Re: Cuban's chances getting better than we thought?

[CubColtPacer]

Someone help me understand why a group would want the Cubs and not Wrigley.

 

Try not to use, "they can afford the Cubs but not Wrigley", because that would seem like nonsense.

 

The Cubs are still pretty profitable even without Wrigley. Their TV rights are the biggest asset to an owner.

 

Of course any owner would want to buy the Cubs with Wrigley if they possibly can. I'm sure they are privately pushing for the field to be included in the deal. But if the Tribune/Zell refuses to sell them together unless they absolutely have to, then there will still be people lining up to buy the Cubs by themselves.

[Outshined_One]

Someone help me understand why a group would want the Cubs and not Wrigley.

 

Try not to use, "they can afford the Cubs but not Wrigley", because that would seem like nonsense.

 

Strangely enough, it's not non-sense. Wrigley's worth is in the tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions. Wrigley also requires constant fees for maintenance, upkeep, construction, and so on. I don't know how profitable Wrigley is, but if credit is tight, potential bidders might not be able to get the financing needed to acquire Wrigley.

[Jehrico]

Someone help me understand why a group would want the Cubs and not Wrigley.

 

Try not to use, "they can afford the Cubs but not Wrigley", because that would seem like nonsense.

 

Strangely enough, it's not non-sense. Wrigley's worth is in the tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions. Wrigley also requires constant fees for maintenance, upkeep, construction, and so on. I don't know how profitable Wrigley is, but if credit is tight, potential bidders might not be able to get the financing needed to acquire Wrigley.

I could understand wanting Wrigley without the Cubs. It's an incredibly old stadium, and it's falling apart. There are legitimate concerns with the cost of upkeep and possibility of a lawsuit if a chunk of concrete falls on someones head that would go along with buying Wrigley. By selling Wrig to the state commission, you put the risk end of that in the hands of the government without taking the Cubs out of the Mecca of Baseball.

 

Me personally, I would want Wrigley included with the Cubs. I'm only saying I understand why someone might want one but not the other, not that I'd agree with it.

[DivineBovine]

Someone help me understand why a group would want the Cubs and not Wrigley.

 

Try not to use, "they can afford the Cubs but not Wrigley", because that would seem like nonsense.

 

Strangely enough, it's not non-sense. Wrigley's worth is in the tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions. Wrigley also requires constant fees for maintenance, upkeep, construction, and so on. I don't know how profitable Wrigley is, but if credit is tight, potential bidders might not be able to get the financing needed to acquire Wrigley.

I could understand wanting Wrigley without the Cubs. It's an incredibly old stadium, and it's falling apart. There are legitimate concerns with the cost of upkeep and possibility of a lawsuit if a chunk of concrete falls on someones head that would go along with buying Wrigley. By selling Wrig to the state commission, you put the risk end of that in the hands of the government without taking the Cubs out of the Mecca of Baseball.

 

Me personally, I would want Wrigley included with the Cubs. I'm only saying I understand why someone might want one but not the other, not that I'd agree with it.

 

 

Nevermind the intrinsic value of Wrigley. The reason a prospective owner would want Wrigley is that they can have more control over the finances of the team. No owner wants to be locked into a stupid lease for years and years that they can't renegotiate or break. Any owner would want control over that revenue stream. And nobody is buying Wrigley without some assurance that they will have a tenant.

 

It's a shame that the Trib wants to break the 2 assets. The greedy bastards think that they will fetch more money that way. As a fan, I hate the idea. Because another profit driven entity making money off Wrigley means less revenue for the ownership of the Cubs- the ones that are writing the payroll checks. I'd hate to see the Trib screw us again on the way out, as they have for years.

 

Obviously, Zell and the trib know a lot more than me and they must have their reasons for wanting to break the 2 assets. But I can't help but question that this strategy would actually net them more cash. After all, I would think that Wrigley would be most valuable to the owner of the Cubs and not some 3rd party who leases it out. If this is true, then the Trib will probably realize it and sell the assets together. I hope that in the end, the team and the stadium end up in the same hands.

 

Anyways, the books will really be interesting. Because for once, the Tribune has incentive to report revenues honestly. This is in stark contrast to all those years where they tried to claim that the team lost money or barely broke even, meanwhile maintaining a pitiful payroll given their fan base and support.

[CuseCubFan69]

If someone else owns Wrigley, what's to stop the new owner from building a stadium somewhere else?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If someone else owns Wrigley, what's to stop the new owner from building a stadium somewhere else?

