Talks for Cubs to play at Cell while Wrigley gets facelift?

[CubinNY]

I'm sure we have all heard the arguement from Sox fans that 75% of the fans a Cubs games are only there to hang out at Wrigley. Were this situation to happen it would be very interesting to see just how the Cubs draw at the Cell.

There's no question that they would outdraw the Sox.

[squally1313]

I'm sure we have all heard the arguement from Sox fans that 75% of the fans a Cubs games are only there to hang out at Wrigley. Were this situation to happen it would be very interesting to see just how the Cubs draw at the Cell.

 

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

[hawkcub]

I'm sure we have all heard the arguement from Sox fans that 75% of the fans a Cubs games are only there to hang out at Wrigley. Were this situation to happen it would be very interesting to see just how the Cubs draw at the Cell.

There's no question that they would outdraw the Sox.

They might not be selling at the level they are now but they definitely would sell more then Sox Fan's think.

[David]

You can bet that (not that he had much chance anyway) Cuban would probably lose most, if not all, interest in buying the team if they part it out this way. I remember him mentioning last fall that he was waiting to see the details on what would be included in "the package."

[Derwood]

i don't think attendance would drop much at all. there are plenty of real cubs fans who would gladly fill the seats left open by the lincoln park hipsters who are only there to get laid

[TarzanJoeWallis]

What owner would want to pay a billion dollars to buy the Cubs + Wrigley and then have to put in another half a billion or so to retrofit the park?

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency.

 

That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010.

 

I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project).

Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs.

 

Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere.

 

I absolutley have no idea where I heard or read this (and as such, may be talking out of my arse), but it seems as though I recall that someone (maybe it was Crany Kenney) was saying that this would help the sell because the new owners could buy the team for less (than if it had to buy both the team and the stadium), could get a reasonable lease from the state, and not have to pay to keep the ballpark operational.

[UMFan83]

Now that I think about it, this was probably the master plan for quite awhile. Everyone commented that it didn't make sense at all that they would sell Wrigley and the Cubs separately, but this makes sense why they would be doing that.

[CubinNY]

What owner would want to pay a billion dollars to buy the Cubs + Wrigley and then have to put in another half a billion or so to retrofit the park?

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency.

 

That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010.

 

I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project).

Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs.

 

Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere.

 

I absolutley have no idea where I heard or read this (and as such, may be talking out of my arse), but it seems as though I recall that someone (maybe it was Crany Kenney) was saying that this would help the sell because the new owners could buy the team for less (than if it had to buy both the team and the stadium), could get a reasonable lease from the state, and not have to pay to keep the ballpark operational.

Unless there was some sort of a sweat-heart deal the owner of the Cubs would be in roughly the same shape as Loria. I really cannot see why anyone would be interested in buying the Cubs without Wrigley.

[TarzanJoeWallis]

What owner would want to pay a billion dollars to buy the Cubs + Wrigley and then have to put in another half a billion or so to retrofit the park?

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency.

 

That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010.

 

I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project).

Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs.

 

Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere.

 

I absolutley have no idea where I heard or read this (and as such, may be talking out of my arse), but it seems as though I recall that someone (maybe it was Crany Kenney) was saying that this would help the sell because the new owners could buy the team for less (than if it had to buy both the team and the stadium), could get a reasonable lease from the state, and not have to pay to keep the ballpark operational.

Unless there was some sort of a sweat-heart deal the owner of the Cubs would be in roughly the same shape as Loria. I really cannot see why anyone would be interested in buying the Cubs without Wrigley.

 

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

[seanimal]

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

 

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea.

[TarzanJoeWallis]

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

 

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea.

 

You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner?

[Derwood]

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

 

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea.

 

You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner?

 

the real money would be from leasing the luxury suites. there is nothing to gain for a new owner in a rehabbed ballpark that they don't own.

[TarzanJoeWallis]

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

 

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea.

 

You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner?

 

the real money would be from leasing the luxury suites. there is nothing to gain for a new owner in a rehabbed ballpark that they don't own.

