SB Nation User Blog: vertig0

KTRB wants to add North Bay/Sac coverage

vertig0 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:41:18 -0000

I received a note this morning from Jim Pappas, KTRB's VP and GM. The station has FCC and FAA approval to construct a new transmitter in Sonoma County. The 50,000-watt facility would seriously augment coverage in the North Bay and Sacramento. By now you've seen the existing coverage map:

The new Sonoma Daytime transmitter map (exclusive of existing transmitter) looks like this:

Much better, right? It is a Daytime transmitter, and Nighttime operation is in the works as well, though it would come later (application with the FCC already on file). For those who believe in miracles, don't expect the transmitter to be ready in time for Opening Day. It's not like building a skyscraper in terms of complexity, but it's still quite tall and requires proper preparation and testing. Maybe before the end of the season. The deal between the A's and KTRB is only for one season, but this gives you an indication of where both parties would like the relationship to go. Both want to be serious Bay Area radio players, and they want to do it together.

This is where you come in. Construction of the transmitter is wholly dependent on approval by Sonoma County's Board of Zoning Adjustments. KTRB is ready to build pending approval. The transmitter has not yet come up for review by the BZA. When it does, KTRB will draft a letter to request fan support. I'll post it here. The board usually meets twice a month, and like the EIR process in Fremont, it is open to public comment. You can go to the meeting at 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA, 95403, or send written comments to that address.

I'll update this post when a hearing date is finalized.

Fremont + San Jose ballpark news

vertig0 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:14:47 -0000

I covered last night's ballpark workshop. I didn't catch anything new, but KTVU reporter Lloyd LaCuesta did. I took a screengrab.

This is considered a green light to talk with San Jose, a city that has to overcome territorial rights restrictions (Santa Clara County is Giants territory). Despite this, they have four things in their favor: a ballpark site, an adjacent site to develop, future BART and Caltrain/High Speed Rail nearby, and an already completed environmental impact report. I have received a few messages indicating that territorial rights will be discussed this week at the Winter meetings. Those talks may be limited to television rights as related to the launch of the MLB Network. They may be expanded to include Santa Clara County.

I will be at the Fremont City Council session tomorrow evening and will report here and at the ballpark blog.

Fremont mayor re-elected

vertig0 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:07:20 -0000

Incumbent Fremont mayor Bob Wasserman won re-election last night, defeating councilman Steve Cho and former mayor Gus Morrison, whose attempt to turn the race into a referendum on Cisco Field fell short.

Excerpting myself from the ballpark blog:

Incredibly, the results paint a rather favorable picture for the A's and their hopes to get the baseball village built. Several potential obstacles in Fremont have been removed. Incumbent mayor Wasserman, who has been the staunchest public proponent of the project, will stick around to see it through the EIR process at the very least. Wieckowski, also a supporter, will be there as well. They'll be joined by Chan, who is also a project supporter. Neither of the project's biggest critics, former mayor Gus Morrison and Sierra Club chapter leader Vinnie Bacon, placed higher than third in their races.

Is it smooth sailing from here on out? Not quite. Wasserman may have violated election laws in recuiting students from local high schools to campaign on his behalf. The fallout from that is unknown. The EIR still has to pass muster. The council has lobbied hard for concessions and so far the city and the A's have been able to find common ground. There remain issues to work out with private parties such as nearby businesses and landowners, but those are very doable. The upshot from tonight is that there won't be obstructionists making the decisions. That's not to say that the council are yes-men - far from it, in fact. Instead, the governing body should be of an open-minded view to make a deal that works for Fremont's residents, not one that derails it in service of a narrow agenda.

These results effectively act as the nail-in-the-coffin for any future formal referendum on the ballpark project. Now it's onto the environmental impact report, which I suspect will be released sometime in the next couple of months.

Get used to it, or get moving

vertig0 — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:53:32 -0000

With all of the complaints regarding the poor timeslot for the A's-Twins ALDS, I come bearing bad news: It's probably going to continue.

In 2008, the national TV deals will change and as a result, TBS will have rights to all Division Series games. And that means one thing: TBS will stretch out the schedule as it's being done now on ESPN/FOX.

