Sometimes it pays to read...

Surprisingly, there is a blurb in the terms of the agreement between the Raiders and Oakland/Alameda County that has something to do with the A's. The Trib posted a three-page excerpt alongside their story. Here's the text (verbatim):

2g. Subject to the Authority reaching a mutually agreeable agreement with the Oakland Athletics, the Raiders may sell and retain all revenues from specified fixed advertising inventory in the Stadium on a year-round basis. The parties acknowledge that the Authority has made a good faith representation that the Athletics are agreeable to such an arrangement and the Authority will use its best efforts to finalize such an agreement with the Athletics. Additionally, Raiders shall be permitted to sell and retain all revenues from temporary advertising (banners) during football games provided that sponsors do not conflict with current Athletics exclusivity arrangements. The Raiders do not share any advertising revenue received by the EBEs.

In short, the A's won't be receiving revenue from much of, if not most of, the advertising in the Coliseum. From the looks of things, the only revenue they'll get is from the baseball-specific signage: the rotating board behind the plate, tarp covers, dugouts, and the outfield fence. The Coliseum has no dazzling ribbon board on the plaza level facade, and the signage panels next to the scoreboard are smaller than those at other parks. Why would the A's agree to this deal? There are a few possibilities:

• The revenue the A's realized was fairly inconsequential, and to help the public entities out (and to curry favor with them as well for a future ballpark), they decided to forego the revenue.
• The A's want to be able to point to the limited advertising revenue as another one of the Coliseum's "deficiencies."
• Tha A's want to limit revenue, which could mean a lower payment into the revenue sharing structure and higher revenue sharing receipt.
  
• The A's were simply being magnanimous.
  

Since there are no charity cases in these kinds of deals, I think we can dismiss #4 out of hand. #3 is unlikely because the amount probably is inconsequential. So the truth probably lies in both #1 and #2, though there may be other motives at work. In the end, whatever money they don't get can't be blamed on the A's not signing Paul Konerko or Brian Giles. However, it does look like the deal greases the skids for a clean Raiders' departure in 2010. Imagine that scenario: It's 2011, and there are no tenants at the Oakland Coliseum. The thought gives me shivers.

---

Update (11/3, 11:03 AM): A little historical context is in order. A three-year-old article from the East Bay Business Times covers a lawsuit brought by the Raiders (of course) against the A's for allegedly withholding advertising revenue. Though I haven't seen any news items related to the suit after it was filed, it appears that the A's giving the Raiders the ad money may settle the matter. The baseline revenue the A's had received was $3.9 million per year, with the Raiders and A's splitting money above that amount. It's definitely nothing to sneeze at, but it's also not enough for the A's to score a big-time righty slugger, either.

Raiders kill PSL's - The lessons learned

The Raiders have officially declared their ill-conceived PSL system dead. Unfortunately for Raider fans, they've had to endure 10 years of high prices, walk-up fans that can get seats just as good as the PSL holders without paying for PSL's, and television blackouts that result from poor ticket sales. Under the new arrangement, the Raiders will take over all ticket sales and marketing operations from the Oakland Football Marketing Association, which will now take its rightful place alongside such flops as the Titanic and the Ford Edsel.

This doesn't mean the concept of the seat license is dead. While Lew Wolff has acknowledged the lack of popularity for the maligned PSL, it's still hard to imagine a new stadium being built these days without some kind of sale. Advanced PSL sales can account for roughly 10% of total financing, which is no small number. Combine that with naming rights and other marketing deals, and the upfront share can easily reach $100 million without an owner having to spend a single cent out of pocket. The Cardinals have more than sold out their seat licenses for next year's edition of Busch Stadium, and the Yankees will likely do the same with the new Yankee Stadium. Maybe Wolff can fund the project without having to resort to selling seat licenses, but I'm skeptical.

The real lessons to be learned from the Raiders/OFMA debacle are:

• Make sure the demand is there.
  
• Have the subscriptions be lifetime subscriptions, not renewable ones.
• Instead, lock in the ticket prices associated with a seat license for a set number of years, then let the consumer decide if he/she wants to renew and lock in price controls again.
• Make sure the licenses are transferable via sales or bequest.

As painful as this ordeal was for the taxpayers of Alameda County, other cities and teams learned much from the Raiders' cautionary tale, and made sure that their efforts didn't repeat the same mistakes as those committed in Oakland.

---

Another note - I have reluctantly added the "word verification" feature to comments in order to combat the spam-bots that occasionally make comments on the posts. Not a big fan of it, but sometimes it's necessary.

San Jose site acquisition continues

Update (10:50 PM): San Jose City Council is expected to vote on the acquisition next Tuesday (November 8).

The City of San Jose is set to buy a key property on the proposed Diridon South ballpark site. The property in question is the former Stephen's Meat Products factory, which is distinctive for its "dancing pig" neon sign that greets drivers going south on Montgomery Street. The 1 acre site could cost up to $5.7 million.

Unlike what's happening in DC, the properties at Diridon South are expected to sell for actual market value through negotiations, meaning eminent domain isn't expected to be used. That should also ensure that there are no lengthy legal battles over the value of the land. That issue has ensnared the DC acquisition process enough to cause some waffling over the plan, even putting the projected timeline in jeopardy.

The downside is that the total cost of the land will be high - somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 million. So far, the money has come from the sale of other properties, notably the Brandenburg/North San Pedro site, upon which new residential towers will be built.

Stadium foes such as Kathy Chavez-Napoli have criticized the acquisition because they believe that it violates the city's own laws which dictate that no money can be spent on the building of a sports facility without a vote. The city's redevelopment arm (SJRA) may have an out because the land is being acquired with no specific purpose yet. It could be used for housing (per the Diridon/Arena planning document), a ballpark, or other commercial uses. The city's legal counsel has signed off on the legality of the acquisitions, though it does appear pretty clear what the greater purpose is. Whatever your take is on the subject, San Jose is well on their way to acquiring the site prior to a November 2006 ballot measure.

The leading question is - how is San Jose going to arrange its proposal? Will it offer to sell the land to a developer who can then build the ballpark? Or will it keep the land and arrange a long-term lease for the ballpark developer (the Giants/China Basin deal)? And what of surrounding parcels, some of which are also ripe for development of anything from parking structures to office towers to mixed-use residential development, such as a ballpark village?

A's radio up in the air

The Chron's radio reporter, Steve Kroner, wrote in Friday's edition about the many issues that the A's face in their broadcasting future. Not only does A's VP Ken Pries have the impossible task of filling the seat of the late, irreplaceable Bill King, but he also has to to broker a deal to get the A's on some kind of flagship station (AM-preferred) prior to the start of the 2006 season. Among the other open issues:

• Who will be the A's television play-by-play guy(s)?
• Will Hank Greenwald return? If so, how diminished will his schedule be?
• What will happen to fill-in radio play-by-play man Steve Bitker?
  

Based on various media reports, there are a few quality "free agent" broadcasters out there, including Ted Robinson (most recently of the Mets) and John Rooney (White Sox). Rooney would be my choice just because of his smooth baritone, but Robinson is perfectly competent - he's even worked for the A's in the past. Another possibility is Doug Greenwald, Hank's son, who has spent the last couple of years broadcasting for the Giants' Fresno (AAA) team. Greenwald has worked for nearly every California minor league team, and he at least deserves a shot at the gig. He previously auditioned for the open Giants radio position that eventually went to Dave Flemming, another young upstart.

