Zell to Purchase Tribune Co., Sell Cubs

MPrior · April 2, 2007

Marquis is owed $21mil a year over the next 3 years.

:shock:

98navigator · April 2, 2007

Let's begin this ABC -- Anybody But Cuban.

Sell the precious Cubs to that brash man with the cash, Mark Cuban, the maverick who owns the NBA's Dallas Mavericks? No way.

When he was invited to sing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" during the seventh inning at Wrigley Field in 2005, Cuban did -- as he sat there and cheered for his favorite team, the Pittsburgh Pirates, who are divisional rivals to the Cubs.

"It absolutely killed me to sing `Root, Root, Root for the Cubbies,'" Cuban was quoted as saying in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "I asked the broadcasters if anybody had ever put in the other team."

Chicago Wolves hockey owner Don Levin badly wants to buy the Cubs, his favorite team..., Levin told me he was rich enough that he could buy the Cubs and "close the deal within 90 days."

Mark Gonzales / Tribune

"I've already had a few calls about that from financial people if I'd be interested," Colangelo said Monday in a telephone interview. "My attitude is this: This is what I anticipated, that they'd be sold after the 2007 season. So I've put this on the shelf, and I'll wait and see what will transpire."

Colangelo initially expressed his interest in being involved in a group exploring the purchase of the Cubs as early as last November.

Q&A on future of Cubs

Is Mark Cuban the odds-on favorite to buy the team?
Major League Baseball must approve any new ownership group, and doesn't always go with the highest bidder. Remember, when the John Henry-Tom Werner group bought the Red Sox for a record $700 million in 2002, their bid was not the highest. Tribune Co. sources said last summer that if the team were sold, it was doubtful Cuban would get the support of major league owners, even if he was the highest bidder.

jiml60 · April 2, 2007

Cubs President John McDonough said it is "yet to be determined" whether Wrigley will be sold separately from the Cubs, but Zell has not indicated he will sell the ballpark, which sits on a piece of real estate that has gone up substantially in value since Tribune Co. bought the team in 1981. The ballpark has landmark status and can not be torn down, but Zell could keep it and lease it to new owners or allow them to build a new ballpark, which obviously would take several years to get done. "There's a lot of things, going forward. We're doing everything we can to go through this process and gather as much information as we can," McDonough said Monday, declining to speculate on the issue.

Don't know if this was raised in this thread. I personally would like to see Don Levin buy the Cubs, then build a nice new retro stadium and move the Cubs out of Wrigley Field sticking Zell with a piece of property that he can't develop.

98navigator · April 2, 2007

Cubs President John McDonough said it is "yet to be determined" whether Wrigley will be sold separately from the Cubs, but Zell has not indicated he will sell the ballpark, which sits on a piece of real estate that has gone up substantially in value since Tribune Co. bought the team in 1981. The ballpark has landmark status and can not be torn down, but Zell could keep it and lease it to new owners or allow them to build a new ballpark, which obviously would take several years to get done. "There's a lot of things, going forward. We're doing everything we can to go through this process and gather as much information as we can," McDonough said Monday, declining to speculate on the issue.

Don't know if this was raised in this thread. I personally would like to see Don Levin buy the Cubs, then build a nice new retro stadium and move the Cubs out of Wrigley Field sticking Zell with a piece of property that he can't develop.

Zell is a real estate guy. My first guess is that he'd be looking to get a longterm lease from the new owner.

In other news, some are speculating that the Cubs price would start at $800M and could exceed a billion dollars.

Crain's

“It’ll go north of $800 million, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it went for more than $1 billion,” says Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based sports industry consultant, putting out figures higher than earlier ballpark guesses of $600 million.

shnsajax · April 2, 2007

Is Mark Cuban the odds-on favorite to buy the team?
Major League Baseball must approve any new ownership group, and doesn't always go with the highest bidder. Remember, when the John Henry-Tom Werner group bought the Red Sox for a record $700 million in 2002, their bid was not the highest. Tribune Co. sources said last summer that if the team were sold, it was doubtful Cuban would get the support of major league owners, even if he was the highest bidder.

I don't really buy that. The fact is that MLB as a whole does much better when the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers play well and into post season. The next owner of the Cubs is someone who will be financially responsible, but make sure they are competitive every single season.

Cuban might give David Stern some headaches every now and then, but I can promise you David Stern can not imagine and NBA in which he has not been an owner for the past 7+ seasons. He might not want to say it, but he needs Cuban as an owner.

Cuban is a big Pirates fan, but I know his interest in the Cubs is very high. If he buys the Cubs, it is with the intention of becoming a legend as the owner who lead them to a World Series crown. If the Cubs do win the World Series this season I could see his interest in buying the team drop some simply because that glory will be gone.

