Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis

  

This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

May 05, 2010

A's say they're not to blame for disappearing fans

The San Francisco Chronicle has taken notice of the Oakland A's attendance woes, with fewer than 9,000 tickets sold for Monday night's game (and even fewer actual fans in the seats). Who's to blame? Chronicle reporter John Shea sticks the blame squarely everywhere:

  • The Oakland Coliseum is "antiquated."
  • The team "hasn't been in playoff contention since 2006" (though he fails to mention that at the moment they're actually one-half game out of first place.
  • Fans have been driven away by owner Lew Wolff's description of the Coliseum as "despicable" and his subsequent insistance that he wants to move the team to San Jose. (A's reliever Brad Ziegler even tweeted that "A's fans boycott our games [because] ownership has threatened to move the team" and "the lack of fans gives them all the more reason to seek other alternatives for a new home city," though he later clarified his remarks.)

The A's marketing chief retorted that the team is too trying to draw fans, noting that they only charge $5 for a beer. Though it can't be helping that the team is kicking out the few fans they have when they bring in signs critical of the owner.

COMMENTS

That article does place most of the blame where it belongs, all around. Wolff is correct in that the Coliseum is both antiquated and despicable. It's a drab, dull, crumbling edifice that is no longer suited for baseball particularly since the city of Oakland foolishly built their 200 million dollar addition to kowtow to Al Davis. Additionally the Coliseum's location frankly sucks. Oakland backers will suggest it's in a decent area with good transit access, etc.., however it's located on the edge of "Baby Iraq". It's a tough sell to lure people to come visit one of the worst areas in the bay area. At the same time Wolff bears some of the blame for making statements so critical of the venue and suggesting he's moving the team even if he is somewhat justified in doing so.

What the article doesn't state is that Oakland's leaders share some of the blame as well. They've consistently ignored the A's and done nothing to address the deficient situation the A's are in over the years and purposely sold off some of the most promising pieces of land for a stadium in Uptown to their own cronies. A's fans also bear some of the blame for the attendance woes. The amount of excuses you hear from A's fans for not attending games are just staggering. They blame the tarps, they blame the drive, they blame the ticket prices, they blame Wolff, they blame the team being bad. Never mind the fact that the tarps have done nothing but cover the upper deck which was very rarely used, the drive hasn't changed in 40 years (and there is a very viable BART alternative that most stadiums lack), ticket prices for the A's have actually dropped this year and remain one of the most affordable tickets in sports, and the team is actually pretty good this year.

Posted by Dan on May 6, 2010 02:11 AM

once again, it's obvious that oak-sf-sj is not a two team mlb market. the g-ants control the media attention which influence the spending decisions by ticket buyers and corporate sponsors.
"lou-lou" wolff keeps beating the drum for s.j. even though the gi-ants are not willing to release the south bay market, the buy-in of an "a" ball minor league franchise proves that.
the jack london sq. proposals are fraught with economic trap doors for taxpayers as well as logistical nightmares.
will all viable mlb sized markets exhausted the a's and "lou-lou" are between a rock and a hard (oakland) place.
remember the words of missouri senator Stuart Symington who called Oakland "the luckiest city since Hiroshima"...

Posted by paul w. on May 6, 2010 01:56 PM

The Oakland Aids need to go.

Nobody cares or wants this pathetic franchise.

Go back To Kansas City or move to Portland.

Posted by Get Rid on May 6, 2010 07:15 PM

No the Bay Area can support two franchises. The region proved that in the late 80's when both teams were among the highest drawing teams in MLB at the same time. The key is that you need a decent field on team and decent place to go to a game. Oakland doesn't have that right now only SF does. And in the last 20 years the area around the Coliseum has become one of the most dangerous in the United States. It's less inviting than South Central LA. Combine that with the A's disappointing on field performances of late and the fact that Oakland's population is one of the poorest with pro teams... and it's a perfect storm killing the A's at the box office right now.

With the right circumstances both teams could thrive again. San Jose might be the answer, I suspect downtown Oakland is not particularly since it doesn't put the team where the money is in the region. Sacramento might be an option but then you run into how to fund the stadium (as the NBA Kings have found out) and having to compensate the River Cats who've been one of MiLB's most successful franchises since they arrived in 2000. Portland couldn't even build their long time MiLB team a stadium so I doubt they'd be able to get together on a Major League Park. Same problem has existed for a couple of years in Vegas (to say nothing of the gambling issue). And I honestly can't think of any other options short of contraction. No SJ is the last best option for the A's IMO. Whether it will work is 50/50, but it's better than any other options on the table.

