Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

Wolff: A's will contribute $100 million to Coliseum site

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Wolff: A's will contribute $100 million to Coliseum site

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jerryo1 on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:09 pm:

"I doubt the A's report $0 in revenue for parking and concessions"

Chances are that the $15M that the A's receive in parking & concessions is the percentage (commission) that Schott's companies pay to the A's. I'm sure that it is not the entire amount derived from sales of parking and concessions.

Also, I believe that the $60M the Giants generate must all be from concessions, luxury sets, and stadium advertising; since there really isn't any stadium-specific parking available at the Phone Booth.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By wbell on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:17 pm:

tell the Raiders to pay us 100 mill to get out of the lease and use schots $$$ to redo the stadium?

The Raiders may not be happy about the lease for any number of reasons, but they sure aren't going to pay $100 million to break it.

Plus they draw 1.5 million more than the A's do.

The difference is just over 1 million, not 1.5 million.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By wbell on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:30 pm:

Chances are that the $15M that the A's receive in parking & concessions is the percentage (commission) that Schott's companies pay to the A's. I'm sure that it is not the entire amount derived from sales of parking and concessions.

Using attendance, total revenue from those sources could be estimated with a reasonable degree of certainty. But even if the total amount is doubled, does it change the underlying situation?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:41 pm:

Oh, I suspect Selig has already stuck his nose in it. Though this time it may not be a bad thing. Didn't someone mention that Wolf and Selig were friends? I find Wolf's comments interesting regarding not going south and that the team will not seek to change those rules, all of a sudden. Me thinks he and Bud have already had a chat, reinforcing that. A chat, probably generated subsequent to the liklihood that the Expos will be in the DC area, starting next season.

Just a guess, on my part ... but I can see where that could have happened.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:50 pm:

Schott owns the concessionaire business (food and parking and luxury catering)... when/if he sells the team, the concessionaire business goes as an ancillary business. It is not a team revenue.

I had been told by a reliable source that the A's owners would be willing to come in with 40% and not 25% of the cost of the yard...but perhaps with other investors, the % can be raised a bit...

Schott and Hofmann bought the team with a 15K s.t. holder fanbase. They lost their s.t. holders because of their policy of catering to walk-up crowd. Adjustments have to be made in order to gain back all the s.t. holders they alienated. Perhaps with a true committment they can regain the fans they lost. But they must stop canabalizing fans with promitions that discourage advance sales.

I'm cautiously optimistic and hopefull this is not a set-up job.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:53 pm:

cannibalizing

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By goldtymer on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:02 pm:

we knew what you meant (which is why the likes of Sacto & I don't correct each of our typos)...everyone gets the point and if some of us can't type the speed of thought, Tough crap!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:09 pm:

yeah, but I've already noticed one poster that doesn't know the meaning of the word 'prejudice' so I was afraid he would now accuse us of being a canibus community.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By goldtymer on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:11 pm:

:)

As poorly as I type, you can imagine how I would be if I altered my perception.

Man at this stage in life, I am fighting for every braincell.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jerryo1 on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:42 pm:

"Using attendance, total revenue from those sources could be estimated with a reasonable degree of certainty. But even if the total amount is doubled, does it change the underlying situation?"

Warren,
My point is although there is a discrepency in the receipts, "the A's earn about $15 million", with the rest going into Schott's pocket in the name of his company. All the while, he's crying poor.

I was just amused by the spin that Wolff used to exagertate the discrepency, while Schott was still raking it in.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:01 pm:

I'm with Lil and am "cautiously optimistic."
Where I wish we could have a downtown site (or the Laney college plan), keeping the A's in Oakland and in a new stadium at the same location is not the end of the world.

I also wonder how this whole idea will go over with Uncle Al concerning the parking.

The A's will at least have to factor in additional parking spaces (a garage perhaps?) with their new ballpark plans.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:07 pm:

If the A's build a new ballpark, they should learn from the mistakes the Giants made with SBC, and the mistakes the Padres made with Petco.

SBC is lacking the great experiences places like Fenway and Camden have. Sports bars right by the stadium, and an area where people can hang out and eat and drink right behind it. SBC has one fancy restaurant and a donut shop. That's not baseball! The A's need to somehow do this even though it's not in a downtown setting.

I like Petco, but some of the views from the seats aren't the greatest. Some are angled wrong, and the place is just too big. At least they don't make you walk forever up a walkway like SBC.

BART also needs to be figured out. Right now it's a joke. They need to have extra trains for games, not less.

