THE ATTENDANCE PERSONA
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: THE ATTENDANCE PERSONA
| By sactodavey on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 03:04 pm:|
What is so funny to me is everyone makes it out that we in Oakland cannot draw here or cannot draw at the colisium , well we are out drawing the friggen Mets , yes the Mets so maybe they should be contracted?
also we have outdrawn the whitesox so i guess Chicago cannot support 2 teams? the more i see these stats the more i begin to wonder if Selig spreads the lies about Oakland not being able to support a team , common this is bullshit because we are on top of 2 teams in big metro areas.
All these teams after 37 home games
18 Oakland 37 997,287 26,953
19 NY Mets 37 992,190 26,815
21 Chicago Sox 37 872,404 23,578
| By kevink on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 03:12 pm:|
Chicago and New York just need new stadiums!
| By bigthree17 on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 03:20 pm:|
Good homework, Sacto. However, those raw figures don't take into account ticket prices. It's been established that we draw a ton of our fans during the $1 or $2 ticket days (forgive me, I'm not sure what the exact promo is these days, since I don't make it to too many weekday games living in SoCal), which artificially inflates our overall attendance figures.
Also, you've got it right there: we only draw the 18th most fans. Yet you want ownership to pony up $15M to keep Tejada and Guillen (our current payroll is actually $60-65M), plus possibly an extra $6M for Foulke, for a total of $75-85M, which would put us in the upper echelon of payrolls. Believe me, if I owned a team, I wouldn't be running it to make money like Schott, I'd run it to break even at best. But you can't expect an owner to lose money either.
Finally, another factor that separates us from the Mets and ChiSox is our crappy cable TV deal. The ChiSox are on WGN for cryin' out loud. Every cable and satellite company in the country carries that channel. Think of the revenue that must generate.
kevink, comiskey park isn't that old.
i really don't understand why everyone says teams need these flash new parks. i guess it is to attract all the "fair weather" baseball fans and make it a more enjoyale experience.
IMHO, I know baseball needs these fans for the money, but we're better off without them!!! All the players care about is how nice the grass and the field is, and the dimensions, and the pitchers care about foul ground as well.
the coliseum is not the best park in baseball but i love it. i love how it's not all super flashy and it's just baseball. i love how we have hardcore dedicated fans. and i love that when we sell out, when we draw big, we don't fill the park up with 40K, but 55K !!!! Now that's a capacity crowd!!
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 03:56 pm:|
55K is TOO many fricken people, if you ask me (grumble, grumble).
| By sactodavey on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:02 pm:|
i believe and Lil can back me on this, that the 1-$2 dollar tickets are limited tickets to such events maybew 10k seats and on wed only so i think the % of cheap seats is probably 5-7% at best.
Yes we only draw 18th but when you think of how negative this ownership is of the park, city ect... and how we have lost to yes 2 MVP's in the last 3 yrs along with the the 2nd best closer in baseball i think we are doing pretty good, BTW payroll i believe is $58 mill.
this comparison was for attendance ONLY the TV deals ect are not the city of Oakland's fault and neither the A's but MLB when they continue to not have equal sharing of TV profits.
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:05 pm:|
If MLB shared tv revenue equally like the NFL does, there would be no crying about teams losing money, fears of contraction, etc. Do the owners care that some franchises are less healthy than others? Hell, no.
The biggest opponent to revenue sharing is the players' union.
| By jerryo1 on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:15 pm:|
BTW, I heard from someone who recently attended a White Sox game in Chicago, that they also have $1 weeknight games. Not sure about the Mets though.
| By bigthree17 on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:27 pm:|
I understand the comparison was for attendance only, but attendance is not the only factor when determining payroll, so you cannot simply correlate attendance to payroll. My point was simply that the Mets and White Sox have more favorable and lucrative cable TV contracts, which generates more revenue for them, which in turn allows them to have higher payrolls.
ESPN has the A's at just under $60M, before Dotel.
So I was a little off when I said it was $60-65M. Either way, at $60M, if, as you have suggested over time, we had kept Tejada, Guillen and Foulke at the same prices they made elsewhere, that's an extra $21-22M this year alone, bringing our payroll to $82M, or 9th highest in MLB, between the Braves and the Giants. With the 18th highest attendance. And a crappy TV deal.
Not to mention we'd have no money to re-sign Chavez (whose $11M salary doesn't kick in until next year), Hudson, Mulder or Zito.
Yes, we are doing pretty well despite all the negative factors you mentioned. But 18th is still 18th, no matter how you slice it.
Unfortunately, it's a numbers game, and Beane has to choose wisely where to spend his money. We can't have it all. Even the Angels ($100M) are probably going to let Glaus and Erstad walk after this season because the have Dallas McPherson and Casey Kotchman waiting in the wings.
| By goldtymer on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 10:30 pm:|
You can't stop progress.
If you look back to 2000 & 2001 who had high OBP?
Giambi, maybe pre injury Dye or 2002 Hatte but not all at once.
This year today, as we speak we have minimum five players over 800 OBP.