Not to be lost in all of this is the news that after initial discussions, neither KQKE-960 nor KNEW-910 will broadcast the A's next season. That eliminates two more candidates from the already short list of potential radio homes for the A's. November is usually negotiation time for such matters, so we should hear more then.

---

Following up on initial reports in early October, the Bay Area Radio Digest confirmed that Cumulus Media is buying Susquehanna's radio properties, which include KNBR-680 and 1050.

---

Thanks Rob for the heads-up on the A's radio article.

CoCo Times: The nascent bidding war

The headline may be a bit too sensationalistic, but we may find that in a year it's right on target. The Contra Costa Times editorial page acknowledged the interest by Fremont and San Jose, even Sacramento and Las Vegas. Wolff's Oakland plan has both merit and challenges. Should Opening Day 2006 pass with little progress on the Oakland front, there's a good chance that multiple suitors will emerge with formal proposals, perhaps including cities in Alameda County that have been silent so far. Portland, OR remains a possibility just because the financial plan there remained in place even after they lost out in the Expos bidding war.

Exit car dealerships, enter... ballpark?

Update (10/26, 3:05 PM): Today I pitched the idea to Ignacio De La Fuente and Nancy Nadel. Councilwoman Nadel, in whose district the site resides, has been receptive so far. She's passing the idea along to Redevelopment. We'll see what happens from there.

---

According to an article in Sunday's Trib, some of the dealerships on Broadway Auto Row have expressed interest in relocating to a new "auto mall" concept at the old Oakland Army Base. Reasons given are the location's proximity and visibility from I-880, the fact that it's a little closer to San Francisco, and lower land costs/leases.

There are already plans to build various types of housing in the area based on available zoning and planning resources, but even with those plans, there exists at least one site where a ballpark could be built. The site is at the intersection of 27th Street and Broadway. It's roughly the shape of a triangle, and is just about the perfect site to shoehorn a ballpark in. Broadway Ford, a used car lot, and some other auto-related businesses currently occupy the area. I counted 2-3 houses and small apartment buildings as well.

These residents and businesses would obviously have to be relocated, and other land in the area would have to be acquired to fulfill Wolff's concept of surrounding development paying for the ballpark costs, but the site has several advantages, including its ideal downtown/uptown location and access to BART. There would also be neat views of the Oakland skyline and Lake Merritt (presumably from the upper deck). It even has a slight downward slope that's conducive to building a ballpark. Keep in mind that the idea of a building a ballpark on the site isn't mentioned in the article, but if Wolff's looking for an appropriate site, this one may just work.

What would it look like? Compare the image above - the land as it currently exists - with the image below, which has a conceptual design on it. (Please note that the images were created with the wonderful Google Earth application.)

That's Lake Merritt and Adams Point in the upper left hand corner. The nearest BART station is the 19th Street Station, about 5 blocks away from the right field corner. The entry to the BART station is actually at 20th and Broadway. It wouldn't be possible to build a closer station because BART's tunnel makes a westerly (left) turn just past 20th Street before it aligns with I-980/CA-24.

San Jose looks to acquire PG&E substation

Barry Witt's report in today's Merc covers San Jose's efforts to get PG&E to study moving a substation located on the Diridon South site. The substation could either be reconfigured or moved. A potential site is the fire training center on the other side of Park Avenue.

The substation is wedged between the old Stephens Meat plant (which closed down last month) and the Union Pacific/Amtrak/Caltrain tracks, towards the northern end of the trapezoid-shaped lot. I have been told that substation, which is roughly the shape of a square that juts into adjacent properties, could be reconfigured to run parallel to the tracks. If that's the case, it would be the most cost-efficient option since it may be possible to move without rerouting the high-tension transmission lines that run above the property.

One more property acquisition may be required for the ballpark to work properly. A small parking lot just north of the substation is used as long term parking for Amtrak riders. If the ballpark were to have a southeast orientation, there might not be enough space put in a proper field without this space. That is, unless the designers want yet another bandbox.

---

Update (10/26, 10:44): Another article which quotes Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone is on the CBS-5/KPIX website.

San Jose - Renovate Muni or Pursue A's?

San Jose has, for lack of a better term, found itself in a bit of a pickle. The city's oft-forgotten Class A San Jose Giants play in the historically rich but otherwise decrepit Municipal Stadium. An article in this week's San Jose Business Journal reports on the Giants' parent team, the San Francisco Giants, giving a 2007 deadline to renovate the stadium or the S.J. Giants will move. Towards the end of the article are a few nuggets about MLB's territorial rights issue.

Of course, many of the San Jose politicos are focused on "bigger" things like their downtown ballpark site, which is being bought by the city's Redevelopment Agency in hopes of prepping the site for the A's. Still, there's a vocal group of S.J. Giants supporters and preservationists that want to get Muni up to par with the rest of the California League. Considering the resounding success of Stockton's Banner Island Ballpark, Muni pales in comparison.

Complicating matters is a plan to redevelop much of the area, which also contains Spartan Stadium, Logitech Ice (where the Sharks practice), Spartan Village to the north, and Kelley Park to the east. The plan would convert the area, which I've at times called a "black hole," into a large mixed-development concept with new retail and medium-density housing. The plan also calls for changes to Spartan Stadium, which the San Jose Earthquakes are looking to upgrade if they don't relocate first. City Council member Cindy Chavez, who is considered the frontrunner in the 2006 mayoral race, supports this plan. The biggest issues with the plan are the costs associated with rebuilding two stadiums (which have to be voter-approved) and other ancillary costs, which may include cleanup of a Superfund site south of Spartan Stadium. There's also the problem of light rail, which is a prohibitive mile west of the area along CA-87.

Where would the S.J. Giants go if they left San Jose? Try Napa or Sonoma, or maybe Contra Costa County.

In the end, it may come down to a debate about getting a major league team at the expense of losing a piece of history (Muni and the Giants - though the Giants have only been around since 1988). As the campaign moves forward, the candidates, including Chavez, Chuck Reed, and pro-major league candidate Dave Cortese will have plenty of opportunities to convince San Jose voters why their respective vision is best.

R.I.P. Bill King

I remember this routine I had as a child. As a typical latchkey kid, I'd come home with my twin brother to an empty house. During baseball season, my brother and I would have time to watch the dynamic duo of G.I. Joe and Transformers. After the cartoons ended, my brother would head to a neighbor's house. I'd stay home and go straight to the radio. If the A's were playing on the East Coast, the cartoons would lead up to an East Coast 4:35 start.

I'd move from the family room to the living room, where the old Sears console stereo sat in corner. The console was multi-functional, as it served as a real piece of furniture that happened to have speakers and an analog dial. I had long ago broken the record player after repeatedly playing an old floppy red Sweet Pickles record one too many times. As part of the routine, I pulled out my homework, math first, and laid it out on the console's table area. I didn't realize it then, but this was my first experience with multitasking, and it would serve me well in later years.

Bill and Lon often alternated responsibilities to keep things fresh. One would do the lineups and the first half-inning, the other would do the next two innings. Both did TV back then, so it wasn't uncommon to hear only one of them during the broadcast at times while the other did TV, but it was pure magic when both were in the radio booth trading barbs and stories. Bill's feisty nature was a perfect foil for Lon's laid-back, dry humor. Sometimes I felt as if I had this set of invisible grandfathers in the console, teaching me about the game, about the meaning of a word donnybrook (which they only used for high-scoring games). I remember:

• John Shulock's enormous ego and hot temper
• How Dave Kingman was virtually useless in the field but was still entertaining just because of his swing
• The optimism in their voices about the 1986-87 teams, which were young and talent-rich
• The explanation of TLR's "Village Idiot" comment
  
• Exasperation at Luis Polonia's glove size and his Byrnes-like routes to the ball
• Bill deferring to Lon in the 9th inning of Game 4
• Not knowing about Bill's brilliance in working basketball play-by-play until I heard archived broadcasts some years later
• How Bill cherished the challenge that broadcasting baseball brought. Not to belittle hoops, but the action on the court was plentiful enough to get a rhythm going and coast it all the way through. Baseball required a different skillset, one of frequent metaphors and similes and the occasional bit of alliteration. It's why he stopped doing TV.
  