As far as I've heard, none of the games will be on TBS's sister station, TNT. TBS has no choice, then, but to spread 2 or 3 games over a single day. TBS could choose to split the broadcasts nationally as is done with regular season Saturday afternoon games, but they probably want to make the most of the rights fees by spreading out the games to cover as much time as possible, so I don't expect this to happen.

If you don't want the current scheduling scenario to continue, you might want to start writing Turner Sports to express your opinion.

Oakland: A's not a priority, Wolff: Oakland isn't either

vertig0 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:10:17 -0000

Looks like Lew isn't waiting until Opening Day to move forward. Out of today's Tribune comes the following quote from Lew Wolff:

"We've spent most of our time focused on Oakland; now the next goal is to stay in Alameda County," he said. "We haven't ruled out any place, but Oakland is difficult because it has lots of priorities that are very important to the community beyond sports."

Oakland officials were apparently taken by surprise (italics are my emphasis):

"He has not told us anything like that," said Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. "Until we are told something different, we are going to continue working. But Mr. Wolff is right, we have many other things on the front plate."
Among those are a rising crime rate, beleaguered public schools and a hot mayoral race in which De La Fuente, the city's lead negotiator in the baseball talks, is a candidate.

"It is very difficult. With all these campaigns going on, our plates are so full," said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele, a member of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority.

There had been whispers that the A's haven't been a priority for Oakland pols, but this confirms it. It's hard to see a set of conditions under which the A's can stay in Oakland unless all other local alternatives fall apart, leaving the two parties to start from scratch. Perhaps it comes from a collective distrust of Wolff, but if it is, no one has said anything publicly about it.

Fire at Coliseum South/HomeBase

vertig0 — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:02:47 -0000

A seven-alarm blaze is burning at the old HomeBase site just south of the Coliseum. All of the local news outlets are covering it, the news stations should all have video.

I took pictures of the site a few months ago and compiled them into an overview (PDF) for the ballpark blog.

The fire was threatening the EDD building next door. It probably doesn't threaten the arena or stadium, but there are some structures on the perimeter like a cell tower and the football seats that may be in jeopardy.

Fremont City Council meeting tonight

vertig0 — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:12:49 -0000

One of the items on tonight's agenda is the consideration of a preliminary feasibility study on a Fremont-area ballpark. I'll be at the meeting. Note the last sentence in the description below:

7. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER

7.1 PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POSSIBLE PROPOSAL TO OAKLAND A'S

Consideration of a Preliminary Study and the Possibility of a Proposal to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team to Locate in Fremont

Contact Person:

Name: Fred Diaz Christine S. Daniel

Title: City Manager Deputy City Manager

Dept.: City Manager's Office City Manager's Office

Phone: 510-284-4002 510-284-4008

E-Mail: fdiaz@ci.fremont.ca.us cdaniel@ci.fremont.ca.us

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to retain a consultant and conduct a preliminary feasibility study or studies to enable the Council to determine whether to make a proposal to the Oakland Athletics baseball team to locate in Fremont, should their ongoing negotiations with the City of Oakland not prove successful.

Attendance and the marketing problem (with poll)

vertig0 — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:02:43 -0000

I brought some coworkers to today's game for a little decompression time, which was well worth it despite the A's poor performance. One coworker who had never been to an A's game before asked me if I had season tickets, to which I replied, "Look around. Why would I need to buy season tickets?" That's a sad, unfortunate reality. Even those of us who go enough times to merit a partial plan (20-40 games) don't feel the need to invest in one as long as we can always get good seats when walking up or even just a few days before a game.