 

 

I think that's why Zell has tried to sell Wrigley first, so he can have the team sign a lease with the owner of Wrigley that the new owner would be locked into.

 

So, in theory a new owner of the team without Wrigley could build a new park, but if they are locked into a lease they would be tied to the park for at least as long as the lease is for.

[Springfield_CUBBY]

If someone else owns Wrigley, what's to stop the new owner from building a stadium somewhere else?

 

 

I think that's why Zell has tried to sell Wrigley first, so he can have the team sign a lease with the owner of Wrigley that the new owner would be locked into.

 

So, in theory a new owner of the team without Wrigley could build a new park, but if they are locked into a lease they would be tied to the park for at least as long as the lease is for.

Here's a question - in this little scenario (where the Cubs and Wrigley are sold separately, and the new owner is locked into a lease), could the Cubs still build and move in to a new field, and just continue paying the old lease at Wrigley? I mean, would they have to actually PLAY at Wrigley, or just keep making lease payements??

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If someone else owns Wrigley, what's to stop the new owner from building a stadium somewhere else?

 

 

I think that's why Zell has tried to sell Wrigley first, so he can have the team sign a lease with the owner of Wrigley that the new owner would be locked into.

 

So, in theory a new owner of the team without Wrigley could build a new park, but if they are locked into a lease they would be tied to the park for at least as long as the lease is for.

Here's a question - in this little scenario (where the Cubs and Wrigley are sold separately, and the new owner is locked into a lease), could the Cubs still build and move in to a new field, and just continue paying the old lease at Wrigley? I mean, would they have to actually PLAY at Wrigley, or just keep making lease payements??

 

They would have to continue playing there.

[jersey cubs fan]

If someone else owns Wrigley, what's to stop the new owner from building a stadium somewhere else?

 

 

I think that's why Zell has tried to sell Wrigley first, so he can have the team sign a lease with the owner of Wrigley that the new owner would be locked into.

 

So, in theory a new owner of the team without Wrigley could build a new park, but if they are locked into a lease they would be tied to the park for at least as long as the lease is for.

Here's a question - in this little scenario (where the Cubs and Wrigley are sold separately, and the new owner is locked into a lease), could the Cubs still build and move in to a new field, and just continue paying the old lease at Wrigley? I mean, would they have to actually PLAY at Wrigley, or just keep making lease payements??

 

They would have to continue playing there.

 

It would depend on the terms of the lease and how much they'd be willing to pay to get out of it.

[Jehrico]

Nevermind the intrinsic value of Wrigley. The reason a prospective owner would want Wrigley is that they can have more control over the finances of the team. No owner wants to be locked into a stupid lease for years and years that they can't renegotiate or break. Any owner would want control over that revenue stream. And nobody is buying Wrigley without some assurance that they will have a tenant.

 

Yes, if they feel that will lead to a greater revenue stream in the long run. If they feel that it'll be more profitable by some math I don't understand, then no.

[swordsman]

Does this effect anyone's opinion about the State buying/running Wrigley Field?

 

Wrigley Field's name would stay in state deal

 

Ex-Gov. James Thompson, Illinois Sports Facilities Authority chairman, says ballpark would remain Wrigley

[UK1679666180]

Does this effect anyone's opinion about the State buying/running Wrigley Field?

 

Wrigley Field's name would stay in state deal

 

Ex-Gov. James Thompson, Illinois Sports Facilities Authority chairman, says ballpark would remain Wrigley

 

Not mine, they could name it what they want, it wouldn't bother me. If the money allocated towards naming rights actually improved the team, then I would rather see that than keeping it Wrigley.

 

Wrigley will always being back the same memories regardless of the name.

[Springfield_CUBBY]

Does this effect anyone's opinion about the State buying/running Wrigley Field?

 

Wrigley Field's name would stay in state deal

 

Ex-Gov. James Thompson, Illinois Sports Facilities Authority chairman, says ballpark would remain Wrigley

 

Not mine, they could name it what they want, it wouldn't bother me. If the money allocated towards naming rights actually improved the team, then I would rather see that than keeping it Wrigley.

 

Wrigley will always being back the same memories regardless of the name.

but the money WON'T go to the team - that's the point. It will all go directly into Zell's already bloated checkbook.

