http://obc.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/635605187/m/5521065764

Beyond the delays, it sounds like the A's might have a problem if Fremont elects the anti-ballpark candidate for mayor. Has anybody heard anything further on this?

Not that I'm cheering for the effort in Fremont to fail... I absolutely want it to succeed. But if it does fail, it seems like their plan could be transported fairly easily into the Rose Quarter or USPS sites (I'd give it about a .01% chance of happening, but you never know).

Perhaps Tom Potter should run for Mayor of Fremont. That way he can kill the ballpark plan and chase every high tech company out of town as well. Of course if Potter were Mayor, they would have to change the name of the city to something like: Osama Bin Laden, California. Always good to honor diversity.

All sarcasm aside, I don't see how or why this plan would work. A 32,000 seat stadium? I agree that in a post-1970's/anti multipurpose stadium era, we wan't that intimate feeling, but this has disaster written all over it. Both Wrigley and Fenway have added seats and suites. Wrigley seating capacity is over 40,000 and Fenway is just under. (39,928). Not to mention the obvious financial advantages of these two storied franchises.

Oakland has stiff economic competition, even if we don't leave the American League West. Last years attendance figures:

Angels: 3,061,094.
Mariners: 2,672,049.
Rangers: 2,353,862.

If Oakland was to sell out every game, (hilarious laughter in the background) they would still draw under 2,600,000 for the year. Oakland still has to split the corporate dollar in the Bay Area, and no matter what they do, Oakland will always be the red headed step-child in that market. The very fact that Oakland want's to market the suites to smaller size companies and organizations only proves the point. I have felt for some time that two teams in this market is one too many, regardless of how pretty your new stadium is.

The experiment in Wash/Baltimore is hardly a smashing success either. Total 2007 attendance:

Washington: 2,164,822. (Rank: 23rd)
Baltimore: 1,943,812. (Rank: crappy)

In the meantime, The A's fanbase is being torn apart. Those living South of the Stadium likely love the ballpark idea; but those living North? Not so much. And at the gate?

Oakland: 1,921,854. (Rank: 26th)

Man, I'm not an economist, and I concede that much of team revenue comes from sources other than direct ticket sales, but I still don't get it.

Additional note on Potter: He's done nothing and said nothing while the sales and marketing department for Freightliner heads for South Carolina. My source inside the company confirms that the entire corporation will be gone to SC within the next three to four years. I love this city, but the governmental leaders are running it into the ground.

Where have you gone, Tom McCall? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.

quote:

Originally posted by CEDAR MILL MADNESS:
Perhaps Tom Potter should run for Mayor of Fremont. That way he can kill the ballpark plan and chase every high tech company out of town as well. Of course if Potter were Mayor, they would have to change the name of the city to something like: Osama Bin Laden, California. Always good to honor diversity.

All sarcasm aside, I don't see how or why this plan would work. A 32,000 seat stadium? I agree that in a post-1970's/anti multipurpose stadium era, we wan't that intimate feeling, but this has disaster written all over it. Both Wrigley and Fenway have added seats and suites. Wrigley seating capacity is over 40,000 and Fenway is just under. (39,928). Not to mention the obvious financial advantages of these two storied franchises.

Oakland has stiff economic competition, even if we don't leave the American League West. Last years attendance figures:

Angels: 3,061,094.
Mariners: 2,672,049.
Rangers: 2,353,862.

If Oakland was to sell out every game, (hilarious laughter in the background) they would still draw under 2,600,000 for the year. Oakland still has to split the corporate dollar in the Bay Area, and no matter what they do, Oakland will always be the red headed step-child in that market. The very fact that Oakland want's to market the suites to smaller size companies and organizations only proves the point. I have felt for some time that two teams in this market is one too many, regardless of how pretty your new stadium is.

To a degree, I agree with you. However, the Raiders and the Warriors seem to be doing fine (Despite Al Davis' gripes, I have yet to hear about lousy attendance at Raider games. However, this may already be a trend, and I just don't know it yet, because I don't really follow the NFL that closely anymore.)

quote:

The experiment in Wash/Baltimore is hardly a smashing success either. Total 2007 attendance:

Washington: 2,164,822. (Rank: 23rd)
Baltimore: 1,943,812. (Rank: crappy)

From a fan perspective, yes, the experiment in WDC/Baltimore is hardly a success. But if you read the fine print, you will be surprised at what the Nationals managed to gain. (i.e. $$$'s from the business world)

quote:

In the meantime, The A's fanbase is being torn apart. Those living South of the Stadium likely love the ballpark idea; but those living North? Not so much. And at the gate?

Oakland: 1,921,854. (Rank: 26th)

Man, I'm not an economist, and I concede that much of team revenue comes from sources other than direct ticket sales, but I still don't get it.

Lew Wolff knew that once he decided on the Fremont plan he would be losing A's fans to the north of the stadium. However, what he's gambling on is getting new fans, and more importlantly, more corporation/business support. I don't know why, but for some reason ($$$'s perhaps?), Oakland never really reached out to any pro franchises except the Raiders back when they were still in LA. IMO, Oakland doesn't want to really take many gambles at all, partly due to the Raiders and partly due to being influenced by philosophy coming from the University of Calfornia @ Berkeley, which from everything I've read and seen about that campus(internet and tv) is very much against taking financial gambles.
]

Pirate: Agree with your thoughts on Oakland. It was once a very good sports town. The support for the Raiders was once off the charts. For the record, my in-laws live just 6 miles south of the stadium. (San Leandro). According to them, there's still some bitterness regarding their prior abandonment of the city.

And speaking of Pirates, I think Oakland has a lot in common with Pittsburgh. Both are proud, blue collar cities. I believe that identity sets the sports agenda. Pittsburgh and Oakland will continue to be great NFL cities; largely due to tradition, and largely to the collective psyche and identity of the cities. Pittsburgh continues to be a good hockey city for the same reasons. But baseball in Pittsburgh? Tradition? yes. Civic identity? not soo much. For some, baseball is considered too refined for their blue collar tastes.

Pittsburgh 2007 attendance: 1,749,143. (last?)

Regarding the patential new fanbase for the A's: Ultimately the issue will come down to whether or not San Jose adopts the new team as their own. (I'm thinking not). Sand Jose still identifies with the Giants.

Follow up to comments on Tom Potter. I read in the business section today that Precision Castparts has moved into the fortune 500. This of course would be our one and only. (Nike is in Beaverton). Let's see how long it takes Potter to send Precision Castparts packing.

Baseball does seem to be more of an elitist type sport, IMO. Baseball does get in some blue-collar people, but MLB can survive without blue collar folks to a degree, as seen in the first few weeks of the fan strike. Pittsburgh does have some elites in the city, so I guess MLB is actually geared more towards them. This might also be another explanation in the current trend of "downsizing" stadiums. Getting back to Oakland though, it seems than most of the elite in the Bay Area either reside in San Francisco or San Jose, although some wealthy people still reside in Oakland. If the A's do leave, maybe Oakland should look into getting back into the NHL (Oakland used to have a team called the Seals that played in the NHL a long time ago).
As for Mr. Tom Potter, when is his term as mayor up???

Mayor Potter's term is up in a matter of months. I guess Mr. Potter decided that it's not a wonderful life after all. (sorry for that pathetic reference, but I couldn't resist.)
Potter will go down as a do nothing Mayor---and in so doing, Make former Mayor Bud Clark look like Albert Einstein.