• Bill's complete dissatisfaction with interleague play, Bud Selig (who was sardonically coined "our brilliant leader" once, IIRC), and The Ballpark in Arlington
• Bill's love of New York, Boston, and Seattle
• How on more than one occasion, another broadcaster recounted (Lon, Ray, or Ken) picking Bill up from his hotel room, only to be greeted by either the smell of raw onions or thick cigar smoke.
• Bill's recent attempts to inject his "street" knowledge, especially of hip-hop music, into some broadcasts.
  
• Bill phoning into Gary Radnich's show a few weeks ago to tell a story about the first spike he saw in the NFL (the Raiders' Hewritt Dixon) and how Bill's trademark handlebar moustache was non-conformist, forcing the TV network to hire two schmos to do pre and postgame work while Bill, unseen, did the play-by-play telecast.
  

Wikipedia has already acknowledged Bill King's passing today.

I'll miss Bill more than anything. Three years ago, longtime colleague Chick Hearn passed away, ironically while recovering after hip surgery. Maybe they've already donned their headsets to work play-by-play in heaven. But not before Bill stopped to have a chat and a drink with Wilt Chamberlain and Billy Martin.

An attendance comparison

Below is a table showing seasonal attendance totals for the 2000-2005 seasons. By representing the data in this manner, certain conclusions can be drawn about the nature of baseball attendance. But before I get to that, here's the table:



First, I should point out the reasoning behind picking the selected five teams. All are California teams, which after looking at different demographic data from all 30 MLB teams, provide the best direct comparisons because of similar climate, economies, commute/travel issues, and similar availability of substitutes (other forms of entertainment).

The figures in red indicate a watershed event. For the 2000 Giants, it was their inaugural season at their new ballpark. The 2003 Angels had a huge attendance boost after they won World Series. The Padres opened their new venue in 2004. At first it may not seem like much in terms of commonality, but each instance provided a catalyst for substantial attendance growth.

---

The Dodgers have been almost guaranteed of 3 million each season over the last decade. Dodger Stadium has managed to retain much of its luster despite being 43 years old. Recent renovation has been done in steps, starting with the addition of club sections and more field level seats. The next phase involves redoing the bleacher pavilion sections and changes to concourse circulation. No change is expected to affect attendance much, except perhaps to retain fans instead of losing them to the Angels.

That other L.A. team did not experience a huge attendance boost when Anaheim Stadium was reborn as a baseball-only facility in 1996. The team had just come off a dismal 70-91 season, and fans weren't buying into a repackaged "Big A." The Angels turned it around to have a 84-78 record in 1997. Fans rewarded the Angels in the 1998 season, as the new bandwagon netted a whopping 42% seasonal gain. This was maintained until two straight 3rd place finishes kept them at the 2 million mark. The bandwagon was slow to get involved in 2002, resulting in a 15% rise to 2.3 million. After the World Championship, however, attendance has been steadily above 3 million and continues to rise as fans responded to investments in superstars such as Vladimir Guerrero, as well as a successful marketing campaign in the entire L.A. area. It's a credit to owner Arte Moreno that he hasn't chosen to rest on his laurels after buying the team in 2003. He used that inherited goodwill as capital to expand the fanbase. He may have alienated Orange County fans with the adoption of the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" moniker, but so far there hasn't been any visible backlash. Though the Angels are expected to be contenders next year and have plenty of young talent stashed away in the minors, they also face difficult payroll decisions in the next two years that could quickly escalate their payroll beyond tenable levels.

Near the border, Petco Park gave the Padres a 50% increase in attendance from 2003 to 2004. Seasonal attendance exhibited a gradual decline until the opening of the park, as if fans waited until the park opened to attend games. In 2005, the novelty effect of Petco wore off slightly, resulting in a 7% dip even though the team won the division - albeit while posting a worse record. The venue has shown itself to be a pitcher's park, which may make it difficult to sign a free agent slugger, which could then translate into lower fan interest and attendance. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years, as the Padres run into the upper limits of the revenue the ballpark provides towards payroll, the talented young core emerges from team-controlled and arbitration years into free agency, and the at times chilly Petco weather becomes a detractor. It is for these reasons that I think the Padres' situation most parallels the A's - if the A's were to get a new ballpark in the next few years.

SBC (soon to be AT&T?) Park has been an unquestionable success for the Giants. Over 3 million each year have gone through the turnstiles since the place opened, so it's hard to argue with the effect the ballpark has had on the team's fortunes and the city itself. It is important to point out the incremental effect other factors have had on the attendance mark. The Giants have remained in contention throughout throughout all six years and have a World Series appearance to go with it. Barry Bonds's home run theatrics have turned the ballpark into an almost transcendent setting with the heightened drama his at bats bring. The weather has at times been better, though the wind and fog has not been mitigated as well as hoped. Lastly, SBC Park's superior accessibility from multiple modes of public transit have not only brought fans more easily from the existing fanbase in the outer reaches of S.F., Marin County, and the Peninsula (via Caltrain), it has also pulled fans more easily from the East Bay, which happens to be the A's stronghold. It's difficult to say how big an effect SBC Park has had on the A's attendance. It's doubtful that it could translate into anything more than 1-2% of A's seasonal totals.

There has been talk that the A's may have reached an attendance ceiling given the circumstances. Let's look at the different factors (excuses?):

• Second team in the smallest two-team market
• Inferior venue with too many seats to restrict supply
• No "nightlife" around Coliseum
• Cold night games due to marine layer-influenced bay microclimate
• Loss of identifiable stars to free agency (Giambi, Tejada, Damon) and trades (Mulder, Hudson)
• Uncertainty regarding the team's future in Oakland
• Promotions like bobblehead giveaways and "Double Play Wednesdays" ($2 tickets) drawing fans away from non-promotion games
• The Giants and SBC Park "stealing" fans away from the A's
• The reputation of the California or Bay Area sports fan - not as rabid or passionate as an East Coast fan
• Competition among other teams and forms of entertainment
  

Winning a World Series could provide a sizable boost in season ticket sales, but if the next season the A's had one of their historically poor starts, the reduced walk-up sales and rising no-shows could quickly cancel them out. The Florida Marlins are a classic example of this. Sustained success with real improvements (AL pennant, World Series) are the only way to keep the fans. The Marlins are the extreme due to unusual circumstances. The Twins and Braves are more similar to the A's - since all three teams are perceived to be unable to advance past a certain point in the playoffs, fan interest has not improved beyond a certain ceiling level.