98navigator · April 2, 2007

Is Mark Cuban the odds-on favorite to buy the team?
Major League Baseball must approve any new ownership group, and doesn't always go with the highest bidder. Remember, when the John Henry-Tom Werner group bought the Red Sox for a record $700 million in 2002, their bid was not the highest. Tribune Co. sources said last summer that if the team were sold, it was doubtful Cuban would get the support of major league owners, even if he was the highest bidder.

I don't really buy that. The fact is that MLB as a whole does much better when the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers play well and into post season. The next owner of the Cubs is someone who will be financially responsible, but make sure they are competitive every single season.

Cuban might give David Stern some headaches every now and then, but I can promise you David Stern can not imagine and NBA in which he has not been an owner for the past 7+ seasons. He might not want to say it, but he needs Cuban as an owner.

Cuban is a big Pirates fan, but I know his interest in the Cubs is very high. If he buys the Cubs, it is with the intention of becoming a legend as the owner who lead them to a World Series crown. If the Cubs do win the World Series this season I could see his interest in buying the team drop some simply because that glory will be gone.

Maybe I'm reading into it but these comments by Selig don't look encouraging.

Scott Merkin / Cubs.com

Mark Cuban's name was thrown out to Selig as an individual who has the resources and possibly the interest to become a Major League owner. But Selig refused to speculate on potential new owners or assess having an engaging character such as Cuban involved with the game.

"I haven't met him yet, so I'm not going to comment on his personality," said Selig of Cuban. "I've got enough of my own personalities to comment on.

"I'm always concerned about ownership. A Commissioner in any sport should be concerned about who owns a club. We're going to go through a very standard process which will be fair to all the people bidding."

shnsajax · April 2, 2007

Is Mark Cuban the odds-on favorite to buy the team?
Major League Baseball must approve any new ownership group, and doesn't always go with the highest bidder. Remember, when the John Henry-Tom Werner group bought the Red Sox for a record $700 million in 2002, their bid was not the highest. Tribune Co. sources said last summer that if the team were sold, it was doubtful Cuban would get the support of major league owners, even if he was the highest bidder.

I don't really buy that. The fact is that MLB as a whole does much better when the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers play well and into post season. The next owner of the Cubs is someone who will be financially responsible, but make sure they are competitive every single season.

Cuban might give David Stern some headaches every now and then, but I can promise you David Stern can not imagine and NBA in which he has not been an owner for the past 7+ seasons. He might not want to say it, but he needs Cuban as an owner.

Cuban is a big Pirates fan, but I know his interest in the Cubs is very high. If he buys the Cubs, it is with the intention of becoming a legend as the owner who lead them to a World Series crown. If the Cubs do win the World Series this season I could see his interest in buying the team drop some simply because that glory will be gone.

Maybe I'm reading into it but these comments by Selig don't look encouraging.

Scott Merkin / Cubs.com

Mark Cuban's name was thrown out to Selig as an individual who has the resources and possibly the interest to become a Major League owner. But Selig refused to speculate on potential new owners or assess having an engaging character such as Cuban involved with the game.

"I haven't met him yet, so I'm not going to comment on his personality," said Selig of Cuban. "I've got enough of my own personalities to comment on.

"I'm always concerned about ownership. A Commissioner in any sport should be concerned about who owns a club. We're going to go through a very standard process which will be fair to all the people bidding."

Sounds like standard PR practice to me. Does really say anything to encourage or discourage anyone.

98navigator · April 2, 2007

Is Mark Cuban the odds-on favorite to buy the team?
Major League Baseball must approve any new ownership group, and doesn't always go with the highest bidder. Remember, when the John Henry-Tom Werner group bought the Red Sox for a record $700 million in 2002, their bid was not the highest. Tribune Co. sources said last summer that if the team were sold, it was doubtful Cuban would get the support of major league owners, even if he was the highest bidder.

I don't really buy that. The fact is that MLB as a whole does much better when the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers play well and into post season. The next owner of the Cubs is someone who will be financially responsible, but make sure they are competitive every single season.

Cuban might give David Stern some headaches every now and then, but I can promise you David Stern can not imagine and NBA in which he has not been an owner for the past 7+ seasons. He might not want to say it, but he needs Cuban as an owner.

Cuban is a big Pirates fan, but I know his interest in the Cubs is very high. If he buys the Cubs, it is with the intention of becoming a legend as the owner who lead them to a World Series crown. If the Cubs do win the World Series this season I could see his interest in buying the team drop some simply because that glory will be gone.

Maybe I'm reading into it but these comments by Selig don't look encouraging.