Posted by Dan on May 6, 2010 08:52 PM

I quit going to the A's games because I got tired of being hassled by the security guards for bringing my scorebook, water and sunscreen in a cloth bag that I'm told is "too big". OK, fine. Its not too big for Sacramento or Stockton, cities that get my baseball dollars.
And, Oakland is and has always been a front runner's town. The A's and Raiders draw well when they win, and don't draw well when they lose. Its as simple as that.

Posted by Joe on May 7, 2010 04:41 AM

Actually it's not that simple Joe. Historically even when the A's are winning they don't draw that well (all 3 world series years in the 70's and as recently as 2006-7). The only time they've drawn really well was in the late 80's when Wally Haas was spending an unsustainable amount of money to bring in superstars and grow superstars. And even then the A's weren't in the top 10 as I recall. The Raiders more closely fit your suggested idea of how Oakland draws. But even then the Raiders didn't sell out every game even when they were a good team and the "new" thing after they moved back in 95. No Oakland is not a good sports town unless you're playing basketball. And even then it's such a great place to play even the basketball team is trying to get out of town.

The Bay Area itself could support 2 teams, just so long as none of those teams are in Oakland, and in particular in the "Baby Iraq" section of Oakland.

Posted by Dan on May 7, 2010 10:54 AM

The city of Oakland can suppurt MLB it is just that the fans are hearing the same crap Montreal Expos fans heard. If the owner tells you your stadium sucks and keeps threatning to move I don't care what city you are in. You won't show up.

Posted by John on May 7, 2010 11:18 AM

John, that might explain the last 2 or 3 seasons, but that does not explain the A's haven't poor attendance through the 90's and into the 2000's. Or during the 60's and early 70's either. And even if they don't like what Wolff is saying, not showing up isn't giving the A's any reason to say. It's so typical of Oakland fans to make excuses you just don't see in good sports towns.

Posted by Dan on May 7, 2010 11:54 AM

Dan...I fail to see how things in the 1960's or 1970's matter today TONS of teams stunk it up at the box office during those times. Different eras. Not only that IT WAS 40 YEARS AGO. Make some more relevant arguments.

Posted by A'sobserver on May 7, 2010 02:27 PM

If you'd read my entire post I'd also pointed out the A's had shitty attendances since the early 90's, and they've had some great teams in that time. Their BEST attendances in that time however barely topped 2 million and in several years went DOWN despite better teams.

Posted by Dan on May 7, 2010 05:50 PM

Portland welcomes the A's...

Bring them here.

Posted by Portland A's on May 7, 2010 10:11 PM

Portland couldn't even keep their minor league baseball team.

Posted by Dan on May 7, 2010 10:39 PM

Dan, though I don't have a link to this, it seems to me that the Raiders sold out season after season up until the move to LA. In the early 70's baseball was in a down time so not too many teams drew well. Its still no excuse. The A's did draw well during the Haas era and have drawn well during times they had a quality product on the field.
I still stand by my point that Oakland is a front runners town. I also think that from the A's perspective, the return of the Raiders was the worst thing to happen to the A's. Selling restricted view seats (sit in the outfield and you'll see what I'm talking about) in this day and age is IMHO unacceptable. The A's, again IMHO, have always been a second class tenant in the Coliseum.
And, on your comment about Portland, though its not directed at me, when did the Beavers move? I thought they still played at PGE park, which was recently renovated for the Beavers.

Posted by Joe on May 8, 2010 03:05 AM

Here's the link. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/athlatte.shtml

A's Attendance in the title years of the early 70s was bad--below Major League averages of the time (hard to imagine a World Series Champion averaging 10K a game). Then again, as stated, teams like the Baltimore Orioles had trouble selling out World Series games (!).

Oakland did exceed the MLB average from 1988-92, as stated. And attendance has fallen off since 2007 (both the performance and the economy have fallen since then). Still, in the mid-1980s most teams would have been thrilled for 1.7 million.

Sad to say, for all their on-field success, the A's haven't been a great draw in any of their homes.