While a ballpark can help improve many of these areas, it isn't a total solution. Siting the ballpark at the Coliseum won't help with the weather, though it may be compelling enough that fans cease to use the weather as yet another excuse. An extra $20-40 million per year will help retain one or two stars, but Billy Beane's not going to start spending like Brian Cashman and Theo Epstein. It's clear that for the A's to add and subsequently retain fan interest, they'll have to:

• Get the ballpark built
• Maintain a modicum of success to ensure good walk-up crowds after the novelty wears off
• Achieve either a pennant or World Series win to counter poor perception and create a "halo effect"
  
• Market aggressively through multiple forms of media (TV, radio, print, net)
• Sign or re-sign one or more marquee players
• Create partnerships through long-term deals with the flagship radio affiliate

It's a tall order, and it doesn't all have to be done, nor does it all have to be done at once. It doesn't venture into an even more ideal situation, such as the creation of a regional sports network. But if those six steps above aren't attempted, the A's won't maximize the potential of the sophisticated and fickle Bay Area market.

Contra Costa Times supports Fremont

A newly penned editorial in today's Contra Costa Times welcomes Fremont's attempts to get the A's. Since it's early in the game, there are no detailed specifics to criticize, such as public funding. The editorial qualifies the notion by emphasizing that the paper doesn't necessarily want the A's to leave Oakland, but if this is what it takes to stay in the Bay Area, so be it.

HomeBase (Coliseum South) fire

Local evening newscasts all have reported a seven alarm fire tonight burning at the old HomeBase (Coliseum South) site immediately to the south of the Coliseum complex. I took pictures of the site several months ago and compiled them into an overview (PDF format). The site has been vacant for several years and though it is fenced off, there are several openings in the fence for people to enter. I never saw anyone there when I walked around the place to take pictures, but it's probably a very inviting place for anyone that needs a roof and cover from police. The EDD building next door appeared to be threatened earlier, but reports as of 11:30 indicate that the fire is now under control. I sincerely hope no one was hurt or killed, though I have to wonder if this is somehow related to the displacement of a large homeless camp along the Lake Merritt inlet, next to the Oak-to-Ninth site. There weren't many places the affected homeless persons to go after the camp was broken up, and the HomeBase building certainly could have functioned as shelter. Posted below are the old picture montage of the site and an aerial view.

---

The flood control channel that surrounds the site may act as a buffer, but some of the peripheral structures at the Coliseum may be in jeopardy, such as a cell phone tower and the football seats (which may be installed in the Coliseum right now).

News from other projects

Some good reading from other cities where ballparks are in various planning stages:

• Backers of a downtown Kansas City ballpark launched a new website yesterday promoting the concept. A Powerpoint presentation in PDF format is available on the site. The presentation goes over downtown resurgence in other cities: San Francisco, Cleveland, Denver, and Pittsburgh. Obviously, the numbers are spun to give as favorable a view as possible, and I've read as many articles that say the Cleveland redevelopment plan has failed as I have that it has succeeded. I also can't agree with the design, which looks too reminiscent of SBC Park and doesn't address SBC's main flaw: the left field corner seating on the second and third tiers. If you've sat there before, you know what I mean.
• There's a great article in the Washington City Paper (weekly) about the me-too style and lack of innovation in the DC Navy Yard ballpark concept. If you want a primer on how to design a fan-unfriendly park, this is it. If you want something that makes much more sense for the suits, bleacher bums, and families, check back here in a few weeks. Note: the writer bases much of his judgments on the DC ballpark terms, which were published several months ago.
• It appears that any hope for a Twins' stadium to be approved this year has evaporated, as state legislators have shown no interest in a special session to vote on non-emergency issues.
• A key big development project that was planned for Las Vegas has collapsed, leaving it unclear where a future ballpark fits in. The news may be good or bad for Vegas depending on which new developer steps in for The Related Cos. Still no word on the cost of building a ballpark (domed or not?) and the unknown method of funding it, let alone what Mayor Oscar Goodman will do about addressing the gambling issue.
  

Fremont City Council approves study

The preliminary feasibility study was unanimously approved (5-0) tonight in what could be viewed as a formality. City Manager Fred Diaz plans to spend $30-50,000 on the study, which will cover land use, transportation, and costs for future services for the planned development. The study will take 90 days or more to complete, and there is no hurry since it should dovetail with Wolff's announcement prior to or at the beginning of the 2006 season.

There were some interesting comments from the mayor and council members:

• Mayor Bob Wasserman said that he was first contacted by Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. Wasserman isn't operating under any delusions regarding the concept. There is huge potential, but there are also downsides. The effort is rooted in the idea of keeping the team in Alameda County. Whatever plan comes out of it will be a joint effort between the city and county.
  
• Council member Dominick Dutra asked what kinds of communications the city has had with Wolff. The answer was that they were basically "outreach"-type discussions, but nothing of any real substance since the A's are still negotiating with Oakland.
• The study isn't just for a ballpark. Another idea is a regional sports facility, which could mean any number of things: sports complex, soccer stadium and fields, almost anything. The facility could be built alongside or instead of the ballpark.
  
• There was no mention of public or private financing. It's too early in the process to start discussing such specifics.

Probably the most interesting thing about the session was what happened before the council approved the study. The council acknowledged several police officers who had reached 20-25 years of service with the Fremont Police Department. Most of them had either been born in Fremont or spent the majority of their lives there. It was rather refreshing to see that in an area that is known for its large transplant and transient population, that these officers had been home for so long. It also speaks to the "smallness" of Fremont, that this city of 200,000 has a sense of community and security that belies its physical size: 93 square miles, the second largest in terms of area in the Bay Area. Council member Anu Natarajan mentioned that local writer Jaime Richards felt that Fremont was "on the verge of greatness," and Fremont's suburban nature will always keep it in a struggle between its near-small town character and its cosmopolitan desires. It's the same issue that has dogged San Jose for much of the last 25 years, though San Jose's sheer population size makes it far too big for anyone to feel that sense of intimacy there.

One more thing - council member Bob Wieckowski donned an A's cap while calling for the motion to approve the study. Natarajan seconded the motion, and the vote was taken. The session was adjourned shortly thereafter.

p.s. (10:03 pm) - Where do people get the idea that "Oakland" will remain with the team name if it moves to Fremont? Fremont also wants to get on the map with this move. It's not entirely altruistic. If Fremont's going to make the large investment (land, money), they should get the team name. It was part of the two Santa Clara deals. I hate to bring it up, but there's no glamour in the name "Oakland." There's a better chance of the team being named "The San Francisco Athletics of Fremont" than the retention of the name "Oakland Athletics." Leave your emotional attachments at the door, folks. To the victors go the spoils.

Fremont City Council meeting tonight

Fremont's City Council is considering conducting a ballpark preliminary feasibility study tonight. Here are the specifics:

• 7. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER

  7.1 PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POSSIBLE PROPOSAL TO OAKLAND A’S

  Consideration of a Preliminary Study and the Possibility of a Proposal to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team to Locate in Fremont

  Contact Person:

  Name: Fred Diaz Christine S. Daniel

  Title: City Manager Deputy City Manager

  Dept.: City Manager’s Office City Manager’s Office

  Phone: 510-284-4002 510-284-4008

  E-Mail: fdiaz@ci.fremont.ca.us cdaniel@ci.fremont.ca.us

  RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to retain a consultant and conduct a preliminary feasibility study or studies to enable the Council to determine whether to make a proposal to the Oakland Athletics baseball team to locate in Fremont, should their ongoing negotiations with the City of Oakland not prove successful.

If you're interested, the meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Council Chambers is at 3300 Capitol Avenue in Fremont, within walking distance of the Fremont BART station and the Fremont Hub shopping center. I'll be there, and I should have a follow-up post later tonight.