Well that's a start, anyway.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ronc on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:50 pm:

Here's an example of how the ballpark might look
"http://www.oaklandfans.com/ballpark/parks/coliseumPlan.JPG"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:53 pm:

I will always continue to urge the A's to build near the downtown area but if this is the most feasbile place and the only real possiblity, so be it.

I'm still not a big fan of the coliseum site. Still think that whoever is working with the A's needs to work even harder to find a site near the downtown area to build a park. I'd take a couple of years of extra if they can work a deal out.

I'd rather wait two or three years in the hopes of getting a downtown/waterfront park rather than spending the 350 million on a coliseum park. To have three sports venues basically at the same place and to still see the downtown area of Oakland not be anywhere near the benificiaries out of any of them isn't smart in my mind.


"SBC is lacking the great experiences places like Fenway and Camden have. Sports bars right by the stadium, and an area where people can hang out and eat and drink right behind it. SBC has one fancy restaurant and a donut shop. That's not baseball! The A's need to somehow do this even though it's not in a downtown setting."

I agree with this statement. What can be built around the net that can make fans stay before and after the game. I know the transit village will be built near the net but is that area good enough to support the thousands of fans that might want to have a bite or stay around before and after games. I don't think anything stores/bars/restaurants will be built in the parking itself right next to a new park and what happens to those places when there is no baseall. It's not like people will go there when there's no baseball to eat there because like I've said before, that location is basically out in the middle of nowhere. With a park in downtown or near the waterfront, you could have people go to these restaurants places not during game days but all during the year.

The stories from the newspaper said that no sites are feasbile right near that would involve the downtown or waterfront areas. I know the uptown and Oak to Ninth area are being looked at for housing but isn't the Howard Terminal site still avialable.


I still don't trust this ownership group because we fans have heard good news like this before whether it be a group looking to buy part of the team and then to see the story lose legs to it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactodavey on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:41 pm:

it seems kinda stupid to have 2 stadiums on the same site but we have the same in kansas city right? then i guess it cost 500 million to bring the Raiders back to retro the colisium then build a new park for the A's thats 1/2 billion for the Raiders in the end wow!!!!.

i bet they domain the land around hegenburg to annex and make into more parking , those commercial sites that are emtpy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:45 pm:

Howard Terminal site has bad access and has toxic waste contamination. It's not "feasible" because it's much more expensive than any other site.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:44 am:

Sacto, whoever designed Arrowhead and Kaufman were well ahead of their times. Instead of the cookie cutter apporach that many cites used like Pittsburg, Cincy, and Philli; the designer for the KC venues are still regarded as the very best currently in each respective's sport.

Having two venues at the same place is smart if they are built at the right place. The net and if the A's new proposed park right next to it wouldn't make sense to me at least. But other cities do have sports venues next to each other but near the downtown area. Seattle and Cleveland are ones that I can think of. Imagine having tens of thousand of people coming to the downtown area where they spend money year around basically.


The Howard Terminal even with all it's negatives will have something built there eventually. My thinking is why not a park.

I still don't understand why it would cost over 500 million to build a park there like HOK estimated. What's there that would cost the extra 100+ million that the uptown or coliseum area don't have.

The contamination problem shouldn't be that big of a problem is it? I mean SBC had contiminated land and it wasn't a big problem for them. Regards to access, there's parking around that area that would fit the needs of a couple thousand people, not to include the parking around Jack London. There's always the ferrie and people could park at the Laney College parking lot and walk or take trasnportation to JLS. It's only a 5-10 minute walk away isn't it.

If not Howard Terminal, I'd still like to see the A's and the city work extra hard to find a site near the downtown/waterfront area. There has to be somewhere else in Oakland that would be feasible to build a park there.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:06 am:

Howard teminal was sold a coupla months back to a developer,so it's off the table.
Obviously,the coliseum is the A's focus at the moment,but the uptown area has virtue. It has TWO bart stations within easy walking distance,access to the freeway,and there is parking in the area,though some additonal parking would have to be built.since THE uptown site has been pretty much given away,so I have to look at the properties next to it.One could end up with a funky ballpark design there.
FYI-Ron Labinski,who helped start HOK sport,worked for the firm who designed the Harry Truman sports complex in KC.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By lenny on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:11 am:

I've got mixed feelings.

Like Lil and Kevin, I'm cautiously optimistic, but if Schott thinks that attendance/revenues are going to go through the roof because of a new ballpark, he's going to be disappointed if they build it next to the current one.

