recipe for getting a stadium
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: recipe for getting a stadium
| By phil on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 02:32 pm:|
After participating in recent OAFC activities and last nightís meeting, I think a new stadium is a possible goal, but also very challenging. Here is my take on what the obstacles are and what we fans can possibly do about each one. Definitely contribute other obstacles or solutions that I have missed, this is just one member's opinion.
The Aís owners almost completely ignoring the entire process. I think I agree with De La Fuente that they are just staying neutral to keep their options open.
WHAT FANS CAN DO ABOUT IT:
Assuming that Schott now cares about his public image, we can keep mentioning this whenever we get a chance to talk to the media so the story gets out that the Aís are not doing their part. Maybe that will turn shotmann around on the issue.
I suppose we could send them emails and tell Aís officials directly that they need to be involved, but that hasnít worked as well.
OBSTACLE 2: (Actually, I think this is tied in importance with number 1)
As the song goes, Money Money Money MoneyÖ MOOOOOONEY. Who will pay for the stadium?
WHAT FANS CAN DO ABOUT IT:
My opinion is that this is too big a job for volunteers to do. I think our best approach is to pressure the politicos about the so-called finance committee that has been alluded to. Iíve seen no concrete evidence of this committee thoughÖ
When looking at facts, we seem to be somewhat short:
- $40 million from redevelopment money (which would be somewhat of a fight to get)
- $30 to $100 million for naming rights depending on economic conditions
- $100 million from owners (this was Dick Spees number from an earlier meeting, who knows if the owners will actually put up that much)
This best case scenario gives a total of $240 million, which is more than $100 million short for the uptown plan if this comes in on budget and not including legal costs. Of course, itís entirely possible that Iím missing something, chime in if you can add to my list. I do think there is hope, the other possibilities are bonds, private loans (if they don't break bud's stupid new debt rules), fan shareholders, the city could donate land which would lower the price, seat licenses, new ownership that would put up more money, etc. etc. etc. The point is that if there is going to be a plan in place by July as Dick Spees suggests, all this needs to be settled soon.
Until a workable plan is worked out, the city council will keep saying: "This all sounds good, but how do we pay for it?"
Mayor Brown needs to come out in favor of this and not consider his housing plan and the stadium an ďeither-orĒ situation.
WHAT FANS CAN DO ABOUT IT:
Canít think of much other than to get fans to send emails/letters/etc. to the mayor to convince him that this is what the public wants. Iím thin on ideas to handle this, Iím hoping others will have better ones.
City Council Opposition
WHAT FANS CAN DO ABOUT IT:
I actually think this one can be mitigated. I think Nadel is the only No vote for sure, and if obstacles 1-3 are resolved, I think there is an excellent chance that the majority of the council would favor a stadium.
| By ramjet1 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 03:37 pm:|
Ultimatley it is going to end up in the lap of the voters.
| By phil on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 03:54 pm:|
one council member suggested putting it up for a vote yesterday, but I forgot who it was.
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 04:43 pm:|
I think there is no way anybody can expect infusion of corporate money in funding a new ballpark without an investor/share holder type of deal.
What corporation will invest in a ballpark and give it to Schott and Hofmann as a present if they are not going to have a return on their investment.
Naming rights alone is not enough. There must be corporate investment and the city should come in perhaps with land and some other surrounding redevelopment linked to the ballpark.
Soft taxes will probably be part of the package.
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:58 pm:|
As I recall the early presentation by Larry Jackson, his belief was that if redevelopment funds/land are used, a vote wouldn't be legally necessary. What was proposed last night (I think it was by Wan, but I'm not sure) was more like a referendum on the whole concept of building a new ballpark. I am not confident the citizens of Oakland will vote yes.
It seems like there should be a way to spread any financial liability around so that the whole burden doesn't fall on Oakland. Hopefully Horrow will be working on that kind of plan.
Someone said on another thread that the Green Bay model of public stock ownership was nothing like PSL's and I agree. In Green Bay, the public owns the TEAM. I don't know who owns the stadium, or if they are considered to be one entity.
| By bubba69 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 10:15 pm:|
I have 2 shares of Packer stock....it is worthless!
I cannot sell it or do anything with it. I can only sell it back to the greenbay packers at what I paid for it. It was a joke gift from a old friend and I have no idea where that friend is now and he in the name on the paper work!
Well, the beauty of building a database and having the names of the residents in Oakland/Alameda who support the ballpark proposal, (many sent their comments and opinions) will make it easier for us to assemble a strong group to be vocal and articulate in their arguments with their representatives.
Would the Green Bay Packer model work? I don't
know about it so I can't even beging to judge.
How about what the Cleveland did?
I think the Council who suggested putting it to a vote was Richard Wann. But he did say if Bonds would be involved.
I don't really think Bonds wants to be involved...
nah ...just kiddin...couldn't help it :')
Here's what some of the Twin fans were circulating around.
That may not be what the speaker was suggesting but Wan was getting at was PSL like investment into this stadium if the fans are going to invest. That's the new trend in the stadium financing gig.
Whether fans want to contribute at that level or not PSLs may come into play here since they are becoming all the rage for offsetting construction costs.
| By eyleenn on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:57 pm:|
I know the Giants sold PSL's (charter seats, or whatever they called them). Does anyone know if PSL's were involved in any of the other new parks, like PNC, Comerica or Miller?
From what I read Miller and one other park chose not to, they felt their markets were not conducive to generating constructing recovery revenue that way. Maybe it was Comerica, I'll have to go back and look. PNC and Safeco did, I believe the Astros did and they may intend to do that at the new Cincy and San Diego parks. It's a tricky proposition.
Here's a creative idea by Gov. Ventura on how the
Twins could get a ballpark.
| By bshbro4rvr on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 08:23 pm:|
While I'm sure there are ways of monetizing the existing ad space, seating, internal park real-estate, what I haven't heard too much of is creative ways of incorporating ballpark architecture with other large-scale commercial spaces (other than the typical resteraunts and small-scale retail).
I'm not suggesting bastardizing a ballpark, but I imagine there can be creative and aesthetically pleasing ways of incorporating larger, commercial venues with a ballpark. This could target and satisfy larger corporate interests that could supply the kind of $$ necessary for this endeavor.
Additionally, if this commercial space were directly incorporated with the structure of the ballpark, and this ballpark were situated in an urban setting, the commercial entity would have a vested interest in maintaining foot traffic, which would indirectly benefit the surrounding area.
Just my $0.02
St. Louis just approved their ballpark proposal
That's what's going to have to happen here because I don't think the A's are going to get as much public money as the other parks have gotten. The design and urbanization is without a doubt going to have to include retail space within the park's surroundings but also it's going to have to include some upfront promises from business who will want to take over these empty storefronts that exist in the present infrastructure.