Susquehanna Media finds a buyer

To cap a fairly news-heavy end of the week, Reuters reports that Susquehanna Media is about to be sold to a group of investors including Cumulus Media. Cumulus has around 300 stations in mostly mid-market areas, and acquiring the Susquehanna portfolio of stations expands its reach into bigger markets like the San Francisco Bay Area. Cumulus does not currently have a presence in the Bay Area, so they won't be forced to divest other stations to run newly acquired ones.

It's unlikely that there will be any serious changes to KNBR. KTCT remains a question mark, but since it will probably remain part of the parent company, any opportunity for A's to acquire it appears to have passed. Next up is the sale of Disney's ABC Radio properties, which constitutes an even bigger portfolio than Susquehanna. Expect Disney to sell the radio business whole, not piecemeal (individual stations).

Dellums to run for Oakland mayor.

Former US representative Ron Dellums has announced his candidacy for the Oakland mayoral position at a press conference held at Laney College at noon today. He will be running against the previously mentioned city council president Ignacio De La Fuente, councilmember Nancy Nadel, school board members Greg Hodge and Dan Siegel, Alameda County treasurer Donald White, and Glynn Washington, whose Council for Responsible Public Investment is a sort of CALPERS investment watchdog. Now that the slate has been set, we should soon see what their official public positions are on the Coliseum North project, and on a ballpark in general.

The mayoral election is scheduled for June 2006.

Lew & Billy on Ronn Owens show

Ronn Owens had Lew Wolff and Billy Beane in the last hour of Owens's show on KGO yesterday. In between Owens's efforts to get Beane to admit that he dislikes Ken Macha (which didn't work) and goodnatured barbs about Billy's "8-track"-like monochrome Blackberry (I have one, it's from work so it's free and it works so I can't complain), Wolff answered all manner of ballpark-related questions.

Caller: What's wrong with the Coliseum?
Wolff: We have 140 deficiencies relative to our baseball operation alone in that facility. But more important, MLB wants all the teams to have a baseball-only facility, and we're one of the last ones around that needs to fit to that criteria.

• I hadn't heard of the "140 deficiencies" before. I'd like to see that list. I can think of a dozen, but those mainly deal with the fan experience, not baseball itself.
  

Owens: Can the market (East Bay-San Francisco) really support two teams?
Wolff: The answer to that with some clarification is "No it can't," in the sense that if there were only no team in Oakland or no team in San Francisco, MLB would only allow one team in the area. So we have to sort of force feed a ballpark to work in Oakland or Alameda County which we're trying to do by finding a site, first of all, and also trying to measure (which we'll do in the next couple of months) the depth of interest in our special suites and boxes.

• It's very important to not take this answer out of context, or to not exclude the qualifier. What Wolff is saying is probably true from the sense that if one team were in place and MLB were looking for an expansion or relocation franchise, the East Bay market would not immediately be a candidate for a second team. And if MLB were to start over from scratch, it probably wouldn't automatically place two teams in the area. Now since a second team is already present, they'll do what they can to support the second team. One could glean from the response that it's a sort of veiled threat - that if the A's were to move out, no one should expect a second team to replace it anytime soon. Sounds like a shot across the bows of Oakland, Alameda County, San Jose, etc.
  
• The second part of the answer, gauging the interest in the suites/boxes, should not be disregarded. It's almost as important as getting a site, because it's a measure of whether the market can economically support the team. Wolff is not about to get himself into a situation where he has a bunch of unsold suites, as many teams are starting to find out with their new ballparks. It's a challenge to what I wrote a couple of days ago about Oakland not being a small market team. If the sales of these suites don't pass this litmus test, the Oakland is a small - and thereby incapable - market, at least by Wolff's and baseball's standards. There is probably some amount of grey area with this issue, at least.
  

Owens: What if it isn't up to what you'll expect?
Wolff: Our next choice would be to find a location somewhere in Alameda County. After that, I really don't know what to do.
Owens: But the odds are that you guys will stay at least in Alameda County?
Wolff: We're trying to.
Owens (turns to Beane): Try to drive a truck through that answer too, huh Billy?

Owens: How about going to San Jose? Do you know the way there?
Wolff: I know the way there. I'm very active in San Jose, it's a great city. First of all, baseball does have a formal area - districts as they call them or territories, and the Giants have that territory. So the only way that would be changed is if there was an agreement with the Giants or with MLB. It's not a legal issue that some people would like to pursue. And the other thing is San Jose - and I was party to it, I think - has a requirement of having a vote, a public vote, for any expenditure for sports - I think it's over $20,000 or some de minimis amount - and that vote would require some team to say "We'll come subject to a vote," whether it's baseball, football, whatever it is. And that's a big inhibitor even if the territorial thing was available.

• The important thing here is that Wolff hasn't changed his stance since the last time he spoke about San Jose. Back then, he said wouldn't challenge territorial rights, and he has remained consistent. He did bring up the concept of MLB changing rights, but Selig was in San Jose only a few weeks ago and said that that to do so would create anarchy - though he did not dismiss the idea altogether.
  
• It's interesting that Wolff brought up the San Jose's vote-expenditure law. He's right, but it appears that San Jose may have effectively evaded the law by acquiring the Diridon South properties and claiming that they are for housing or mixed-use without actually specifying a particular purpose. Sneaky - yes. The revealing thing is that he's following the recent trend of proponents trying to get a ballpark through without a public vote - a tactic which has worked in DC and is being tried in Minneapolis - as though any kind of vote were a non-starter. There may be some wiggle room, since SF and SJ voted down publicly-funded parks while SF approved the Pac Bell Park deal, but getting an owner to commit to announcing anything as significant as a move would be like pulling teeth, since the owner would lose some negotiating leverage and encounter backlash.
  

Owens: How's the project (Coliseum North) going?
Wolff: The progress is basically getting our ducks in a row to see if we can privately convince the property owners - and there's quite a few of them - that this might be to their advantage to be bought out, perhaps relocate in other places in Oakland. So it's a challenge but our problem is that no one has offered or presented us any other sites, and there's a logic to being in that location because it's adjacent to the Coliseum, it has BART, which is critical to us, and the freeway system. So it's quite a challenge. Some people think we've teed up something that can't happen. That's possible to think that way, but we're gonna give it a real shot before we look at other alternates.

• This may be the most troubling part of the interview to me. Wolff hasn't dismissed the idea of other sites which may be more or less feasible, but the fact that no one has formally presented any is disturbing. It's as if all of the ballpark eggs are being put in this one basket. Wolff has acknowledged from the beginning that the Coliseum North project is going to be difficult. It would be nice to know that there was a reasonable detailed concept of a Plan B floating around the Oakland Civic Center somewhere.
  

The whole interview is subject to some broad interpretation, but unless someone wants to spend a lot of time reading between the lines, the substance of what was being said is pretty much the status quo: Coliseum is inadequate, project is challenging but is moving along, San Jose isn't in our territory, etc.

Tribune: Progress internally, but externally?

According to a new article in the Tribune, there is some good and bad news about the ballpark. The good news is that Oakland has assigned a staffer to work on the project, and that IDLF said that the city should have a detailed report (feasibility study?) done this winter. The bad news is that apparently none of the area landowners have yet been contacted by the city. That's not entirely bad since the city is still trying to figure out proper market values of the properties, along with relocation costs. It would behoove Oakland to make sure they were armed with the proper information before they start knocking on doors. Then again, the "...consensus around here is that the A's are doing this as a posturing move," according to one of the landowners who runs a soapmaking business. Perhaps the operative rule is, "You do not talk about ballpark."

