Here's a new one from Selig
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Here's a new one from Selig
| By jeffreyb on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 12:46 pm:|
one county and one city within it.
| By eyleenn on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 02:42 pm:|
Re state-funded parks: yes, that's the case in Pennsylvania, I believe, and also Minnesota. California is just so damn big, it's not feasible to expect one region of the state to pay for a ballpark in another.
| By eyleenn on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 02:50 pm:|
Bill King just said that Robert Buan is going to air the "Sunday comics" on his show after the game: Bud Lite's press conference!
I love Bill!
A's lead Mariners 3-1, top of 7. Jeremy had a perfect day at the plate, 2 hits and a walk.
Great article on Eric Byrnes in today's Chron! Slusser compares him to a Golden Retriever puppy.
| By bubba69 on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 06:21 pm:|
Haggerty does not run the county. Do not get me wrong here. I want this too...But I feel that the Lions share should be done by the end users (The Team) and the City that host it (Oakland). If county funds are used it will be a fight to get them. My thought is if the county owns the land and gives it up..then they have contributed. But right now the state is cutting funding for schools and the money will have to come from somewhere? Get real...I am being very real!
Besides you do not believe everything a politico tell you do?
Does anyone know how much of the stadium cost involves land acquisition and site improvements such as roads, sewer, etc. and how much involves actual construction costs?
It would probably seem more palatable if the taxpayer contributions were limited to the land, road and site improvements/services. That aspect could dovetail with redevelopment of the surrounding community.
I don't think they have broken down to that detail yet on each site and only have estimates.
Maybe that's what they are working on right now. And I believe this is what will be the deciding factor in choosing the site of ballpark.
| By rono on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 01:23 pm:|
The county and the city will have to share the cost. BUBBA _READ CAREFULLY. When I paid taxes in my Oakland property a portion goes to Oakland and a portion goes to Alameda County. When you pay your taxes on Livermore property part goes to the city of Livermore and part to Alameda County. Other entities such as the school districts also get a piece. Whem I buy equipment in Oakland part of the salestax goes to the city and part goes to Alameda County. The State gets the biggest piece. The same thing happens in Livermore. To the extent that a new stadium brings in new sales taxes or increases property values the County benefits regardless of which city gets the stadium. The benefits to the city and county are about the same dollarwise hence they have equally divided the public funding. I estimate that some city and the county will each have to come up with $100-150 million to make this project fly.
"they are headed to Armageddon if you ask me..."
Bring it on! I'd welcome a meltdown of MLB, provided it sweeps the current Lords, players, unions, and Commissioner out with it. Baseball will survive. I just don't have an interest in seeing the current system of governance in baseball survive.
What you posted is something I will keep on my desktop and be sure to use as information if/when things go to a vote. Not many people are aware of these division of taxed and a time will come when giving out information such as you just did could be crucial to a campaign where a vote would be a deciding factor.
Thanks for posting that.
| By bubba69 on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 03:01 pm:|
I have read cafefully. I do not agree with the 1/2
you stated earlier. I still do not agree with you. I have that right! I feel that the city and the team should put up most of the money. Not the county. Should Alameda Contribute in some way ...Yes Will the County reap the fruit...yes! Am I wrong...Not in my opinion! Having said that...I close this topic as far as my contribution.
Why are we not allowed to have a different view?
Actually it was the County of Alameda who already dished out the money to pay the HOK study. One of the reasons they included Fremont as one of the proposed sites.
Lowell Cohn weighs in on Selig's little visit to A's camp:
Baseball boss speaks softly but carries big threats
March 18, 2002
PHOENIX -- When someone declares war, you don't expect him to be wearing an old yellow sweater and glasses, and you don't expect him to run his hands through his hair, or to have a folksy manner, or to act like your favorite uncle.
But that's what happened Sunday. Bud Selig, the commissioner of baseball, showed up at Phoenix Stadium and met with the press in a conference room. And although he was soft-spoken and even nice, what he did was declare war on the players and baseball as we know it.
He's been declaring war for a week, if you want to know the truth, traveling from spring-training ballpark to spring-training ballpark and throwing down the gauntlet.