Scott Merkin / Cubs.com

Mark Cuban's name was thrown out to Selig as an individual who has the resources and possibly the interest to become a Major League owner. But Selig refused to speculate on potential new owners or assess having an engaging character such as Cuban involved with the game.

"I haven't met him yet, so I'm not going to comment on his personality," said Selig of Cuban. "I've got enough of my own personalities to comment on.

"I'm always concerned about ownership. A Commissioner in any sport should be concerned about who owns a club. We're going to go through a very standard process which will be fair to all the people bidding."

Sounds like standard PR practice to me. Does really say anything to encourage or discourage anyone.

It could be that I'm reading into it because of the other things that have been written about Cuban not having a chance to become an owner of an MLB franchise. It's probably a standard response from Selig but he could have used the opportunity to say he'd welcome a passionate owner like Cuban--or something to that effect.

Warren Brusstar · April 2, 2007

Crain's Chicago Business

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

Have you found this or were you just making an assumption?

98navigator · April 2, 2007

Crain's Chicago Business

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

Have you found this or were you just making an assumption?

No, I am awaiting a return email. No assumptions on my part. I've already proven part one--the ratings dictate the cost.

Got to love your persistence. Keep an eye on the thread if you truly want to know the answer. :roll:

RichHillIsABeast · April 2, 2007

This sale has got me very nervous. The conspiracy theorists said the Trib only came out the pocket b/c they were going to sell the team and low and behold the team will be sold. Now they're going to put a hold on the Z contract? Jerks. Whether this was all premeditated behind the scenes by the suits in the Trib, I have no clue, but it certainly looks suspicious.

I guess it is all about the bottom line, but as a Cubs fan, I could give two bleeps about how much money they make. I care about the product on the field.

I won't ever stop being a fan of this team even if new ownership drives it into the ground, but I certainly won't spend the same amount of money on tickets/jerseys/etc in the future.

Of course this could be the best thing to ever happen to the Cubs. We could luck out and get an owner that actually gives a rip about the product on the field and the fans. At least Selig has some say in who can buy the team. I'll love that man forever if he makes it happen.

Warren Brusstar · April 2, 2007

Crain's Chicago Business

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

Have you found this or were you just making an assumption?

No, I am awaiting a return email. No assumptions on my part. I've already proven part one--the ratings dictate the cost.

Got to love your persistence. Keep an eye on the thread if you truly want to know the answer. :roll:

The only thing the Crain's article establishes is the unremarkable proposition that ratings ultimately correlate to advertising dollars. I've never contended otherwise.

The Crain's article does not prove that advertising dollars directly correlate only to the ratings for the previous season. That's the issue.

98navigator · April 3, 2007

Crain's Chicago Business

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

Have you found this or were you just making an assumption?

No, I am awaiting a return email. No assumptions on my part. I've already proven part one--the ratings dictate the cost.

Got to love your persistence. Keep an eye on the thread if you truly want to know the answer. :roll:

The only thing the Crain's article establishes is the unremarkable proposition that ratings ultimately correlate to advertising dollars. I've never contended otherwise.

The Crain's article does not prove that advertising dollars directly correlate only to the ratings for the previous season. That's the issue.

I don't see how this information is ambiguous:

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source.

That quote, and the subsequent information that followed in the article, implies that the ratings would force the Cubs to lessen their asking price.

Warren Brusstar · April 3, 2007

Crain's Chicago Business

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

Have you found this or were you just making an assumption?

No, I am awaiting a return email. No assumptions on my part. I've already proven part one--the ratings dictate the cost.

Got to love your persistence. Keep an eye on the thread if you truly want to know the answer. :roll:

The only thing the Crain's article establishes is the unremarkable proposition that ratings ultimately correlate to advertising dollars. I've never contended otherwise.

The Crain's article does not prove that advertising dollars directly correlate only to the ratings for the previous season. That's the issue.

I don't see how this information is ambiguous:

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source.

That quote, and the subsequent information that followed in the article, implies that the ratings would force the Cubs to lessen their asking price.

Yes. That doesn't prove your point.

What if the result is that, based on adding the 2006 ratings to the analysis, the Cubs can charge only $9,750 per 30-second commercial, while the White Sox can charge $9,250 per 30-second commercial.

That would be entirely consistent with everything written in that article, but yet not support your position that advertising costs correlate only to ratings from the previous season.

J.R. · April 3, 2007

What a hell of a day. Interesting that Wrigley isn't for sale — I assume Z wants to lease it back at a king's ransom, or doze the place in favor of condos in the ultimate revenge blow for Soxdom.

texascub · April 3, 2007

What a hell of a day. Interesting that Wrigley isn't for sale — I assume Z wants to lease it back at a king's ransom, or doze the place in favor of condos in the ultimate revenge blow for Soxdom.