Dellums delays announcement

According to the Chronicle, Ron Dellums will not announce his decision whether or not to run for Mayor of Oakland until Friday. The announcement was originally thought to be scheduled for this weekend. Don't look for Dellums to be a stadium proponent.

Understanding the markets

Most of you should be pretty familiar with the following map:

This is basically how we in the nine-county Bay Area view ourselves. There are some who consider parts of Marin County essentially an extension of San Francisco, and there are those who consider parts of San Mateo and Alameda Counties to be part of Silicon Valley, making them an extension of the South Bay. Many commuters come from cities like Tracy and Hollister, which are outside these county boundaries. This is the population breakdown by area, based on 2004 estimates:

• SF/Peninsula (red): 1,443,446
• North Bay (gray): 1,259,804
• East Bay (green): 2,464,379
• South Bay (blue): 1,685,188
• Total Bay Area Population: 6,852,817
  

The 6.85 million total puts the Bay Area at #4 in the country among metropolitan areas. For some reason the US Census has chosen to break the Bay Area into two regions, one including only Santa Clara county, and the other including everything else except for Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. If you look at the Bay Area based on that division, the population of the larger area (called SF-Oakland-Fremont) is 5,167,629, while the separate South Bay stays as is. With the split, the SF-Oakland-Fremont area is #12 in the nation, while the South Bay is #28.

If you think that lacks uniformity, take a look at this map showing how MLB has divided the Bay Area with respect to stadium building:

The five orange counties represent Giants territory, while the two green areas represent A's territory. Not shown is Monterey County, which was up until recently part of the Giants' territory. Lew Wolff mentioned during his August press conference that Monterey County may be part of the A's territory, though it's likely he misspoke - not that anyone's going to build a ballpark in Carmel or Salinas. The three gray North Bay counties are unassigned. Based on this form of gerrymandering, here are how the individual territories compare to the other California teams' defined territories in terms of metro population:

• Giants - 4,039,941
• A's - 2,464,379
• Padres - 2,931,714
• Dodgers/Angels - 13,723,029 (the two teams share LA, Ventura, and Orange counties)
  

The A's territory, while not a result of an equitable split, still compares favorably to Pittsburgh (#20), Tampa-St. Petersburg (#21), and Denver (#22). Yet by limiting the A's territory to Alameda and Contra Costa counties, it gives the appearance that the East Bay by itself is a small market. But is it?

The problem with this definition of territories is that it makes it appear that residents of one territory do not travel outside their counties to work, shop, or enjoy entertainment such as a baseball game. This is obviously not the case in the Bay Area, where residents are used to driving a half-hour to get to an event, whether it's held in San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose. San Jose and Oakland television stations all try to broadcast from towers near San Francisco because Mt. San Bruno's central location allows them to capture more of the Bay Area. The Giants and A's draw from all over the Bay Area, though both have entrenched fanbases in their respective communities. Only one conclusion can be made from this analysis:

The Oakland Athletics are not a small market team.

If the A's aren't a small market team, what is responsible for the attendance problem? Can it only be blamed on the ballpark?

Next up: A comparison of attendance prior to and following: A) a World Series win, and B) the opening of a new stadium.

Chavez chimes in on ballpark

By now, many of you have already seen yesterday's article by Joe Roderick in the Merc about third baseman Eric Chavez's continued puzzlement with the lackluster attendance at the Coliseum. The important thing to note is that Chavez doesn't blame the fans, he blames the venue.

Chavez has been both praised and criticized for his candor and at times too-honest demeanor, so this should come as no surprise. Consider, for a moment, Chavez's history. He's a born-and-bred San Diegan, going far enough to name his newborn son Diego (though the inspiration could have come from Diego Rivera or Maradona instead, I suppose). His ties to the San Diego area are still strong despite the fact that he and his family live in Scottsdale in the offseason. San Diego opened Petco Park last year, leaving Oakland as the only multipurpose facility to host a MLB team in California.

Since the A's are the only team left in this predicament, it's almost guaranteed to finish last among the five California teams in attendance every year until a new ballpark is built. Here's how we can expect them to finish this season based on current totals and per-game averages:

1. LA Dodgers (#2 in MLB, 3.6 million projected)
2. LA Angels (#3 in MLB, 3.4 million total - season completed)
3. SF Giants (#5 in MLB, 3.18 million projected)
4. SD Padres (#6 in MLB, 2.88 million projected)
5. Oakland A's (#19 in MLB, 2.12 million projected)
   

When the numbers are presented in this manner, the difference between the A's and the other four teams is stark. I'll go into this further in the next post.

The Trouble With Transit

There were a slew of articles in the last week about different BART projects and their respective funding difficulties. Here's a recap:

• Oakland Airport BART Connector - BART is looking to private sources to build and fund the remainder of the Airport Connector. For now the project is a 3.2-mile people mover or monorail on an elevated track between the Coliseum BART station and Oakland International Airport, with a couple of stops in between along Hegenberger. For whatever reason, federal funds for it were not included in the huge transportation bill passed earlier in the summer. The problem here is that privatizing the connector will increase the cost to riders, to the tune of $5 per ride. The effect on the ballpark project is that this effectively eliminates the connector as an option for service from Coliseum BART to the ballpark development area, due to its cost and the fact that no one is intervening to propose a ballpark development area extension. Just for comparison, it should be pointed out that the current fare from Millbrae to the Coliseum station is $4.65.
• BART-to-San Jose Extension - VTA just came out with new ridership and cost figures. The cost of the project is now $4.7 billion instead of the $4.2 billion projected in 2003, and ridership estimates are up 33% due to higher density development plans. While the project would mostly be funded by a 1/4-cent sales tax that could go for 25-30 years, VTA is also looking for $973 million in federal funding as well. VTA also revised its service opening date from 2015 to 2018. Should that proceed on schedule, there would be an 7-8 year gap between the opening of a ballpark in downtown San Jose and the start of BART service to the area.
• BART-to-Warm Springs Extension - The above link also indicates that the Warm Springs extension is dependent on the eventual extension to San Jose, even though Warm Springs would be built first. If WSX doesn't get built, that's one selling point Fremont ballpark proponents won't have at their disposal.

Oddly enough, since none of these projects were being funded in the recent transportation bill, none could be cut or delayed as a result of post-Katrina/Rita cost-cutting efforts.

AP article - little new

An AP article that appears in Saturday's Chronicle provides another recap of the ballpark situation. Most of it is available in other reports and on this blog as well. There was one new piece of info that I found telling:

Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente said the city is committed to evaluating the potential of the area where the A's want to build and will dedicate someone to the job but there are many hurdles.

"More than money, there are definitely going to be other issues. You have a lot of challenges in that site but that doesn't mean that that cannot be done," De La Fuente said. "We're going to be working with them and hopefully we'll arrive to some great solution."

"Committed to evaluating the potential" and "will dedicate someone to the job" do not sound promising. I understand that both the city and the county are in a budget crunch, but someone should have been steering this in City Hall two weeks ago.

AM ownership chart

To illustrate how difficult it may be to get a quality radio deal, I've assembled a chart that lists every Bay Area AM radio station, signal strength, owner, and other information. The stations in gray are not considered likely candidates for the A's due to existing programming incompatibilities or lack of signal, or previous history. The stations in blue appear to be the best candidates. That isn't to say it can't change - the sale of Disney/ABC and Susquehanna stations may alter the local radio landscape significantly. Click on the graphic to download or view a larger version.



An explanation of the data:

• Power is listed in kilowatts (kW)
• The FCC has a good explanation of station classes here.
• Sale pending indicates that the station or its parent company is for sale.
  