Posted by G on May 8, 2010 01:30 PM

Joe, as G points out the ONLY time the A's have drawn well compared to the rest of MLB was during the 88-92 years when Wally Haas owned the team. What that doesn't take into account is that Walter Haas ran the team at a significant loss during those years and his business model was ultimately unsustainable. While it was a nobel effort on his part and resulted in 3 trips to the World Series, it could not, and did not last. So short extraordinary measures by an owner willing to losing boatloads of cash the A's have not drawn well at the gate.

Posted by Dan on May 8, 2010 03:48 PM

Portland couldn't even keep their minor league baseball team.

Posted by Dan on May 7, 2010 10:39 PM


LOL

Yea the Clay Area does so well in supporting sports.

The A's are drawing 9,000 a game.

I think Portland -----which is way way smaller than the 5th largest market--the Clay Area, can have draw huge crowds for the A's.

Trail Blazers-Timbers and the Beavers draw high attendance figures.

Raiders average 38,000 k a game in the Clay Area.

The Oaklnd Aids are destined to die a slow death if they stay in the Clay Area.

Posted by Portland A's on May 8, 2010 08:18 PM

Portland couldn't even keep their minor league baseball team.

Posted by Dan on May 7, 2010 10:39 PM


LOL

Yea the Clay Area does so well in supporting sports.

The A's are drawing 9,000 a game.

I think Portland -----which is way way smaller than the 5th largest market--the Clay Area, can have draw huge crowds for the A's.

Trail Blazers-Timbers and the Beavers draw high attendance figures.

Raiders average 38,000 k a game in the Clay Area.

The Oaklnd Aids are destined to die a slow death if they stay in the Clay Area.

Posted by Portland A's on May 8, 2010 08:19 PM

The Clay Area? What are you 5?

Posted by Dan on May 9, 2010 01:59 AM

The problem the A's have is that their overall marketing of the team is just atrocious. The Giants utterly dominate the market. Short of a new ballpark, the only thing that will bring fans back to Oakland is if the A's string together a few playoff seasons while the Giants simultaneously suck. Even in the early 2000's when the A's were good, so were the Giants...and they opened a spanking new waterfront ballpark...and they had a legitimate superstar to market in Barry Bonds while Jason Giambi sold his soul to George Steinbrenner. To top all of that off, the primary (read: only) sports talk station in the Bay Area (KNBR) is owned by the Giants, so its ALL GIANTS ALL THE TIME. When the A's won 20 games in a row back in 2002, the national media covered it more than the bay area media did.

On a side note, I find this whole SJ territorial rights thing to be preposterous. The Giants were awarded the rights to SJ by MLB so they could use it as leverage to extort free waterfront land out of SF to build AT&T Park. So, in that same spirit, give it back to the A's so that they can swindle some local municipality out of millions of dollars worth of free land themselves. For God's sake, the Giants "territory" is SF, the penninsula and Silicon Valley. The A's is the east bay, Sacramento, Napa, and Vallejo. So... the Giants get the areas with all the population, corporate money, and disposable income. The A's get the bankrupt war zones. That's balanced.

Basically, the bay area can support two teams. However, the deck is currently stacked so heavily against the A's that they have no chance, even in a market this large.

Posted by Chris on May 9, 2010 02:06 AM

To be fair, until the dot-com explosion, arrival of Barry Bonds, and the building of AT/T Park (phenomena related) the Giants' attendance was below-MLB average and frequently horrible too (like the sub 8k in the mid-1970s and early 1980s).

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/sfatte.shtml

Posted by G on May 9, 2010 03:10 AM

G that is true. But for the Giants even more than the A's today you can place the blame for the Giants woes more on their ballpark than anything else. Candlestick Park was quite literally the WORST place in the United States to see a baseball game. Between the stadium's own inadequacies (of which there are dozens), the neighborhood, the terrible transit and parking situation, and above all the weather (even on a sunny summer day it could be freezing with high winds) made it a place almost no one wanted to go. But even then their attendance was either above or below but close to the A's even though back then the Coliseum seemed like paradise compared to Candlestick.

Posted by Dan on May 9, 2010 12:20 PM

The Clay Area? What are you 5?

No, you must be confused with your IQ.

Clay Area= Phony people

Bring the A's to Portland

Posted by Portland A's on May 11, 2010 12:53 AM

Okay, that's enough with the personal sniping, from everybody.