Next year, or two....7-9 because we started early and had a vision.
Perhaps you can't see it because it is subtle but the offense is getting better.
It simply doesn't look as flashy or imposing because none are 5 tool guys (Except perhaps Crosby & Chavy).
How do you explain the Angels current $100M payroll? Arte Moreno is making an investment in his team. He's taking the big losses but building market share. Attendace is up, and so is his TV ratings. He's incredibly popular, and building customer loyalty that will pay dividends for years to come.
| By bigthree17 on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 10:10 am:|
Well, for one, Anaheim is 3rd in attendance in all of baseball. They sell out (or come close) almost every game. A lot of the top seats (diamond level right behind the plate, suites, etc.) go to local corporations who own season tickets (there are still many successful tech companies down there), leading to a consistent revenue stream, game in and game out. Geographically speaking, they don't compete with the Dodgers or the Padres for fans or market share, like we do with the Giants.
Two, in terms of cable, virtually every Angels game is on TV. While we share Fox Sports Bay Area with the Giants, the Angels and Dodgers each have their own Fox Sports station down here.
Finally, and probably most importantly, is that Moreno has the foresight, patience and wallet to be willing to take a loss in the short term in exchange for long term gain. Plus, he's simply a fan of the game. My point is it would be great if Schott were willing to do this - I think it's the approach we all would take if we could. However, you can't expect an owner to lose money. My feeling is that if you are wealthy enough to own a MLB team, then you don't need it to make money. You should at least run it at break-even (which I don't believe Schott is doing). But it is a business, and you can't expect someone to just lose money either.
| By bigthree17 on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 10:31 am:|
Also, in terms of attendance, I should mention that Anaheim and its surrounding area in Orange County is more well-to-do than Oakland and its surrounding area (and even though I live in L.A. now, I grew up in the East Bay). Thus, you don't need ticket promos or anything else to get people in the door and buying tickets, especially the high-priced ones. It's also incredibly family-friendly, which unfortunately, Oakland isn't always (conversely, the worst place I've been to is Dodger Stadium). The stadium is also accessible from three major freeways.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Angel fans are better. They pull the same crap as Dodger fans: show up in the 3rd, leave in the 7th. (A lot of that is because parents bring their kids and want to get them home earlier. But because it's family-friendly, they can draw a lot more.) A's fans are certainly louder, prouder and more faithful. There's just less of us. Hopefully, over time, that will change.
You're memory is very short. The Angels attendance level is a new phonemenom. They only drew about 5% more than the A's in their WS year; until then they drew virtually identically.
Arte Moreno takes short term losses to invest in his team - why shouldn't we expect the same from Schott?
According to the US Dept of Labor, the mean annual wage for the Oakland MSA = $44, 910; Orange County = $40,370. The facts don't support your argument.
Oakland suffers from a PR problem, that's it. It is a problem that marketing, and a WS, can overcome.
2002 Median Family Income = $74,500, Oakland; $75,600 OC. Whopping difference, eh?
| By chris_d on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 11:00 am:|
It was just about five years ago that the Angels attendance wasn't much better than Oakland's. That's why Selig actually floated the idea of merging the A's and the Angels. Yes, Anaheim's attendance is better now. That's because they won a World Series two years ago and were subsequently bought by a Walter Haas-like, community oriented, fan friendly owner in Artie Moreno. I also don't agree that the surrounding areas of Orange County are wealthier than the surrounding areas of Oakland. Ever try to buy a house in Oakland? Or Alameda (which is 5 minutes from the Coliseum)? Berkeley? Orinda? Moraga? The prices are astronomical, among the highest in the country. A friend of mine just bought a two bedroom home in Oakland for $710,000! Ridiculous prices. Somebody is living in these places and jamming up the East Bay freeways on the country's highest gas prices, and they ain't broke.
Things are cyclical. Where the A's were on top of the Bay Area's attendance from the mid-80s to the mid-90s, now it's the Giants' turn. Hopefully, things will reverse again soon. Ownership has probably more to do with that than the city the team plays in. If the A's were to make it to the World Series this year, you'll see as big an increase as Anaheim enjoyed. Similarly, as soon as Bonds retires, the Giants are probably in big trouble in terms of attendance.
| By sactodavey on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 11:02 am:|
hm...... but how many people live in the Oakland - East bay area with that annual wage or median fam income compared to the people who live in the Orange county area?
The Angels do have more people to draw from within 50 miles.
| By bigthree17 on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 11:26 am:|
Okay, I admit that my thoughts are more based on observation, rather than hard facts. Bleacher Dave's original question was how do I explain the Angels' $100M payroll?
1) More corporations buying expensive season tix.
2) Tons of bandwagon fans, to which other posters have alluded, including myself. Attributable to both the 2002 WS, and to Moreno's popularity.
3) No competing team within 50 miles to suck away fans.
4) As Sactodavey points out, the numbers you quote, while relevant, don't take into account population. 2002 Census show that OC has 2.9M people, while Alameda County has 1.4M.
5) Better cable / TV deal, reaching more households.