"I wish we had a system where we could maintain the status quo," he said in an earnest voice. "But we can't. Clearly there's something wrong with the system."
Everyone in the room was supposed to buy that. After all, the commissioner himself had taken the trouble to sit down for 25 minutes and deliver his message. Everyone was supposed to believe most major-league teams are on the verge of bankruptcy and need a handout.
This despite record salaries the owners are paying, salaries no one forces them to ante up. Is something strange here?
Selig said only five teams earned a profit last year. But when asked to name those teams, he said he didn't know. Can we pause over that for a moment? If you were the head of the major leagues, don't you think you'd know which teams earned a profit, especially if there are only five? Maybe Selig wasn't being truthful. Or maybe he really doesn't know. In which case you have to wonder about his ability to lead.
He has two proposals to clear up the ills of baseball: Contraction and revenue sharing. Contraction means killing the weakest franchises, such as Montreal. It seems kind of extreme when baseball could simply move a crummy franchise to another city where it would do a bang-up business. Vegas comes to mind.
Revenue sharing -- another term for socialism -- has its own problems.
Like, would the owners, the biggest collection of capitalists on the globe, actually fork over money to each other? I mean, can you imagine George Steinbrenner slipping significant cash to Peter Magowan? The notion seems shaky.
"There's no question in my mind," Selig said, "when we take the vote of the owners internally, the votes are there for revenue sharing. The votes are there now. Back in '92 it was bloody. Today I'll get the vote for whatever revenue sharing I want."
And even if Selig has the votes, and even if revenue sharing is a good idea in principle, there's the matter of the players. Selig can't just say, "Hey, guys, I'm instituting revenue sharing today." He has to negotiate with the Players Association. It's hard to imagine players agreeing to revenue sharing or salary caps or anything that would limit their income or ability to move from team to team.
So Selig has a problem. He knows that. He came to Phoenix on Sunday to let the world know things may get nasty. In his kind, soft voice he was saying he intends to change baseball, and he was saying he'll fight the players to do it. He was also saying he intends to win. Forget that the players already have beaten the pants off the owners eight times. This time will be different.
Don't be surprised if things turn ugly in baseball. When this season ends, Selig could declare an impasse and impose any conditions he wants. And then the battle will start for real.
He was explaining all this Sunday, drawing his line in the sand.
Except his voice was soft and his smile was sweet, and you had to listen real hard to hear the threats.
Contact Lowell Cohn at 521-5486 or email@example.com.
| By bubba69 on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 03:30 pm:|
Here is the sales tax breakdown
6% Ca State
.25 % County
What does that mean...I have no clue
But this came from the auditors office of Alameda County
| By rono on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 03:52 pm:|
Bubba, I too will end the discussion with this post. I am not disputing your opinion. I am only looking at the hard ,cold facts which explain why the city and county have split the coliseum cost in the past and why they might do so in the future for a new stadium. Your opinion is very valid. I think the stadium should be privately funded like Pac Bell , but these owners won't do it , so some public funding will be required or we can forget about the A's.
| By bubba69 on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 04:05 pm:|
That I do not dispute...I think we are going over something that does not exciste yet. I feel that the City and Team have the price to pay...but hey
if we can't debate here well when and where can we! No hard feelings?! At least we can have the
debate who will pay for our new ballpark...last year we could not even do that!
| By jeffreyb on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 05:29 pm:|
if the city and county came up with $125 million each, that would be more than half the cost of the entire project. no way is that going to happen. and it need not happen. between the A's, naming rights, and a private stadium investment group, most of the money will be raised, and only a redevelopment sum of money will be necessary from the public.
| By jeffreyb on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 05:30 pm:|
bubba, the sales tax in this county is 8.25%. you just gave a breakdown for how that money gets split.
| By bubba69 on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 06:39 pm:|
Yea, that was my point. Sales tax was my first
item..I will have the property tax breakdown
Just showing how that money get divided. I thought the county got more then it did. Do you have insite on this Jeff? You most likely know more about this then i do...I just know my local angle. As for the naming rights.. i am sure it will happen but with
this economy I am not so positive about the amount...i hope you are right!
| By jeffreyb on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 11:59 pm:|
the current A's stadium is in Oakland, the county seat, and by far, the largest city in the county. The current stadium was financed by the city and county and is governed by a board (the JPA) that is a creation of the city and county together. The JPA paid for the fees for HOK so far... The county has, appropriately in my opinion, been involved in the process from the beginning. The city and county together face liability in the Raider's lawsuit.