Please stick to the issues at hand, and lay off the insults. Next person who violates this will get a one-week timeout.

Posted by Neil on May 11, 2010 07:51 AM

Being from the South Bay and a Giants and A's fan but a Giants fan when they place each other this situation is ludicrous.

Walter Haas years ago showed compassion to the Giants by granting them Silicon Valley when it was prune yards and orchards where all the tech companies stand today.

Of course both times (Santa Clara and San Jose) the Giants were narrowly defeated.

Then the dot com boom occurred and the Giants took advantage of it and got their ballpark made privately.

Granted a portion of the money came from Silicon Valley companies but in reality it was only a fraction of the total sum.

Now the A's are suffering the way Giants were back then and the Giants are now holding San Jose hostage stating it is an imperative part of their fan base.

That is total BS for 2 reasons:

1. They get 7,000 season ticket holders out of 2 million people in the South Bay. That's not even 1% of the population in the county of Santa Clara.

2. The sheer distance with no public transportation option and horrendous traffic during rush hour in Silicon Valley makes it only possible to attend a handful of games a year.

I am boycotting Giants games until the A's are allowed to move to San Jose. Unless my company requires me to go for business I refuse to go even if someone hands me free box seats.

If NY, LA, and CHI are all shared territories why isn't the Bay Area? The Giants paid zero dollars for Santa Clara County back then so why are they allowed to hold it arbitrage??

You wonder why it has been 16 months since the MLB committee sent to explore the ballpark situation for the A's has yet to make their report public??

Easy answer...They know San Jose is the best place possible as the land is ready and the votes in the city will donate it to the A's as long they build it and operate it.

The Sharks draw 17,558 average for HOCKEY...The A's draw 17,550 in Oakland this season so far.

If you build it the San Jose fans will come...Making the A's a big market team with a bigger payroll than the Giants.

You see why the Giants don't want to give up San Jose now??

Posted by Sid on June 29, 2010 04:12 PM

One more thing I forgot to mention.

The MLB committee knowing San Jose is the best option, Bud Selig needs to secure 3/4 votes of the owners before announcing their findings.

Otherwise if they announce it before the votes are secured the Giants will cry foul and it will gain serious media attention that is not needed at this time before any vote can be made.

Once the votes are secured (Could take another year) then Selig will call an owners meeting and the Giants will be defeated. They will be reimbursed by making less payments into revenue sharing (Giants put in 30 million currently) while the A's instead of getting 32 million will put in 30-40 million.

The Giants will save 20 million a year or so on payments to MLB as compensation for the A's moving to San Jose.

That is a pretty good deal if you ask me...But ultimately the Giants want the whole market and want the A's to move out of here. That is worth more than 20 million a year...as they would be the largest market single team in MLB.


Posted by Sid on June 29, 2010 04:24 PM

Revenue sharing is part of the CBA, no? So it'd need to be bargained with the union as well as among the owners.

I think you're absolutely right, though, that what's going on is Selig is trying to broker a deal before announcing the committee's findings. I'm just not convinced there's enough money to go around to make everybody happy - even if moving the A's from Oakland to San Jose resulted in a consistent $20-30m bump in overall Bay Area baseball spending (dubious), they'd need to pour all of that into construction costs.

Posted by Neil on June 29, 2010 04:33 PM

The reason why the A's are offering to pay for the entire stadium is because they can easily afford it.

The A's with revenue sharing make a $20-$30 million a year profit and have zero debt.

They have been making this kind of cash for years and have a fat bank account with all sorts of cash sitting in there. Plus they already have sold naming rights to Cisco for quite a nice sum of money.

The Giants know right now they are big market in the Bay Area and that is because the largest city in the Bay Area is owned by them.

With a team in San Jose it levels the playing field for free agents and market share. That terrifies the Giants as when they each had equally bad ballparks once upon a team the A's dominated them consistently.

Posted by Sid on July 1, 2010 07:11 PM

It's not about who can "afford" it - most sports team owners could come up with the cash to build a new stadium. The question is whether building a new stadium would increase their profits. So unless than $20-30m profit would turn into a $30-40m profit - after stadium construction costs, and reduced revenue sharing - it's a dumb business plan.

Posted by Neil on July 1, 2010 09:36 PM

Latest News Items

CONTACT US FOR AD RATES