Blackouts in the Oakland Colosseum?

[Pats Dynasty]

Originally Posted by R8RFOX

****, I got my tickets son... Oh, all that **** you typed is bull. It's not Al, but the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda. They promised him the world in order to bring him back and do the necessary marketing to ensure sufficient ticket sales. Get off Al's nutz....

Al's no idiot, though. He knew he was giving up the second largest market in the country when he moved back to Oakland. With the Rams gone, he would have had exclusive domain over a metropolitan area that is second only to New York in terms of households. Even if the Raiders and Rams had both stayed, he would have been splitting the #2 media market with a less popular team instead splitting the #5 market (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) with a team that clearly has the more popular location and greater draw for local fans (since SF trumps Oakland in terms of size, accessibility, and allure to visting fans). Thus you have a situation where only the Cardinals (another bone-headed relocation) have greater blackouts. By contrast, for all the talk of "bandwagoners," the Pats have sold out every game for over a decade now, despite being outside even the immediate suburbs of their major population center (Boston).

[Basket Case]

Originally Posted by R8RFOX

****, I got my tickets son... Oh, all that **** you typed is bull. It's not Al, but the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda. They promised him the world in order to bring him back and do the necessary marketing to ensure sufficient ticket sales. Get off Al's nutz....

I hate to disagree, but this one still lies at Al's doorstep.

Let's face it, Al got himself into a bad deal ... like every other stadium deal he has had. No one held a gun to his head and said "go back to Oakland under these terms". He chose to get into bed the the Oakland politicos, under the terms of this pretty stupid deal. Just like he went to LA with "promises" that were never fulfilled.

Was there blame to go all around on the current Oakland deal? Sure. Al did get a $34 million judgement (pending appeal). He did not get the $1B++ he was seeking, because the jury found the Raiders to be partly at fault in this mess. Now everyone is going back to court over this, and the only ones happy are the lawyers.

I can think of lots of reasons why, without hindsight, this was a bad deal, and Al should have know it. The politicians "promised" sellouts, but were not willing to guarantee sellouts contractually. The marketing was going to be run by a government agency (Oooh, brilliant idea). The PSL's would only be marketed for a couple of months, instead of the 1 year + that other professional sports teams had done. Non-permenant PSL's. Lousy stadium design due to the speed of the process. But rather than go thru the process of relocating and doing a good deal, Al chose to do a shotgun deal in order to protect stadium revenue in 1995 (had he stayed in LA that year, with the cloud of moving hanging over him, crowds would have been awfully thin). He took a huge risk and lost.

Al is the managing general parter. He's the CEO, and he is responsible for maximizing the value of the franchise. To that end he (and frankly, Amy Trask) has failed miserably. He may be a great football mind, and no one would question his commitment to fielding a competitive team, but his track record as a businessman is pretty abysmal. If he had to answer to an outside board of directors, he would have been long gone.

I know, these will not be popular opinions, especially on this board. But the Emporor still has no clothes ...