I'm with Kevin and Oaktown. You need a downtown park if you really want to attract the casual fans, and the only way the A's can draw 3 million is if they get the people who don't follow baseball that closely to come out and see some games. I could see that happening with a park near restaurants, bars, movie theaters, etc, and with easy public transportation (two BART stops, buses), but on the concrete island that the park is at now?...I don't think it'll work.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ramjet1 on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 05:50 pm:

I'm inclined to agree with Lenny's assessment, I think a downtown location is overall best because of the critical mass of other venues in close proximity, plus the intensity of a downtown this is why everyone love Wrigley field and Fenway. But if this location is the owners first choice we need to work with them not fight it. The area can change and improvements are currently under way along this corridor, (new Amtrak stop, Bart/airport people mover, and new housing where the projects used to be). If the park is pushed a little closer to that creek we might even have our own splash down, though that creek looks pretty toxic, but creek restoration is possible. I suggest we sit down with Larry Reid and have some fun visioning a layout and plan for the area.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 06:54 pm:

Ramjet is correct, there is already at least one development initiative for the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex. I'm sure that in the very near future there will be other projects presented to the Council and officials.

The one I'm talking about is very much Larry Reid's pet project which involves the present airport connector project and the
transit village. I think the complex will include a mixed use commercial plaza, retail, dinning and entertainment.

As ramjet mentioned in his post, the improvements to the area are currently under way, as well as the housing projects.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bparkjamo on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:50 pm:

I hope to be able to talk with both DeLafuente and Reid in the near future,primarily about the coliseum site,but I'm still looking at "site B" near Uptown,I think I know the area. Wish Me luck,I think an affordable plan can come of this.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:21 pm:

Where is the "Transit Village" supposed to go in?
This sounds like an EXCELLENT opportunity to turn this into a place with some A's/Raiders/Warriors atmosphere, depending on how close it is to the Coliseum.

bparkjamo, I really like your thinking and hope we can get enough people excited to bring ideas like Howard Terminal and your "site B" idea to Wolff and DLF.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaklandfasho510 on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:06 pm:

The transit village is supposed to go behind the Coliseum BART where the BART parking lot is. it will probably be similar to the one's at the Fruitvale and West Oakland BART stations

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:15 am:

You already have some development going on now. The new metro center is being built just off 880 and hegenberger Rd. A WalMart, In and Out berger joint and Krispy Kream are among many other retail stores being built. Perhaps the old homebase site will used for another shopping center.

The Raiders and Warriors are not going to loose any parking. Part of the 400 million dollars is not just for the park but also for three parking structure in the complex. So if plans go accordingly, the hegenber and San Leandro st. areas will see alot of new development happen.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oakland_j on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:55 am:

Even with all the development in the coliseum area, I don't think that site comes even close to the potential benefit to both the A's and Oakland of a downtown park.

I'm also wondering why the A's would ONLY contribute $100 million to a park near the coliseum and why they waited until after the Forest City deal was approved to release their report?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By westbayfan on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:16 am:

"...since there really isn't any stadium-specific parking available at the Phone Booth..."

Not a real big deal and hardly relevant to the discussion, but that statement is just dead wrong. There are three dedicated parking lots for Southwestern Bell Communications Park. The lots are located just south of the Lefty O'Doul Bridge and cleverly enough named Lot A, Lot B, and Lot C. At $18-$20 per car I would argue that they probably contribute more than just a little to the coffers.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By chrishorvath on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:45 pm:

I wonder if part of the A's plan is to get funding from outside the city by being part of a BART Village development. I think BART Villlages probably get money from other counties, in addition to money from Oakland, since they're part of the region-wide BART system.

I don't know, just a though.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By wbell on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:20 pm:

One question unanswered so far is in regrards to naming rights. Are the A's considering that revenue source in their contribution, or will it be applied to the portion of construction costs beyond what the A's are paying? Depending upon size of the deal, it could represent anywhere from 10% to 15% of the total construction costs.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 04:01 pm:

what about PIXAR PARK?????

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 09:03 pm:

"Even with all the development in the coliseum area, I don't think that site comes even close to the potential benefit to both the A's and Oakland of a downtown park."

My thoughts exactly. For all the good 400 million project dollars can do for a city like Oakland, it's best use would be it was used at or around the downtown area. I'm still holding out hope that the city and the team, if the the owners are really serious, finds a site near the downtown area. Schott/Hoffman are developers, they should know how much impact a park could have on a urban area like downtown Oakland.


Naming the park is still a ways ways off but it's been mentioned here before about possibilities.

Clorox Park
Kaiser Park
Dreyers Park

Those three would make the most sense since they are all based in Oakland.

I'd rather see Pixar be part of the ownership group since they're basically a stones throw away from being in Oakland.. But Disney and Pixar were linked some how and Disney owned the Angels and sold it so I don't know if Pixar was part of the ownership group of the Angels and if they would be interested.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.