I would hope that the Cubs, Wrigley, and WGN would go as a package.

J.R. · April 3, 2007

How in the hell does Derek Lee not know who Dennis FitzSimons is?

Everything worthwhile about this franchise is going to be destroyed. We have so little, and now it seems we will be left with nothing.

Time takes all, I suppose.

satxcubfan · April 3, 2007

My sig shows who I'm endorsing....

Amazing_Grace · April 3, 2007

I think, to enlighten the debate, I shall post a partial listing of the WGN Superstation's regular weekday programming. Here's a link.

http://www.tvguide.com/listings/default.aspx

For Tuesday

1:00 Greg Behrendt Show

2:00 America's Funniest Home Videos

3:00 Moesha

3:30 Cosby Show

4:00 Even Stevens

4:30 Lizzie McGuire

5:00 Home Improvement

5:30 Home Improvement again

6:00 America's Funniest Home Videos again

7:00 Funniest Pets and People

7:30 Funniest Pets and People again

8:00 Funniest Pets and People again

8:30 Funniest Pets and People (they must really like this one)

9:00 WGN News

10:00 Sex and the City

10:30 Scrubs

Now, I'm no expert, but if there's something in there that's going to do better than Cubs baseball, I don't see it. If reruns of Moesha are really getting better ratings than Cubs baseball, then, it would seem to be a good time to end the national telecasts. I strongly suspect that this isn't the case. Ultimately, I think the way the national telecasts would be most likely to end would be that THE TEAM tried to hold up WGN for a larger sum for their broadcast rights. Undervaluing the broadcast rights and buying Cubs baseball below market value is one way the Trib has hidden Cubs profits from MLB and the tax man for years.

E.J. · April 3, 2007

The only reason I ever watch WGN is for the Cubs and an occasional Scrubs. I wouldn't imagine WGN would survive w/o the Cubs. Also, I wouldn't imagine a new owner willing to buy the Cubs if Wrigley Field wasn't included.

nilodnayr · April 3, 2007

I think, to enlighten the debate, I shall post a partial listing of the WGN Superstation's regular weekday programming. Here's a link.

http://www.tvguide.com/listings/default.aspx

For Tuesday
1:00 Greg Behrendt Show
2:00 America's Funniest Home Videos
3:00 Moesha
3:30 Cosby Show
4:00 Even Stevens
4:30 Lizzie McGuire
5:00 Home Improvement
5:30 Home Improvement again
6:00 America's Funniest Home Videos again
7:00 Funniest Pets and People
7:30 Funniest Pets and People again
8:00 Funniest Pets and People again
8:30 Funniest Pets and People (they must really like this one)
9:00 WGN News
10:00 Sex and the City
10:30 Scrubs

Now, I'm no expert, but if there's something in there that's going to do better than Cubs baseball, I don't see it. If reruns of Moesha are really getting better ratings than Cubs baseball, then, it would seem to be a good time to end the national telecasts. I strongly suspect that this isn't the case. Ultimately, I think the way the national telecasts would be most likely to end would be that THE TEAM tried to hold up WGN for a larger sum for their broadcast rights. Undervaluing the broadcast rights and buying Cubs baseball below market value is one way the Trib has hidden Cubs profits from MLB and the tax man for years.

Don't they aleady have a long term contract in place?

satxcubfan · April 3, 2007

I really wouldn't lose any sleep over the loss of the superstation... gives me a reason to finally dump the 'superstation package' on my cable subscription! I can still watch the games [and then some] on TV via MLB.TV on the computer.

nilodnayr · April 3, 2007

The only reason I ever watch WGN is for the Cubs and an occasional Scrubs. I wouldn't imagine WGN would survive w/o the Cubs. Also, I wouldn't imagine a new owner willing to buy the Cubs if Wrigley Field wasn't included.

BEAUTY AND THE GEEK

J.R. · April 3, 2007

One could argue that the WGN Superstation's entertainment lineup serves only to keep the lights on between ballgames. If not for the acquisition of "Scrubs," "24" and "Sex and the City," I would argue just that.

The latter three programs show that somebody's trying. Everything else is just a step above paid programming.

vance_the_cubs_fan · April 3, 2007

My feeling is Wrigley will be sold as part of the Cubs. To not include the stadium would greatly reduce the buying price for the Cubs. When teams have been sold for the large sums of money, many of them included stadiums. My guess is the Cubs with Wrigley would fetch 750 million to somewhere near 1 billion. Without Wrigley, the cap would be nearer the low end of that spectrum.

I'm upset that this impending sale may hold up the Zambrano deal, but whether it is good or bad remains to be seen.

Zell to Purchase Tribune Co., Sell Cubs

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs