Post by TheShadow on Aug 7, 2005 12:40:59 GMT -5
www.insidebayarea.com/
Raiders, city, county must convince faithful it's worthwhile to renew; many just don't buy it
By Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITER
OAKLAND - Outside the entrance to McAfee Coliseum stands a monument dedicated to the fans who bought Personal Seat Licenses when the Raiders returned to Oakland in 1995.
The circular granite and glass structure lists the name of every single person who paid from $250 to $4,000 for the licenses, depending on where they sit.
It's about the only "perk" those fans received in the 10 years since the team returned.
Other than securing the right to buy season tickets — a right whose value eroded over time as seats became available to walk-up buyers — fans with PSLs have nothing else to show for their money. Because so many seats went unsold in 1995, fans were allowed to buy season tickets without PSLs a year after the team returned.
And when the team made it to the Super Bowl in 2003, PSL holders learned their large payments to the team and the city didn't count for beans when it came to securing tickets to the big game. Only about 3,000 PSL holders won the chance to buy the coveted seats.
The number of fans holding the expensive licenses has dropped to an all-time low of 29,500 from more than 35,000 in 1995. Fans who failed to buy season tickets lost their PSLs, and the hundreds of dollars they spent for them.
"We get bashed on the head constantly," said Tim Harrison, 53, a PSL holder since 1995. "For our PSLs, we got nothing but headaches."
Now the Raiders and Oakland and Alameda County officials need to somehow convince the faithful that buying another PSL is a smart move. When the Raiders returned to Oakland from Los Angeles, fans were asked to buy PSLs that expired in 10 years, unlike the PSLs offered by three other teams back then that were good for life.
Everyone thought the PSLs would sell out, creating a need for waiting lists. Because money raised from PSL sales was supposed to pay off a $225 million loan the city and county incurred to broker the Raiders' return, taxpayers would have been off the hook.
But the failure of PSLs to catch on not only means taxpayers have had to foot millions of dollars in subsidies every year, but it also poses a huge dilemma for the 2006 season as both the Raiders and the city and county attempt to sell what many call a "lemon."
If current talks between the team and the governments fail, fans will be asked to buy a five-year PSL at 75 percent of the cost for the original 10-year license.
"I don't see an immediate easy answer to that one. It's a tough sell," said Max Muhleman, a sports marketing expert credited with conceptualizing PSLs. "It's fair to say that they will not be able to raise the money they want to."
And without cash from new PSLs, taxpayers will be forced to continue their $20 million-a-year subsidy to the team. That subsidy is bound to rise without a successful PSL re-marketing plan.
Both the Raiders and their government landlords knew soon after the team returned that the PSL program was a bust.
Yet 10 years later, little has been done to rectify the situation.
Instead, both have been quarreling in court over who's at fault for the fiasco.
That fight resulted in the Raiders winning a $34 million jury award, a ruling that is being appealed.
"That is the most shocking of all," said Ezra Rapport, the city's deputy city manager when the original plan was devised. "In 1996, the head of the marketing department was telling everyone that there is a problem, and then 10 years later you haven't changed a thing."
The die-hard Raiders fans who succumbed to the mania created when the team returned and snatched up PSLs and season tickets say they are unwilling to dig into their pockets again.
In fact, some said they are considering a boycott of a game this year to show their displeasure.
"The Raiders fans have been doing their homework," said Griz Jones, leader of a group dubbed the 66th Mob. "The first time, we were so glad they came back we did whatever they wanted. ... This time, we want a say."
Fans say they want the team to commit to Oakland for more than the five years remaining on the team's lease at the Coliseum. And, they said, they want the new PSL to be worth a "lifetime."
"Fans want value in the product," Jones said.
For their part, both the Raiders and public officials say they are finally on speaking terms after 10 years of court battles.
In the last six months, Raiders top brass, including team President Amy Trask, have been meeting with Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele and Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. Both De La Fuente and Steele are leaders of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, which is in charge of the Coliseum complex.
So far, however, neither side is willing to say what progress has been made, raising questions about whether there has been any.
"It's certainly my belief that all parties are working cooperatively to find solutions," Trask said recently. "It is very important to the organization. ... We feel that it is very important that the fans be taken into account."
But both Trask and Raiders attorney Jeff Birren refused to say what solutions are possible or whether the team is considering extending its lease.
De La Fuente also refused to explain any details of the talks.
"We've been talking about so many issues that we have explored many potential changes," he said. "I believe it can be done."
Whether it's worth keeping the Raiders around is another story.
Sports economists all agree having a professional team in your town doesn't pay the dividends usually promised.
The economic trickle-down effect is usually inflated, they say.
"We have been searching for 20 years now, trying to find the economic benefits of the sports, but we can't find it," said Craig Depken, associate professor of economics at the University of Texas, Arlington. "There is a lot of anecdotal examples, a lot of rhetorical arguments, but they don't hold up to the data."
For example, Depken and others say, the jobs created by a sports franchise in a city are usually low-paying and part time.
And the money many say is spent by fans in the city is usually spent inside the stadium, not at restaurants and hotels.
"You probably could have generated the same level of happiness for the people of Oakland by spending $100 million on transportation, schools or whatever else there is," said Dennis Coats, professor of economics at the University of Maryland. "Unless you believe that people are bringing down their life savings to go to a football game, it's not an economic benefit."
De La Fuente, however, argues that bringing the team back and trying to keep it here is worth the effort despite the cost.
"The fact is we spent less than $300 million between the stadium and the arena, we remodeled those two facilities, and we still have three teams here," he said. "To this day, I believe, even though it has been painful, it would have been worse if we did not do that."
Steele also lists the benefits of having the Raiders in Oakland again, although she admits they are based largely on emotion.
"It gives a lot of people a lot of pleasure," she said. "When I go down there, there are an awful lot of people that just love it ... your paper has a whole section devoted toward sports. There are just so many positive things about it."
But those positives can turn negative quickly.
"If they are not going to give us a lifetime PSL, for the ones that supported them, I am not going to buy another PSL," Harrison said. "Being a fan can only go so far. ... When you are taking money out of your household, you have to consider how you're being treated."