 

Again, it all depends on the lease. If the Cubs don't get suite revenues, advertising, concessions, etc., then it definitely is a bad deal for the new owner. If the Cubs get a sweetheart deal, then it could very well be a good deal for the owner. I'll see if I can find anything that talks about the terms of the Sox lease. That could answer a lot of questions.

[Spleen]

 

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

 

I certainly wouldn't go, that place is just unsafe. Its in the ghetto. I went there once for an interleague game and just about got knifed in the parking lot before the game.

[Derwood]

 

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

 

I certainly wouldn't go, that place is just unsafe. Its in the ghetto. I went there once for an interleague game and just about got knifed in the parking lot before the game.

 

ha ha ha. i've been there a dozen times and havent' felt unsafe once

[seanimal]

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

 

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea.

 

You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner?

 

Perhaps, but it doesn't really seem fair to the taxpayers of Illinois to have to fork over money in order to ensure favorable lease conditions. It's just a bad idea any way you shake it.

[seanimal]

 

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

 

I certainly wouldn't go, that place is just unsafe. Its in the ghetto. I went there once for an interleague game and just about got knifed in the parking lot before the game.

 

lol

[David]

 

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

 

I certainly wouldn't go, that place is just unsafe. Its in the ghetto. I went there once for an interleague game and just about got knifed in the parking lot before the game.

 

 

lulz

[TarzanJoeWallis]

I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point.

 

As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

 

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea.

 

You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner?

 

Perhaps, but it doesn't really seem fair to the taxpayers of Illinois to have to fork over money in order to ensure favorable lease conditions. It's just a bad idea any way you shake it.

 

I agree with you about the taxpayers. I think it remains to be seen if it is a bad deal or a good deal for the new owner.

[danonwaveland]

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

 

I certainly wouldn't go, that place is just unsafe. Its in the ghetto. I went there once for an interleague game and just about got knifed in the parking lot before the game.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

I don't think the mayor or Reinsdorf would much to say about the Cubs playing at USCellular Stadium - not a ballpark - if Wrigley were owned by the same state authority.

 

And, yeah, it would be kind of neat to win the World Series while playing home games there. I only hope it's our third in a row, or at least the second in three years.

 

___________________________________________________________________

Sandberg>Mazeroski>Morgan

[gerby23]

I would understand if this were to happen, but a summer without a trip to Wrigley Field just wouldn't feel like summer.

 

Yeah, this would be the year for me to take off and spend a "long" family vacation at the (shudder) beach.

Hmmm, I wonder if I could conceal the Cubs playing elsewhere from her and just score some major brownie points?

[Derwood]

Oh man, could you imagine if the Cub's games outdrew the Sox games at Hell in a Cell? Which, thinking about it logically...wouldn't be all that unrealistic. One nice little consolation if this were to happen....

 

I certainly wouldn't go, that place is just unsafe. Its in the ghetto. I went there once for an interleague game and just about got knifed in the parking lot before the game.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

I don't think the mayor or Reinsdorf would much to say about the Cubs playing at USCellular Stadium - not a ballpark - if Wrigley were owned by the same state authority.

 

And, yeah, it would be kind of neat to win the World Series while playing home games there. I only hope it's our third in a row, or at least the second in three years.

 

___________________________________________________________________

Sandberg>Mazeroski>Morgan

 

 

Reinsdord could have a lot to say about it if HIS stadium lease deal gives him exclusive rights to the park.

[Andy]

Sigh. I don't know about this.

[CuseCubFan69]

I wouldn't go to a Cub game in Chicago if it isn't at Wrigley. Part of driving all the way out there is the ambiance of Wrigley and if I'm going to commit going, I want to see the game there. Now, if the Cubs move to another stadium for good that's different.

[Jon]

Some series in Milwaukee would be fine, but I'm sure the players and staff don't want to be in a hotel for a home series.

 

It's hard to tell what kind of hit the attendance would take, but you'd have to consider that not only would they let season ticket holders skip such a season, but ticket prices would be significantly lower than what they'd be at Wrigley.

 

Of course, they could probably come up with a bunch of creative one-year partial season ticket plans that would sell well.