kind of baseball venue DC fans haven't had since Griffith Stadium was demolished over 40 years ago.

Washington Post architecture critic Philip Kennicott gave the Nats' new digs a C+ grade, repeatedly pointing out how HOK and the Nats missed out on making the ballpark a signature element in the District's Southeast. Ever since conceptual drawings and flyovers were released to the public, the whole package has looked rather underwhelming. We knew going in that value engineering would be stamped all over the place. Now that it's built, it's interesting to see how that value engineering has manifested itself.

Does this look like a ballpark façade? Or the exterior of the Westfield Valley Fair expansion?

A typical ballpark will have some 1200 linear feet of frontage along its grandstand. Depending on the height of the building there could be some 60-90,000 square feet of façade. That's a lot of area upon which an architect can make a statement. Some have chosen to make continuous use of the same materials (red brick being predominant), giving a ballpark a classic, monolithic feel. Others may go a more contemporary route by breaking up the space, letting the eye focus on specific elements. There's some glass here, some different colors of concrete (not limestone) throughout. I'm tentatively scheduling a trip in September to check the stadium out, along with revisits of many of the East Coast parks. I'll reserve judgement in full until then.

Kennicott puts it more succinctly:

It's hard not to focus on the economic aspects of this architecture, because so many of the unfortunate architectural decisions are essentially economic decisions. The ballpark -- like most shopping malls, airports, sports facilities and, alas, many new museums -- belongs to what we might call the architecture of distraction. We don't tend to think of these buildings in architectural terms, as having form or line, balance or symmetry, shape or presence. Rather, it's all about program, circulation and keeping boredom at bay. The public judges these structures in terms of their amenities, their bathrooms, their cleanliness and their overall convenience.

It's exactly this sort of camouflage that I worry about with Cisco Field. Renderings have noticeably excluded views of the grandstand façade, instead pushing the seating bowl and the public space between the outfield and the shopping center. It's one thing to integrate the ballpark into the neighborhood. It's another to make it disappear completely into the neighborhood. Ownership has an opportunity to make a striking visual statement without worrying about appeasing next-door neighbors (most downtown ballparks), or dealing with a specific historical context (new Yankee Stadium). Whether it's "retro" or "contemporary," Cisco Field should stand out from the rest of the neighborhood. It's the anchor. It's meant to draw attention to itself, to attract visitors. Unlike the Nats' ballpark, Cisco Field is going to be low-slung. There's a good chance no one will know it's there except for the light standards or perhaps the scoreboard. How about making a bigger statement? It will be a work of Lew Wolff's legacy, after all.

---

A few things bothered me when I looked at the Washington Post's ballpark slideshow:

• Behind the back row of the upper deck is simple, unfinished chain link fence. Ugh.
• The roof (at least from the bottom) looks like plain corrugated steel decking. Double ugh.
• Green outfield walls are played out.

Despite the heavy criticism, the Nats' ballpark is a massive improvement. It's a few steps from the Metro (which had 7,000 less gameday users than expected). Parking and access last night weren't the nightmare many had envisioned, even with El Presidente in the house. It's a brisk walk from the Mall and the Smithsonian. It will serve District-area fans well for at least the next 30 years.

In case you're wondering about attendance...

I am not counting the two games in Japan as part of this season's total. The A's are definitely getting paid by MLB and the Japanese promoter who put on the two-game "home" series, but that's not enough. The attendance isn't being generated at the Coliseum by Bay Area A's fans, so it can't count.

BTW, the Tokyo Dome was packed. And thank you, Emil Brown, for lending your veteran presence. Update 3/26 - That last sentence no longer carries a sarcastic tone.

Commence cross-promotion.... NOW!!!!

Now that the A's are in Japan and the reborn San Jose Earthquakes are wrapping up their own nice preseason run, it's apparently time to start marketing both Wolff/Fisher (et al) franchises together. A new 8-game A's-Quakes plan is available, in which fans would take in 5 predetermined A's games and 3 predetermined Quakes games on the 2008 calendar. Interestingly, all 3 Quakes home games are to be played at McAfee Coliseum - the 3 Coliseum dates on the current schedule. The plan looks like this for the A's:

• 4/19 - A's vs. Kansas City (Travis Buck Bobblehead)
• 5/3 - A's vs. Texas (1968 A's Hat)
• 6/6 - A's vs. LA Angels (Kurt Suzuki Bobblehead)
• 6/21 - A's vs. Florida (Beerfest)
• 7/11 - A's vs. LA Angels (Fireworks)

The Quakes part looks like this:

• 4/12 - Earthquakes vs. Chicago Fire (Opening Night)
• 6/14 - Earthquakes vs. LA Galaxy
• 8/3 - Earthquakes vs. LA Galaxy (in Oakland)

There is an element of introducing the Quakes to the greater Bay Area, something that's a bit difficult to do at Spartan Stadium. They're certainly targeting the Latin community who may be interested in both sports, if not both franchises. A simpler explanation is simply numbers. The Quakes' main home for the next two years is the expanded and renovated Buck Shaw Stadium, on the SCU campus. Buck Shaw only holds 11,500, which may be fine for many of the lower profile games, but not for either opening night or the two games against the Quakes' natural and hated rival, the LA Galaxy. Not to mention ex-Quake Landon Donovan and aging superstar David Beckham, whose commitments to the English national team may limit his appearances.

The schedule is pretty well spaced out, probably to entice families. Prices are $160 for a single 8-pack at Plaza Level, $215 at Field Level Endzone/Outfield. At the Coliseum, the field is set up to run north-south with the touch line (sideline) running parallel with the baseball third base line. This is being done to eliminate the need to do the costly and field-damaging football configuration.

Nets' project faces delay

From at least a business and economic standpoint, the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn is one to watch as a forerunner of the A's ballpark village. While its scope and associated controversy have been far greater, Atlantic Yards still bears watching due to its basic similarities. Thanks to the economic downturn - er, recession, the first ancillary phase of the project faces delay.

Like the ballpark village, Atlantic Yards is a large mixed-use development with a sports venue as its centerpiece. Proceeds from the development are to be used to pay for a sizable portion (but not all) of the arena, called Barclays Center. Over 10,000 housing units would be built. The 22-acre site includes the 8.4-acre Vanderbilt Yards, an old depot for the Long Island Rail Road.

Barclays Center is to become the first major sports facility built in Brooklyn since the Dodgers left Ebbets Field. The tie-in is that the developer, Forest City, is run by Bruce Ratner, who a few years ago bought the NBA's New Jersey Nets. Upon completion of Barclays Center, the Nets are to move to Barclays Center and be renamed the Brooklyn Nets.

Controversies surrounding the project have been well chronicled, from the $300 million in tax-exempt bonds used and subsidies given to the always popular use of eminent domain within the long-developed borough. No place in the U.S. is like New York City in terms of how massive projects like this manage to get rammed through the public process via big machine politics. Similar issues were brought up for both of the new baseball stadia being built now.

Surprisingly, the arena is expected to push forward with construction starting early next year and opening in time for the start of the league's 2010-11 season. I suppose the thinking here is that construction costs will only go up so they might as well get started now even if the debt service piece is still uncertain. The project was originally announced in 2003, with an expected 2006 opening (overly optimistic due to process matters). Despite public pronouncements about the groundbreaking and opening dates, it's likely the opening date could slip further.

Atlantic Yards could serve as something of a harbinger for the A's ballpark village. Private financing and the flexible timeline the A's have floated can help insulate them from the recession. One or two years is plenty of time for a proper economic rebound, and that's already baked in to the plan. Should our economic difficulties continue for a protracted period, Wolff/Fisher may have to consider major changes in the project's composition. On the other hand, if it continues over the length of a presidential term we'll have a lot more to worry about than a baseball stadium.

Fremont Symphony near bankruptcy, how about it A's?

The candidates in the upcoming mayoral election are going to talk a great deal about "quality of life" issues. The definition of "quality of life" is a loose one and can cover a variety of topics, from public safety and education to shopping and recreation to traffic and infrastructure. Political leanings tend to color discussions a bit. Institutions that we often take for granted all contribute in their own way to what we call "quality of life."