That got me thinking about how the A's market the team and the games. I've downloaded the ads from this year and jogged my memory to remember ads from the past few years. What is it that the A's market when putting out their ads? In order of decreasing frequency:

The franchise players (Chavez, Zito)
Fireworks and other promotions (DP Wednesdays)
Giveaways (mostly promoted during broadcasts)
The younger players (print campaign, not TV)
Legacy/history (Eck day, the season ticket push during the preseason)

Few if any ads in the past 3-4 years have promoted the following:

The family experience at an A's game
Diehard fans (the drummers ad from a few years ago is the notable exception)
Atmosphere
Value (other than the DP Wednesday promotions)

Even worse, take a look at an A's home broadcast versus a Giants home broadcast. Yes, some of you whine about the Kruk-Kuip "homerism." I've also heard people are annoyed with Krukow's "eliminate" habit with the telustrator. But think about that for a second. When the Giants were going poorly, it helped distract from their on-field performance. It also makes fans a little more active in the stands, since they know the cameras will be trained on them. In an intangible manner, it sells and enhances the ballpark experience there. The brilliant thing about it is that it requires no extra money or resources since it's all wrapped up in the existing broadcast.

So what can the A's do to get people to feel that way about the experience at the Coliseum? We all know what the atmosphere is like when the place is packed, but we also know how lacking it can be when it isn't (which often isn't the case, but it's hard to communicate that to others when there are so many empty seats in the highlight reel).

It can be said that the A's are mostly going after casual fans with the tried-and-true promotions. The build of team identity via the "A's Brand" ads and star marketing is secondary. Are the A's missing the boat here? Are they going the best route to grow those season ticket rolls? Here's a poll to ponder during the off day, and perhaps even through the offseason.

Poll

What is the hardest group to market the A's to?

The casual fan (includes families)

56 votes

The fringe hardcore fan who could be a season ticket holder but doesn't see the need

23 votes

The small business person who might invest in MVP or club seats

22 votes

A large company/organization that might invest in a luxury suite

42 votes

143 votes | Poll has closed

Tiebreakers: A's Lose Again

vertig0 — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:33:10 -0000

I can't even remember the last time the A's actually won one of the these tiebreaker coin flips.

ESPN article

If game is needed to break a tie between Cleveland and the Chicago White Sox in the AL Central, the Indians would host, and if the Los Angeles Angels and Oakland need a tiebreaker in the AL West, the game would be at Anaheim.
In the event a tiebreaker is needed for the wild card, New York and Oakland would play at Cleveland, and Oakland would play at New York.

Recap of Selig speech at Commonwealth Club

vertig0 — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:36:05 -0000

I'm clipping this from the ballpark blog because, well, I wrote it so I'm not going to call myself out for copyright violations.

BTW, Blez, have you ever been asked for a business card when getting a media credential? I felt a little sheepish about that. I have business cards from my day job, but those won't exactly work. I did beat work several years ago, and I have to admit the blogosphere has changed things immeasurably.

Enjoy.
----------

Bud Selig's speech and subsequent Q&A session was about an hour long total. The speech was a brief history of Selig's time as an owner, then as the commissioner. Not naturally the most charismatic of speakers, Selig's sporadic eye contact with the audience made the delivery fairly dull, and the speech an exercise in self-aggrandizement. As expected, Selig didn't say anything to encourage San Jose supporters. In fact, his statements should provide some hope for Oakland supporters, though no one should be proclaiming Selig as the savior of baseball in Oakland just yet.

Notes: The audio stream of the event will be played on KQED-FM on Friday night at 8 p.m. An AP article is now available on the Chronicle's SF Gate site.

Selig was initially flanked by former Commonwealth Club president Joe Epstein and, somewhat surprisingly, County Assessor Larry Stone, better known as an irritant for East Bay supporters. Stone emceed the event, and before he finished his introduction of Selig, he plugged the MLB-to-San Jose effort, almost on cue.

Notes from the speech portion:

* MLB will surpass last season's league attendance record by the end of the current season.
* He talked up the significant rise in the value of the Dodgers franchise when it changed hands from the O'Malleys to Fox and finally to Frank McCourt. He did not let slip an estimate of the Expos' eventual selling price.
* Moneyball was mentioned as a subject that is "theological in nature."
* Revenue sharing, payroll taxing (luxury taxes), and the debt service rule are the base of the current financial structure. He sees little need to change the structure in the near future.
* The speech was littered with quotes from Mark Twain, Thomas Wolfe, and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
* Steroids is cheating. The only other substance mentioned was andro, and only as a historical reference. No mention of HGH.
* He noted that in the midst of all of the media's criticism of how MLB handled steroids during the 90's, he looked up articles written during the era and saw only "11 articles that mentioned steroids."