Like it or not, stadium proponents face an uphill battle getting a stadium built, but i just don't see it as a live, significant issue, that the county would opt out of the process. The city and county are in this one together, for better or worse.
| By jeffreyb on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 10:00 am:|
one of the articles lil recently posted pegged the Astros as asking for $185 million over 20 something years to rename Enron Field.
a similar sum in Oakland would go a long long way towards a palatable stadium deal. throw in Jessee Ventura's ideas of earning interest tax free to pay back stadium costs, and the damn deal is almost done before the A's or the public put in a dime.
Folks, this is VERY doable financially.
| By darth2900 on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 12:16 pm:|
Jesse Ventura is awesome.... just an observation.
| By linusalf on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 12:42 pm:|
I've been reading up on Twins Ballpark news here and there, and it seems like Jesse Ventura is really doing a great job so far as to try and get this built with using little public (if any) money. Obvoiusly if the 'Stros are asking for $185 mill that the A's can get at leas 100-135 million, possibly more.
| By linusalf on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 12:48 pm:|
Another Question: I remeber reading somewhere that either the A's, Oakland or JPA hired the firm that negotiated 3 of the biggest naming deals in sports. Can anybody confirm or deny this?
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 10:04 am:|
Meanwhile the snake starts to move around and remind cities not to feel too comfortable because they will strike again...
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 10:16 am:|
Mike, I don't know that his firm negotiated 3 or the biggest deals or not, but Rick Horrow is a very big name is sports economics and has been hired, along with HOK to work on the A's ballpark financial package. I'm linking here two pieces which tells a bit more about Rick Horrow and what he is all about.
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 10:33 am:|
Mike, I don't know that his firm negotiated 3 or the biggest deals or not, but Rick Horrow has been hired as consultant by the ballpark promoters, along with HOK to work on the A's ballpark/financial package. I'm linking here two pieces which tells a bit more about Rick Horrow and what he is all about.
Here's his bio:
Mr. Horrow coordinated the process for the creation of the Miami Sports Authority, Miami Arena, and the NBA expansion Miami Heat, as well as the early stages of the development of Joe Robbie Stadium. He has been involved in facility development and related work for the San Francisco Giants, Cleveland Indians, Baltimore Orioles, National Football League, Major League Baseball Players Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association, and others.
Horrow is a contributing author of the book "The Law of Professional and Amateur Sports". He also hosts the weekly television show "The Sports Business Report" and radio show "The Sports Professor", both airing nationally.
| By linusalf on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 02:39 pm:|
Ok maybee it was Harrow who I was thinking about
Thanks for the links lil!
| By jeffreyb on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 11:21 pm:|
was it Harrow who spoke before the Oakland City Council? i was unimpressed...
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 11:31 pm:|
He was spouting numbers so fast, everything he said was a blur. It may not have been a fair example of his best "stuff."
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 11:38 pm:|
Actually I tried to assimilate what he was saying but I'm not good in listening to numbers and would have to read it to comprehend. And the poor
guy was on a time limit with DLF being even rude at one point, interupting him and telling him he was running out of time. Hard to evaluate by that short little talk.
| By rono on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 12:01 pm:|
Harrow did speak at the city council. It was a blurr of the millions of dollars of benefits of a new stadium. What he didn't say was how much of this ends up in the city or county Treasury, about 1 or 2 % for each. Not so great, huh? You notice he didn't mention private funding.
Someone at the meeting mentioned that someone in the A's front office said they could get 100mil for naming rights "easy" I believe is how they termed it. At which point one of the council members said "get that in writing"...