It is with that understanding that I must point out that the Fremont Symphony Orchestra is on the verge of bankruptcy. The symphony, which is been around for 44 years, is in arrears to the tune of $40,000, one-tenth of its annual budget. More on this from the Argus' Matthew Artz:

The symphony is hoping to raise $50,000 inthe coming months — $15,000 from the city and $35,000 from the fundraiser — to pay off its debts and prepare for what would be its 45th season this fall, Treadway said.

Fundraisers account for about 20 percent of the symphony's budget, but in recent years, the events haven't met their targets, he said. Other than rising musician fees, symphony costs and revenues have remained relatively stable.

The symphony went into debt during the 2006-07 season when it added shows, but didn't raise enough money to pay for them, symphony Executive Director Dyane Hendricks said.

Now, we're all aware that Lew Wolff has been making the rounds in the Tri-Cities for the last year, helping raise funds for various groups. Last year the team, in conjunction with the Good Tidings Foundation, donated the newly renovated and named Eckersley Field at Washington High School in Fremont.

I'm also aware of the fact that there are supporters of Cisco Field within the symphony ranks. I've spoken to one proponent who has talked with a gleam in his eye about the symphony doing outdoor performances at the public park just beyond centerfield. You know, the one with the two-sided scoreboard?

So, how about it Lew? Why not work with Good Tidings again and lend FSO a helping hand? Take some of that nice money the commish is throwing the team's way for the upcoming Japan trip and turn it around to benefit another community institution. It would go a long way towards maintaining Fremont's quality of life.

I wouldn't mind shuffling over to Cisco Field on a future 4th of July, taking in a ballgame and a concert by FSO. Nope, it wouldn't be bad at all.

Ex-mayor Morrison to run for Fremont mayor

Former Fremont mayor Gus Morrison (D), who is the most outspoken critic of the Cisco Field project, threw his hat in the ring for the upcoming mayoral race. Morrison will be running against incumbent Bob Wasserman (D), and councilman Steve Cho (R), both of whom are in favor of the plan.

It's a shrewd move by Morrison, whose previous critiques about the project were generally drowned out by the A's massive and highly effective PR campaign within the city limits. Now the mayoral election promises to bring the issue to the forefront, with a good measure of debate regarding the project's merits.

Morrison served five terms as mayor and was termed out, leaving the path open for Wasserman, his successor (whom he supported). Morrison also supported councilman Bob Wieckowski in his political rise, which is ironic considering Wieckowski's initial support of Cisco Field. Morrison is well known for his anti-development stance in the Fremont hills.

Timing is the key here. The EIR process started last December and there's no specific timeline for producing a draft. It may come in the summer, it may occur in the fall. Without the EIR, the debate becomes mostly high-level and philosophical without much data. That may or may not be where some think the debate should stay. It certainly makes it more difficult for Fremont citizens to make their own determination.

Just in case you're keeping score:

• Mayor Bob Wasserman supports the plan initially and does not believe a referendum is necessary.
• Vice Mayor Bill Harrison supports the plan initially and does not believe a referendum is necessary.
• Councilman Bob Wieckowski supports the plan initially and does not believe a referendum is necessary.
• Councilwoman Anu Natarajan supports the plan initially and does not believe a referendum is necessary.
• Councilman Steve Cho supports the plan initially but believes a referendum is a good idea. (He also thinks the project would be voter-approved.)
• Former Mayor Gus Morrison does not support the plan.

Suddenly what was going to be a fairly dull summer will heat up a bit.

Note: The word "initially" is used as a placeholder until the EIR draft is released and the final EIR is voted upon.

Work on the site

I drove by the Cisco Field site today and noticed a bunch of trucks sitting in the middle of a field, pretty close to where home plate would be located. One of the trucks was a drilling rig of some sort, and several guys in hard hats were congregating around it. My guess is they're doing some kind of soil and/or water samples on the site for the EIR work. Progress is made in small steps...

A tale of two arenas

In Seattle, a rich tradition of pro basketball is close to an end. The SuperSonics, who have been in Seattle for over 40 years, have threatened to leave the last few years unless a new arena or an upgraded KeyArena surfaces with better lease terms.