• Applied "xxkW-Day" or "xxkW-Night" indicates that the station has applied for an approval for signal boost. Because of the various issues involved, changes have to go through a lengthy review and commenting process.
  

The station candidates:

• KSFO - Many of you may remember KSFO's lengthy run as the A's flagship. That ended when their format switched from oldies to talk. Last year KSFO started broadcasting Raiders games. KSFO may be interested in broadcasting the A's again, but that would be largely dependent on the sale of station as part of Disney's radio portfolio. KSFO is managed by KGO's Mickey Luckoff.
• Both KNEW-910 and KQKE-960 (formerly KABL) had turns broadcasting the A's in the recent past. Both received complaints due to their weak signal. Both are owned by Disney and run out of Oakland. Both are also run by former KNBR helmer Bob Agnew. Either could be a candidate for the A's when the dust settles. KQKE may be more likely due to the financial status of the Air America network.
  
• There's a good chance that KTCT (KNBR-1050) will stay as it is because of the numerous deals KNBR has with local teams. Having two stations reduces the chances of overlapping programming, but it's also expensive to fill in programming during other hours. The next owner may decide sooner or later to either reprogram or sell KTCT because it's too expensive to keep the status quo.
• KNTS is a pretty small station out of the Peninsula. It probably won't be a player unless they get the FCC's approval to pump 50,000 watts 24/7. If they do, they'll move their transmitter to the other side of the bay in Hayward. Right now KNTS is mostly a talk station, but they have the most game broadcasts of any station other than KNBR, which makes them a potentially compelling candidate.
• KMKY is the Radio Disney station targeted to kids and Disney aficionados. Since the station was more of a constant promotional tool for the mother ship than anything else, it's likely that the new owner wouldn't be interested in continuing the same format.
  
• In May, Infinity converted former "young country" station KYCY into KYou Radio, the first station in the United States to broadcast podcasts. They ran into some legal difficulty soon after that, but as of now they're still kicking. Oddly enough, the station accepts podcasts, but does not make podcasts of its broadcasts available to the public . If the experiment fails, Infinity may look to sell since the station historically hasn't been much of a ratings powerhouse. Infinity also applied for a signal boost and transmitter move to the South Bay.
• KLIV is a small news station out of San Jose. I can't see KLIV being a flagship station due to its limited range, but if the A's wanted to have lower power North Bay and South Bay stations to cover the entire Bay Area, it's a possibility.
  

The corporate suitors have some restrictions as dictated by the FCC. The most important one is that no one can own more than 8 stations in the same market or 5 of the same class in a single market. That has forced both Infinity and Clear Channel to make station swaps and sales for the sake of compliance. If one of those behemoths ends up buying either the Disney or Susquehanna properties, one or more stations just might become available. Another company considered a frontrunner is Citadel Broadcasting, which has stations in mostly smaller markets.

Neil Hayes column

Contra Costa Times columnist Neil Hayes has a pretty scathing indictment of the fanbase and the attendance woes in today's edition. Like Hayes, I don't have an explanation for it. The worst part of it is that it's the one negative that the local media immediately latch onto here. I've heard comments from Gary Radnich and Raj Mathai, and I had tuned into other local newscasts, I probably would've heard the same from their counterparts.

Here's a different perspective on attendance:

• The A's drew 48,203 total during the three-game series against the Twins, including a large number of no-shows on Tuesday night due to the storm remnants that came through the area.
• The Yankees yesterday drew 50,382 on Wednesday night alone, and have averaged more than 50,000 for the season.
• The A's will be down in total season attendance for the second straight season unless they average 40,000 per game for the final seven games of the homestand. I project the final number to be slightly over 2.1 million for the season, which places them 2-5% below either 2004 or 2003 figures.
  

In attempting to analyze the situation, I posted a diary on Athletics Nation, along with a poll that asks which group is hardest to market to: the casual fan, the fringe hardcore fan, the small business person, or a large corporate entity. Take a look at it and vote. I don't think the situation can be solved by simply winning a playoff or World Series, or even by building a new ballpark. My feeling is that there needs to be a bigger effort to build the die-hard fanbase along with a push to promote the family experience at the ballpark, which is far underrated and isn't exploited enough.

Some appear to be either content with or resigned to the idea that the A's won't draw more than 2.1-2.2 million per season in the current situation. Frankly, that shows a lack of creativity. There needs to be more done to build the culture that is the A's fanbase. There are no simple or automatic ways to do this, but it should be what the A's ownership shoot for. The ownership group can't be happy with this, and there has to be a renewed focus in the offseason. As clever as the "A's Brand" ad campaign has been, it's had a limited effect on attendance. People still come for the usual promotions and giveaways.

Here's an idea for A's marketing: Put fans in the ads. Interview the diehards. Have them explain why they love the A's and the game. Show shots of parents raising their kids to be A's fans. Do a TV ad of a local East Bay family who has 3 generations of proud A's fans. Promote the culture. More than any other sport, baseball mines the mythology and history of itself. Sometimes it goes a little overboard in that respect, but there are ways to tap into those emotional links without appearing smug or aggrandizing. There's room for the A's Brand campaign as well.

---

One item from the column that could get easily overlooked: Hayes' plea for the A's to invest in their own radio station. With Bob Agnew hinting at changes at KNEW and KQKE, there may be some interesting news about that in the offseason.

News roundup

Some bits of news from here and there....

... but first, I've had this asked of me frequently the last couple of weeks, so I should answer it: I haven't heard anything new regarding stadium plans. In fact, I doubt we'll hear anything significant for the rest of the regular season, and throughout the playoffs for that matter. November is when the business operations side of the team takes precedence over the baseball side, so we should hear more then. After that, the hot stove league starts going, then the winter meetings, free agent signings and trades, and before you know it, April 1 will be upon us.

Two items from the same Matier and Ross column last Saturday:

• Ex-KNBR program director Bob Agnew has resurfaced to helm Clear Channel AM stations KNEW-910 (right-wingers) and KQKE-960 (left-wingers). Though both are talk stations, both also have sports programming, and it wouldn't be surprising to see the A's on one (or even both) stations next season. Now, if you told me in April that Agnew would be fired and would end up with a competing station with the possibility to broadcast A's games, I know what I would've said.
• Ron Dellums is expected to announce whether he'll run for the Oakland mayoral position by October 1. The IDLF camp is keeping close tabs on Dellums, who is probably the council president's only significant opposition right now.
  

From Reuters: Contrary to my previous update on Susquehanna, buyers for the different media properties (radio/cable) may be chosen by the end of the week.

San Diego and Washington are both mulling over ballpark village projects. San Diego is deciding on tall housing towers, which have their opponents in the project's nearby neighbor, the Port of San Diego. Washington is still in the conceptual phase, as there's still disagreement on everything from the orientation of the field to the facade to the height of buildings near the ballpark. Yet the District is contractually obligated to have it open by the beginning of the 2008 season, which is only 29+ months away. Tick tick tick...

That brings us back to the Oakland ballpark situation. If there's going to be any hope of having a ballpark open by the start of the 2009 season, Oakland officials are going to have to make serious progress on the land acquisition and rezoning effort. It's going to be much more difficult in Oakland because of the sheer size of the land to be acquired - 100 acres as opposed to only 20 for the DC project and 7 for the remaining San Diego ballpark village land, which has already been acquired but is going through final approval.

Chip Johnson's column on the Hegenberger Wal-Mart notes that something is being planned for the HomeBase (Coliseum South) location. I'm trying to find out more about this.