The Q&A was done via responses to selected questions the audience submitted on comment cards. Only 10 questions were answered, one of which was a throwaway question about the commish's relationship with George Steinbrenner. Here's the skinny on the question segment:

1. What happened to the Reggie Jackson group's bid to buy the A's?

* Selig claims it was Schott/Hofmann that decided to not entertain Jackson. He acknowledged that this contradicts Schott's initial statements on the matter, but insisted that it was the ownership group that made the decision, noting that the commissioner's office doesn't have to time interfere with these things. MLB will only step in when it's time to evaluate a group's financial worthiness.

2. Any thoughts on the idea of limits to the number intentional walks a batter can receive (Bonds rule)?

* Not happening. No way baseball will change rules for a single individual.

3. Is a salary cap in the future?

* "I'm comfortable where we are," Selig said.

4. What's being done about tight-fisted owners who pocket revenue sharing money instead of spending it on players?

* "That phenomenon is a myth that somehow keeps getting perpetuated," said Selig. According to Selig, the league shares the books with the owners, and the payers (big market "have" teams) wouldn't stand for any prolonged effort by other owners to stash the money. Again, he reinforced the notion that the baseball's economic model is good.

5. What about the influence of international players?

* This gave Selig the chance to tout the World Baseball Classic. He did this during the speech as well.

6. Is the DH rule going to change anytime soon?

* The DH was one of the few things on which he agreed with former A's owner Charlie Finley (Yes for the AL). He's happy with the way it stands since the teams in the two leagues are happy with the existing rules. (A good follow-up would've been to ask for his take on using the DH in NL-hosted games and the hitting pitcher in AL-hosted games, but there was no opportunity for follow-ups.)
* The only change he might see happening is a geographical redistribution of teams, but he didn't get specific.

7. What is the league doing about steroids and its impact on records?

* Without outright saying it, Selig indicated that he's leaving the records alone and will keep them asterisk-free. We'll see if that holds up if any other high-profile sluggers are shown to have used.

8. What about the exclusivity of territorial rights?

* Repeating a statement he made weeks ago, Selig said, "You couldn't run the sport without internal rules and you can't make exceptions."
* The Giants' territorial rights were affirmed when they made the huge private investment in SBC Park.
* His feelings on relocation are heavily shaped by the Braves' move to Atlanta. Besides the territorial rights issue, he appears to be stridently anti-move, though his statements about the situation in Miami raise questions about that.
* Regarding San Jose, he said that "San Jose is a great location, but that's not the issue. We have to protect the status quo. We're clearly not going to expand."

9. Epstein posed a follow-up: "Is there a process by which a vote could be taken by the owners to overturn these rights?"

* "No. It's not a question of overturning rights," replied Selig. I'm not certain if the response meant that he would not allow it to come to vote, or whether he was rendering his opinion on the outcome of a vote. Surely the owners would not vote for anything that could potentially threaten their own financial well-being.
* He trumpeted the party line about "staying focused on Oakland." The question of what would happen if the Oakland deal didn't succeed was not asked.

The San Jose boosters I overheard upon leaving didn't appear discouraged, least of all Larry Stone. While Selig dismissed the idea of overturning the Giants' territorial rights, that's the weakest option because it's the least realistic. Maury Brown of Business of Baseball and the Oregon Stadium Campaign and I have had this discussion in the past, and I agree with him that for the A's to move anywhere, whether it's San Jose, Portland, Vegas, or Sacramento, the bidding group needs to make an extremely compelling case - not just to a single affected owner, but to all 30 owners and MLB. Oakland, with its location and access, is hard to argue against. Any bids to move the team will have to be comprehensive, probably including packaged TV and radio deals and lists of pre-committed corporate sponsors (because those are Oakland's weak points currently). Without those requirements, I doubt any bid would be entertained.

Remember that in Wolff's press conference last month, he talked about the ability of the East Bay business market to fill the 40 luxury suites and 40 minisuites (plus club seats) that he wants to build in the new ballpark. It stands to reason that he'll compare that to other market studies, determine the costs and risk factors, and then decide - if it even gets to that point.