The previous Seattle Center Coliseum held only 14,448, which today would be considered a paltry figure but wasn't so small when it was originally built (today's arenas typically seat 17-19,000). Stories about the leaky roof abounded. The venue lacked any "modern" amenities or upscale luxuries. Yet it was unique, intimate, and serviceable for its time.

When the new KeyArena was unveiled as a redone Seattle Center Coliseum, it was much heralded. Instead of building from scratch, the floor was dug 35 feet deeper and a new seating configuration arose, making it far more basketball-specific than it was previously. A level containing 57 luxury suites was sandwiched between the new upper and lower levels. Club seats were added. Fans had visions of a burgeoning dynasty as they watched Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp lead their Sonics to the NBA finals in 1996. Most importantly, the deal was believed to be fiscally responsible as the debt on the renovation was expected to be serviced by team revenue sources and naming rights, not taxes.

Unfortunately, even with the renovation KeyArena was behind other newer venues. The New Arena in Oakland, formerly the Oakland Coliseum Arena, one-upped KeyArena. The New Arena was renovated with a similar philosophy: keep the shell, dig down a few stories, make it more basketball-specific. Out of its renovation the capacity shot up from 15,025 to 20,000+. Two new levels of suites were added, as were thousands of club seats and additional concourses.

Inside the arena, the new Warriors didn't quite deliver in their new digs. Mired in their post Nelson/Webber malaise, the team didn't become competitive until nearly a decade later. Unlike KeyArena, there was no immediate naming rights sponsor to help defray some of the $121 million renovation cost. By the turn of the millenium, it appeared as though the W's were stuck. Stuck with a bad team, with a bad lease, in an empty arena. High rental rates had many acts look south to San Jose Arena.

All of this makes it even more amazing that in 2008, the Warriors are remarkably successful. The team is arguably the most exciting in the league. The arena, now dubbed Oracle Arena or "The Oracle," is now considered one of the loudest and most boisterous in the league. While there haven't been any threats to move the team in the last decade, it's clear that the future couldn't be anymore solid for the franchise than it is now.

In Seattle, apathy and disaffection are at an all-time high. The Sonics, lottery-bound again, are a proverbial dead franchise walking as the front office focuses entirely on youth and rebuilding. The new owner from Oklahoma City thinly disguised his desires to move the team to his hometown, where a new facility and fanbase awaited. Efforts by NBA commish David Stern to bully, er, broker a deal failed. Stern proclaimed that a new franchise would not come to Seattle in the wake of the Sonics' departure. Worst of all, the responsible renovation deal became a good deed that did not go unpunished, as both the Mariners and Seahawks ended up with palatial new stadia funded largely by massive amounts of public funds.

This week, an ultra-rich Seattle group headed by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Costco CEO Jim Sinegal pitched a proposal to buy the one-step-out-the-door Sonics and pay for further expansion for KeyArena. Meanwhile, Oklahoma City voters approved $121 million in renovations for the five-year old Ford Center. Owners are expected to vote on the move in late April. Come 2011, the Seattle SuperSonics may be no more.

How non-binding is non-binding anyway?

The Santa Clara City Council approved adding a plebiscite on the 49ers' stadium proposal to the November ballot. However, the vote is non-binding, as in the City Council doesn't have to base its decision on the results of the vote. Even with that,

"I will follow the vote of the people, and that is binding," said Mayor Patricia Mahan.

Such statements are cold comfort for stadium opponents. Even so, the City and the team have to agree to a deal before the proposal ends up on the ballot. I doubt that they won't come to some kind of agreement, so expect the period from July to November to be an all-out PR blitz on the citizens of Santa Clara.

Because of the non-binding nature of the vote, I'm moving my opinion of the 49ers stadium project, which was previously a 50-50 shot, to 60% likely.

Please fix your gaze on our nation's capital

Apologies in advance to those outside the United States.

Something's stirring in DC. I'm not referring to the continuing Clemens-Waxman staredown, or the purported stonewalling of Arlen Specter by the NFL. There's a new ballpark in the District, and it's causing more than a little upheaval.