Attendance last night was an abysmal 15,262, and don't think that Wolff, who was in the audience last night, didn't notice. To reach last season's attendance total, the A's will have to average over 34,000 per game for the rest of the homestand. I'm doing my part by going tonight and I'm bringing coworkers tomorrow for an "offsite team building session." People, let's get out there!

Tidbit on Susquehanna Media (KNBR)

Radio Ink has a brief note and a quote about the sale Susquehanna Media. Yesterday was the deadline to submit bids, and it appears that it will take some time to sort them out.

The York Daily Record also has an article on the deadline and sale as well.

SF Weekly analyzes ballpark design

An engaging report by SF Weekly's Tommy Craggs discusses the evolution modern ballpark design, and how the design presented last month by Lew Wolff (drawn up by 360 Architecture) fits into the picture. There are excellent quotes by consultant John Pastier and architect/writer Phillip Bess, who wrote the excellent treatise on ballpark architecture, City Baseball Magic. The article also delves into the retro trend and the New Urbanist movement, from which the Oakland concept was spawned.

SB 4 dies on the vine

The legislature ended its short session last night without SB 4 coming to a vote, which means any proponents will have to try again next year. As I noted earlier, the bill went through some major changes in terms of the bond approval mechanism, effectively neutering it. This effectively keeps the status quo, where groups looking for tax-free bond financing will have to go strictly through municipalities and joint powers authorities, and if public sources are required such as taxes, votes will be required.

Recap of Selig speech

Bud Selig's speech and subsequent Q&A session was about an hour long total. The speech was a brief history of Selig's time as an owner, then as the commissioner. Not naturally the most charismatic of speakers, Selig's sporadic eye contact with the audience made the delivery fairly dull, and the speech an exercise in self-aggrandizement. As expected, Selig didn't say anything to encourage San Jose supporters. In fact, his statements should provide some hope for Oakland supporters, though no one should be proclaiming Selig as the savior of baseball in Oakland just yet.

Notes: The audio stream of the event will be played on KQED-FM on Friday night at 8 p.m. An AP article focused largely on steroids is now available on the Chronicle's SF Gate site. Daniel Brown from the Merc also wrote an article more geared towards territorial rights. Channels 5, 7, and 11 were present getting video.

Selig was initially flanked by former Commonwealth Club president Joe Epstein and somewhat surprisingly, County Assessor Larry Stone, better known as an irritant for East Bay supporters. Stone emceed the event, and before he finished his introduction of Selig, he plugged the MLB-to-San Jose effort, almost on cue.

Notes from the speech portion:

• MLB will surpass last season's league attendance record by the end of the current season.
• He talked up the significant rise in the value of the Dodgers franchise when it changed hands from the O'Malleys to Fox and finally to Frank McCourt. He did not let slip an estimate of the Expos' eventual selling price.
• Moneyball was mentioned as a subject that is "theological in nature."
  
• Revenue sharing, payroll taxing (luxury taxes), and the debt service rule are the base of the current financial structure. He sees little need to change the structure in the near future.
• The speech was littered with quotes from Mark Twain, Thomas Wolfe, and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
• Steroids is cheating. The only other substance mentioned was andro, and only as a historical reference. No mention of HGH.
  
• He noted that in the midst of all of the media's criticism of how MLB handled steroids during the 90's, he looked up articles written during the era and saw only "11 articles that mentioned steroids."

The Q&A was done via responses to selected questions the audience submitted on comment cards. Only 10 questions were answered, one of which was a throwaway question about the commish's relationship with George Steinbrenner. Here's the skinny on the question segment:

1. What happened to the Reggie Jackson group's bid to buy the A's?

• Selig claims it was Schott/Hofmann that decided to not entertain Jackson. He acknowledged that this contradicts Schott's initial statements on the matter, but insisted that it was the ownership group that made the decision, noting that the commissioner's office doesn't have to time interfere with these things. MLB will only step in when it's time to evaluate a group's financial worthiness.
  

2. Any thoughts on the idea of limits to the number intentional walks a batter can receive (Bonds rule)?

• Not happening. No way baseball will change rules for a single individual.
  

3. Is a salary cap in the future?

• "I'm comfortable where we are," Selig said.
  

4. What's being done about tight-fisted owners who pocket revenue sharing money instead of spending it on players?

• "That phenomenon is a myth that somehow keeps getting perpetuated," said Selig. According to Selig, the league shares the books with the owners, and the payers (big market "have" teams) wouldn't stand for any prolonged effort by other owners to stash the money. Again, he reinforced the notion that the baseball's economic model is good.
  

5. What about the influence of international players?

• This gave Selig the chance to tout the World Baseball Classic. He did this during the speech as well.
  

6. Is the DH rule going to change anytime soon?

• The DH was one of the few things on which he agreed with former A's owner Charlie Finley (Yes for the AL). He's happy with the way it stands since the teams in the two leagues are happy with the existing rules. (A good follow-up would've been to ask for his take on using the DH in NL-hosted games and the hitting pitcher in AL-hosted games, but there was no opportunity for follow-ups.)
• The only change he might see happening is a geographical redistribution of teams, but he didn't get specific.
  

7. What is the league doing about steroids and its impact on records?

• Without outright saying it, Selig indicated that he's leaving the records alone and will keep them asterisk-free. We'll see if that holds up if any other high-profile sluggers are shown to have used.
  

8. What about the exclusivity of territorial rights?

• Repeating a statement he made weeks ago, Selig said, "You couldn't run the sport without internal rules and you can't make exceptions."
• The Giants' territorial rights were affirmed when they made the huge private investment in SBC Park.
• His feelings on relocation are heavily shaped by the Braves' move to Atlanta. Besides the territorial rights issue, he appears to be stridently anti-move, though his previous statements about the situation in Miami raise questions about that.
• Regarding San Jose, he said that "San Jose is a great location, but that's not the issue. We have to protect the status quo. We're clearly not going to expand."
  

9. Epstein posed a follow-up: "Is there a process by which a vote could be taken by the owners to overturn these rights?"

• "No. It's not a question of overturning rights," replied Selig. I'm not certain if the response meant that he would not allow it to come to vote, or whether he was rendering his opinion on the outcome of a vote. Surely the owners would not vote for anything that could potentially threaten their own financial well-being.
  
• He trumpeted the party line about "staying focused on Oakland." The question of what would happen if the Oakland deal didn't succeed was not asked.
  

---

The San Jose boosters I overheard upon leaving didn't appear discouraged, least of all Larry Stone. While Selig dismissed the idea of overturning the Giants' territorial rights, that's the weakest option because it's the least realistic. Maury Brown of Business of Baseball and the Oregon Stadium Campaign and I have had this discussion in the past, and I agree with him that for the A's to move anywhere, whether it's San Jose, Portland, Vegas, or Sacramento, the bidding group needs to make an extremely compelling case - not just to a single affected owner, but to all 30 owners and MLB. Oakland, with its location and access, is hard to argue against. Any bids to move the team will have to be comprehensive, probably including packaged TV and radio deals and lists of pre-committed corporate sponsors (because those are Oakland's weak points currently). Without those requirements, I doubt any bid would be entertained.

Remember that in Wolff's press conference last month, he talked about the ability of the East Bay business market to fill the 40 luxury suites and 40 minisuites (plus club seats) that he wants to build in the new ballpark. It stands to reason that he'll compare that to other market studies, determine the costs and risk factors, and then decide - if it even gets to that point.