6) A family-friendly, freeway-accessible, newly renovated (for the better) stadium.
7) An owner willing to invest in the future, and take a loss in the short-term.
I agree with you that a greater commitment from Schott would help the attendance issue. But we've been good for five-plus years now, and overall attendance is still mediocre. It's a chicken or egg argument: the team is already good, so should the fans come out first before the owner opens up his wallet more, or should the owner capitalize on a good team and open up his wallet more in order to attract more fans?
I'm no fan of Schott, but I can't expect an owner to take a loss. I wish he wouldn't be solely concerned with turning a profit, though.
| By chris_d on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 11:47 am:|
All I know is, having headlines on a monthly basis for almost 10 years blaring that the team is moving to San Jose, Santa Clara, Portland, Las Vegas or Washington D.C. or being contracted, while also repeatedly calling your ballpark "a dump," is no way to get your fan base fired up. Despite all that, Oakland attendance is up for the 6th season in a row. And the A's will draw over 2.1 million for the 4th year in a row. Given the context, that is quite good.
Besides, attendance and new ballparks is no panacea for keeping free agents. Otherwise, Baltimore would have kept Mussina, Cleveland would have kept Thome and M. Ramirez, Pittsburgh would have kept Giles, Arizona would have kept Schilling and Milwaukee would have kept Sexson. Also, the size of a market doesn't necessarily determine winning -- ask the Dodgers and Mets about that recently -- or attendance -- as the White Sox can attest.
| By ronc on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 12:01 pm:|
The A's season ticket base is primarily Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties which have a combined population of 2.9 million. Contra Costa county has a higher median income than Orange country.
The A's are a Bay Area team whereas the Giants are a Northern California team. The A's have done a poor job of getting the product out to the surrounding Northern California cities (e.g. Sacramento). The radio/tv coverage is limited or non-existent contrast that with KNBR which I had the misfortune of tuning into while driving thru Bakersfield - talk about a double whammy. Plus every off-season Schott depresses season ticket sales with relocation talk.
| By bigthree17 on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 12:17 pm:|
Chris D, I agree with everything in your first paragraph. I will say that the Coliseum used to be a great ballpark, before Al Davis came back. Now it's not so attractive, to be kind.
And you're right, while attendance, a new ballpark, and a bigger market don't guarantee success, they certainly don't hurt. We're basically starting at a disadvantage, which we have to overcome through ingenuity and finding hidden value. Which is why I love Billy Beane.
| By deajay on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 12:21 pm:|
Well, remember Anaheim did remodel their stadium. The only remodelling up here was to benefit the Raiders, while dissing the A's.
Comiskey Park is the new Comiskey Park, not old Comiskey Park. That stadium is only a few years old. Albeit, was poorly built in that the upper tier seats are too steep to draw fans. I believe they fixed that last year, however, but not sure.
And while I agree, no one should expect Schott or any other owner to continually lose money on their team. Something Schott has never done, by the way, having been in the black every year. But something he hasn't done is to properly promote the team. In that regard, he is not a very astute businessman. On the other hand, it could also very well be intentional on his part, because he wants SC so badly, he may very well deliberately choose to do very little in the way of making Oakland a considerably successful (ala Haas era) draw. Which he could, and still pocket his almighty dollars, remaining in the black.
| By kevink on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 01:06 pm:|
RFF I was being totally sarcastic about needing new stadiums. That would be Selig's solution.
| By calig on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 01:46 pm:|
We need a World Series win to get the Bandwagon Fans like the Angels did.
Then once you get these fans, you have to hook them with good marketing like Moreno is doing with the Angels.
| By oaktownfan on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 05:46 pm:|
"We need a World Series win to get the Bandwagon Fans like the Angels did."
Not really, looking at a few Marlins home games this year, they've drawn crowds lower than 20,000. Why is that? They are the world champs and it's not like the 98 season when they sold off their players. Sure a few players have gone but the majority of the team is still there.
I still think a new stadium would help out the A's even if they won a world title. Look at the 90 attendance figures and the A's could draw over 3 million. If you take that year's attendance and average it out, the A's drew around 29k per game. If the A's win a world championship with this current group of players in the near future, I even doubt they'll draw better than the 90 season.
| By kevink on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 05:55 pm:|
Not enough Old People in South FL to support the Marlins.
Not as many people crazy about Mt. Davis as there were A's fans in 1990 visiting what was then considered "the best ballpark in America" by a few people.
Amazing the A's even draw as well as they do right now considering all the maligning of the ballpark in the media (And by their owner!)
| By oaktownfan on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 06:01 pm:|
The Marlins shouldn't be drawing that low of a figure as world champions. I mean where are those 55k people who went to all those playoff games and as world champions, you can barely draw 20k to some of your game.
Hypothical, but if the Marlins played a new park after winning a world title, they wouldn't be drawing better than they are now?
New parks means a lot to the fair weather fans and I've posted this many times before but the Giants wouldn't be drawing nearly as much to the stick if they still played there then they would at SBC, even with the Bonds factor of hitting hrs. I'd bet they'd be right there with the A's in attendance figures.