[Derwood]

the state has already said numerous times that it doesn't have the money to buy Wrigley

[UK1679666180]

Does this effect anyone's opinion about the State buying/running Wrigley Field?

 

Wrigley Field's name would stay in state deal

 

Ex-Gov. James Thompson, Illinois Sports Facilities Authority chairman, says ballpark would remain Wrigley

 

Not mine, they could name it what they want, it wouldn't bother me. If the money allocated towards naming rights actually improved the team, then I would rather see that than keeping it Wrigley.

 

Wrigley will always being back the same memories regardless of the name.

but the money WON'T go to the team - that's the point. It will all go directly into Zell's already bloated checkbook.

 

Eh, I still don't really care if they change the name of Wrigley. Of course, I don't really care if they have to tear it down.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

2girls1cup.com Stadium has a nice ring

[Banedon]

I'd rather the stadium be sold with the team, even if that means the name changes. I think state ownership would hurt more than a name change.

[CyHawk_Cub]

I'd rather the stadium be sold with the team, even if that means the name changes. I think state ownership would hurt more than a name change.

 

State ownership of pretty much anything hurts, IMO...

[Banedon]

I'd rather the stadium be sold with the team, even if that means the name changes. I think state ownership would hurt more than a name change.

 

State ownership of pretty much anything hurts, IMO...

 

Especially this state.

[Jehrico]

A name change wouldn't bother me at all. We'd all still call it Wrigley, and everyone would still know what we were talking about. The only thing that would change is the sign out front and what you hear the announcers call it on TV.

[Banedon]

A name change wouldn't bother me at all. We'd all still call it Wrigley, and everyone would still know what we were talking about. The only thing that would change is the sign out front and what you hear the announcers call it on TV.

 

Given the choice I'd prefer it stay Wrigley, but I'm not adamant about it.

[Tyrant]

2girls1cup.com Stadium has a nice ring

 

Agreed. I believe their site has more info if anyone is curious.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2girls1cup.com Stadium has a nice ring

 

Agreed. I believe their site has more info if anyone is curious.

 

I was. And I'm *reallly* glad I wikipedia'd and didn't just go to the site. :grin:

[DivineBovine]

Nevermind the intrinsic value of Wrigley. The reason a prospective owner would want Wrigley is that they can have more control over the finances of the team. No owner wants to be locked into a stupid lease for years and years that they can't renegotiate or break. Any owner would want control over that revenue stream. And nobody is buying Wrigley without some assurance that they will have a tenant.

 

Yes, if they feel that will lead to a greater revenue stream in the long run. If they feel that it'll be more profitable by some math I don't understand, then no.

 

 

Owning the stadium gives the owner flexibilty to control the revenue. If some third party owns the stadium, then there will have to be a predetermined lease that the Cub owner has to honor, because nobody is buying Wrigley without it. Also, think about it- if there is a third agent who makes a profit from the operation from Wrigley, then that's profit that doesn't go to the Cubs ballclub. If there is no profit to be made from the Stadium, they why own it?

 

 

Having the right situation with a stadium can be very profitable, and having the wrong situation with a lease can be a money drain. Look at all those teams that have been in bad financial shape and have blamed their lease situation.

 

Forget it. I don't want a Cub owner who doesn't own the stadium. Period.

[jiml60]

Nevermind the intrinsic value of Wrigley. The reason a prospective owner would want Wrigley is that they can have more control over the finances of the team. No owner wants to be locked into a stupid lease for years and years that they can't renegotiate or break. Any owner would want control over that revenue stream. And nobody is buying Wrigley without some assurance that they will have a tenant.

 

Yes, if they feel that will lead to a greater revenue stream in the long run. If they feel that it'll be more profitable by some math I don't understand, then no.

 

 

Owning the stadium gives the owner flexibilty to control the revenue. If some third party owns the stadium, then there will have to be a predetermined lease that the Cub owner has to honor, because nobody is buying Wrigley without it. Also, think about it- if there is a third agent who makes a profit from the operation from Wrigley, then that's profit that doesn't go to the Cubs ballclub. If there is no profit to be made from the Stadium, they why own it?

 

 

Having the right situation with a stadium can be very profitable, and having the wrong situation with a lease can be a money drain. Look at all those teams that have been in bad financial shape and have blamed their lease situation.

 

Forget it. I don't want a Cub owner who doesn't own the stadium. Period.

 

I agree and just to add, I wouldn't want an owner who is stupid enough to not want Wrigley in the deal.