General question for the board here…

From a business perspective, historically, has there ever been a pro-sports franchise that has been as bad as the A’s?
They couldn’t pay the bills in Philadelphia and moved to Kansas City.  They lasted twelve years in KC, but couldn’t pay the bills and moved to Oakland. 
And that is only the beginning.  They traded Jimmy Foxx at the age 28 while in Philly, everyone they had to the Yankees while in KC, and the term “fire sale” was coined because of them in the 70’s.  And God only knows how terrible things would be for them right now if it weren’t for the genius of Billy Beane. 

At what point is it no longer a “market” problem?  History suggests they will fail no matter where they move.

It’s disappointing that, even with mountains of data arguing that public funding of sports facilities is a bad investment, an anti-stadium activist decided to ignore the data and lie to a reporter to state her POV.

In 1993 I lived for about a year around a block from the eventual home plate in SF.  There was practically no neighborhood there then, unless she’s talking about the one big yuppie condo development about a block further north.  I have no idea what its like now.

The “deadening” comment is laughable.  That neighborhood is a fifty gazillion times more vibrant now than before the ballpark was built.

That said, the ballpark can’t take all the credit.  The dot-com boom happenened as the ballpark was being built.  Dozens and dozens of old ugly warehouses were converted to shiny office lofts to meet the demand for office space during the boom.  The whole area got a total facelift, but the ballpark cachet was only a fraction of the cause.

But that’s probably when these ballpark projects actually create a positive ROI for the community—when they’re part of some larger project which is not dependent on the ballpark alone.

In San Jose’s case, the proposed site is in an upcoming transit hub neighborhood, which will create growth all by itself.

@ Chris H….

It is not rational at all.  That is why I do not understand how the franchise, in existence since 1901 with a tradition-rich history of four different “dynasties” and countless stars, can’t get it right.  They have had several different owners along the way, yet remain in the constant state of fiscal strife it has been in since inception.  One would hope with each change, one would improve, but the A’s seem to be exactly where they were in the 30’s. 

I understand it best to view the present primarily in light of the current situation and in each previous move, moving might have been the best business decision to make.  Perhaps my question is more about the irony of it all as much as anything else and a move from Oakland to anywhere is probably, from a business perspective, the right thing.  But looking back at it through the scope of time, it does seem quite odd, no?

A couple of points:

- if you want to see for yourself what the neighborhood around China Basin used to look like, watch the original “Dirty Harry”. Numerous scenes were filmed there. Just look for the sign that says “China Basin” as cars are whizzing by.

- the current neighborhood around AT& T does owe a lot to the dot com boom. A better example of what SJ is likely to experience is when DC opened its basketball stadium on 7th St. It took a while for the neighborhood to transform, but every year it got a little better. IN SJ, with the planned transit hub, an A’s stadium will accelerate that process.

- Since the Shott ownership, the A’s have been very profitable. And the Haas ownership prior to that pursued a deliberate strategy of annual losses leading to a team sale payoff. Indeed, that was the primary business strategy pursued by clubs in that era. Since Finley sold the team they have been sound financially. Their current facility limits their ability to pay free agent prices. This makes it less likely they can go deep in the playoffs, even with Billy Beane. They want to rectify that with a new stadium in a more prosperous area.

- Keith Law’s point is on target, as usual. The detractor, in lying about the neighborhood situation in SF, weakens an otherwise appropriate concern about how the stadium will be funded, along with the capital improvements around the stadium. However, given the visceral opposition to any proposal out here, someone else is sure to make the point with more validity.

- Speaking as one fan of the beloved A’s, I’d be thrilled if they got a new stadium I could take the train to. There are two positives about their current mausoleum. Easy access, including the train, and fabulous lemonade. Trust ne on the latter point, you never appreciate it it so much on a mid summer afternoon game.