The still-unnamed, $611 million, publicly-funded stadium is getting its finishing touches prior to its opening, which is only one month away. There's a good deal of apprehension about what will happen when the Nats start playing ball in their new digs, and for good reason. It appears that the Nats will be getting by with the bare minimum of parking at the site while leveraging the excellent but potentially overtaxed Metrorail system to get up to 50% of all stadiumgoers to and from the ballpark.

For those not familiar with Metro, it's a third-rail based system that's about the same length (trackwise) as BART, but with more standardized equipment (standard gauge tracks) and cool modern station design (platforms actually light up as trains approach). It also has three times the riders of BART, many of whom come from the Maryland and Northern Virginia suburbs to work in the District daily.

The Navy Yard station is only one block from the northern edge of the ballpark, though it's serviced by only one Metro route, the Green line. The west entrance to the station is being expanded and new escalators have been added to accommodate up to 15,000 people per hour. Previously, the entrance could handle only 5,000. Getting everyone in and out on trains shouldn't be too difficult as WMATA has plenty of experience with crush crowds from their previous work with RFK Stadium and Verizon Center. It promises to be somewhat time-consuming as each trainset is only a pair of cars holding up to 350 total including standees (DC riders please correct me on this if I am mistaken - I'm recalling from memory).

Metro promises to be full of fans who park at or near a station further away and take the subway in. That's a pretty good plan since parking is going to be scarce around the ballpark. Two garages, holding a total of 1,200 spaces, have had their spaces signed away to the team and its highest of high-roller customers. The Nats are working on an additional 4,000 spaces in the vicinity. The catch? Those spaces are only being promised to season ticket holders. Area residents have their own on-street parking restrictions (PDF map). Casual fans will either have to endure a frustrating hunt for expensive parking, or park and take a shuttle from RFK, which is over 2 miles away through what will probably be gnarly traffic. At least parking and the shuttle are supposed to be free.

Speaking of shuttles, the RFK shuttle won't be alone. WMATA is beefing up buses to handle fans who want to use a non-subway alternative to Union Station and other more central locales. Still others who are looking to avoid the crush at Navy Yard may take a different line to another station about a mile away from the ballpark, then hoof it in.

As the area around the ballpark gets more developed parking options should increase. For the time being managing this situation on a daily basis should be at the very least quite challenging. There's one interesting indicator of how difficult it could be: the Nats don't have a single midweek day game at home on this season's schedule.

Updated Ballpark Transit Comparison

Some of you had been asking what happened to transit comparison table I put together a year ago. Well, I inadvertantly deleted it during the summer while doing some site maintenance. I took the recent down period to construct a new version of the table, so here it is in its renewed glory (click on either graphic to view a larger version):


The legend above doesn't have an explanation for the "Setting" column. I left it off to cover it in the post. I think it's important to make certain distinctions regarding the various environments that the different ballparks inhabit. In doing this, I came up with three specific categories: Downtown, Urban, and Suburban. Here's what they mean:

• Downtown: Refers to a specific neighborhood within a city that serves as its CBD, or Central Business District. A downtown usually includes an already pre-existing dense, vibrant neighborhood that serves as a central focal point for retail and entertainment. Downtown will usually have a major transit hub or similar facility within walking distance of the stadium. This is important as the locale and its proximity to the transit hub may reduce the need for transfers on public transit. The ballpark site may have limited parking immediately adjacent but other independently operated facilities serve the public, filling demand.
• Urban: Covers a large and somewhat disparate group. In all cases, the site is somewhat centrally located within a market or region. However, the ballpark is not located within the designated downtown area, which usually means a transfer is required for a sizable portion of the fanbase. In some cases, an extensive parking facility may be onsite or adjacent (examples: US Cellular Field, McAfee Coliseum, Miller Park). Alternately, there may be an active legacy neighborhood for which the ballpark serves as an anchor (Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park).
• Suburban: This type of venue is usually surrounded by many acres of parking. Public transit availability is not generally a major factor for its fanbase. The site is often far from an established CBD or other established neighborhood, making trips the ballpark an in-and-out affair. Some ballparks straddle the line between Urban and Suburban due to their location (central to the populace), and (re)development occurring in the area adjacent to the site.