I didn't expect Harrower to come to a city council meeting and talk about how this deal should in the alternative be done with private funding, even tho private funding will be a big part of this pot more than likely. He was there to convince the city to kick some money in because the city will reap some benefit from the project. I guess Bud Selig is technically after the same thing with his new proclamations, but it is hard to figure out what his motives are.
Schott and Hoffmann better start getting out into the community and start pressing the flesh. Their new media persona is not going to be enough to convince people why building a ballpark for the A's is going to cure the cities woes. And they've got years of negative imagery and wooing towards the so. bay to overcome in a short period of time. It really doesn't matter what financial forumla they draw up if the voters say no. Broken record but they need to step out of the shadows and press releases and actually speak for themselves. I remained stunned and disappointed that they could not even send an intern to the council meeting to at least read a written statement from the owners saying how excited they are that there is even a dialogue going on.
| By jeffreyb on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 09:35 am:|
that someone was me. and i was told by David Alioto, A's VP of Marketing, that he could get $100 million for naming rights from AT&T "tomorrow".
Now to be completely accurate, it was pre-recession when he told me that, but the Astros seeking $185 million as an asking price leads me to believe that some number between those two is realistic.
I really don't know how much they could get for naming rights now that the economy has changed.
But I do know that it makes no sense for private investors to build a ballpark and give it to Schott and Hofmann as a present wrapped with a green and gold ribblon around it. I also don't see Schotmann investing a huge amount of money into the new ballpark.
I have to think that if this ballpark will have mostly corporate money, then we will have to see Schott and Hofmann bringing in some silent profit share holders in one way or another. Otherwise it makes no sense...
And I can't help but think that this sudden need to chance his media/public image has something to do with some sort of change in Schott's future with or without the team. It could even be some kind of swan song of sorts...after all...he has taken a beating and what business man wants to have such a reputation in the community.
Oh believe me...the investors will not be handing the park over to Schottman with a pretty bow. It will come at a corporate price. And the higher that price the more the park will look like coke bottle park at glove field. For that money they're going to squeeze out every last ounce of advertising/marketing dollars they can get.
Then, the fans who volunteered that they would be willing to "contribute" to the cause, they'll get an opportunity I bet for seat naming rights as well on a few good hundred or thousand seats.
Yes, it will be indeed time to put the money where the mouth has been...for sure.
| By rono on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 06:40 pm:|
Schott offered San Jose/Santa Clara $50 million. He is a brutally honest guy so the more he talks in public the better. He had made it clear that he does not want Oakland for a new or old ball park, but he'll keep that open in case its the only deal. One thing he and Hofmann know how to do is buy land since they are developers. I would like to know about potential land swaps that someone mentioned here before. Need inside info. If I was a betting man , I would look to Schott and Hofmann buying the Fremont site which could be about $50 million and that would be their contribution. Its the the closest he could get to Santa Clara County without being there. Someone said that it is close to residential area but I think that was referring to an earlier site about a mile away. I've surveyed the site and it has good potential. I believe the concern was with adequacy of parking. I am puzzled by the preference for the Downtown Oakland site. There is housing very close to it( I grew a few blocks away). On site parking will be limited. I guess the are counting business lots in the area. It is clear that the Downtown site is the cheapest and will have the greatest impact on the local community. Let's hope Steve keeps talking so we get some insight.
Rono, I was the one who mentioned there was some
land swapping involved with the Fremont site proposal. But unfortunately, I have no more details than just that. It was just mentioned to me by one of the politician's aid when I asked about the site. The same person said that Haggerty felt that site would have appeal to Schott (not Hofmann) because it would be closer to his Santa Clara.
The initial Fremont site met with opposition from
local residents of that area and I think they then proposed another site which I heard is also of inadequate size and would still be considered a suburban ballpark, considered not as ideal.
| By jeffreyb on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 01:59 pm:|
>I really don't know how much they could get for >naming rights now that the economy has changed.
no one does...
interestingly, Buan just called the Coliseum the "former Net". I guess the Network Associates deal expired. it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, replaces it.