As Cisco Field and the ballpark village are completed, we may see new proposals elsewhere that mimic the A's efforts. If so I may add a new category called quasi-urban, which denotes a facility that has urban traits but is in a decidedly suburban location.

The hollow X's indicate transit options that are planned or are under construction. In Phoenix, the first leg of its light rail line is due to open this December. Seattle's light rail is scheduled to open in 2009. Fremont's Warm Springs BART station would open a few years after Cisco Field and would require a shuttle for access. The south Fremont train station may be up and running sometime before that, it would also require a shuttle.

At some point I'll add a column showing the percentage of fans that use public transit in its various forms.

Stepping up in Florida

In a recent St. Pete Times update on the Rays' downtown ballpark proposal, I noticed the following passage:

The money would come from a private team loan, Rays senior vice president of development Michael Kalt said. The Rays previously had planned to pay the city $10-million a year in rent payments to cover a third of the $450-million stadium cost.

Changes in Major League Baseball revenue and accounting rules allowed the Rays to reconsider how they paid their part of ballpark construction.

This caught me off guard. I'm trying to find out more about this. UPDATE: I got a clarification from the writer, Aaron Sharockman. MLB now allows teams to pay teams to put in their contribution against revenue sharing upfront. My take on this is presumably, a team could choose to amortize this over several years so that it hits as part of the "stadium operating expenses" revenue sharing deduction.

On the other side of the swamp, details are trickling out about the Marlins' ballpark financing plan. The Sun-Sentinel has come out in favor of the plan, its argument being, "If it doesn't get done with this deal it won't get done at all." Now that's a sales pitch for ya.

Anything new? Not really

Between commercials on the Ronn Owens Show (archive), the banter between host and guest and the Q&A bits with callers felt like a simple PR exercise, something of a Hey! We're still alive and working! session. There were nearly as many calls from fans wanting answers about the offseason personnel moves as there were about the ballpark.

As expected, Owens didn't challenge Wolff much, preferring to follow up when callers gave their questions. One caller in particular asked Wolff why the A's would leave Oakland for Fremont if they were clearly getting a better stadium deal in Oakland. Wolff replied that the team would in fact be getting a better deal in Fremont because, as stated here previously, the revenue from the ballpark village would help pay for the ballpark. I don't understand why the detractors continue to have difficulty comprehending this.

A few San Jose-based callers chimed in. One was so bold as to suggest that Wolff pull an Al Davis and simply move the team to San Jose, territorial rights and MLB be damned. Of course, we've seen what happened when Steve Schott tried to do that exact thing - it didn't end in success. The issue of MLB's antitrust exemption came up, and when Owens challenged Wolff to explain what it was, Wolff demurred.

Other "highlights":

• Wolff said that the development team and city officials are in talks everyday regarding the traffic management plan, which is part of the EIR. When asked by a caller about a BART solution, he surprisingly didn't mention yesterday's good news regarding the Warm Springs extension. Instead he gave the same pat answer as he's done previously.
• Owens asked Wolff if the residential portion would be a gated community. He said it would not. The initial conceptual drawings seem to confirm this.
• Wolff showed Owens a new concept noisemaker that looks like a baseball and when opened, sounds (and looks) like a trumpeting elephant. Owens commented that it wasn't annoying enough. I sense a jump-the-shark moment for noisemakers...
• The name issue is still up in the air, and Wolff again suggested that financing may help decide the name. While I certainly don't think it will mean a corporate-named team (AFAIK this is not allowed under the ML Constitution) there's still a great possibility of "Silicon Valley" or "San Jose" due to Valley powers throwing their support behind the project.
  
• Speaking of San Jose, Wolff said the city is encouraging the Quakes to move forward with the FMC site. The Quakes are back this season, with SCU's Buck Shaw Stadium serving as their main temporary home. The Quakes will also play thrice at McAfee Coliseum during the 2008 season.
  

In hindsight, maybe they should have rescheduled so that it wouldn't run opposite the Clemens hearings, which were fantastic theater if nothing else.