Cubs to block Horshoe Casino Rooftop

[Garwilly]

Looks like the Cubs are playing hardball with the "Budweiser" rooftop, installing to new ad boards.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-23-cubs-chicago-nov23,0,5583467.story

[wvcbxl]

Well the ad revenue might as well go to the Cubs, so this seems like a logical step.

[daske17]

Part of me hopes this leads to a jumbotron in that space, especially since that's the one area around Wrigley that wouldn't block the rooftops.

[Irishoshea21]

Because Wrigley Field needs a jumbotron?

[erik316wttn]

Because Wrigley Field needs a jumbotron?

 

Wrigley needs a jumbotron like the Cubs need another overpaid middle reliever.

[daske17]

Because Wrigley Field needs a jumbotron?

 

Wrigley needs a jumbotron like the Cubs need another overpaid middle reliever.

 

Yes, because we should remain in the early 20th century in terms of amenities. Every other park in the country has one and it doesn't detract from the game. If the Cubs are serious about enhancing revenue within the park, that's a pretty big way to do it.

 

And really what's the downside? That spot already is just one giant ad. There aren't rooftop bleachers on that corner. If that Cubs set it back on the NE corner of Waveland and Seminary, there wouldn't even be problems with HRs flying onto the street.

[Garwilly]

Because Wrigley Field needs a jumbotron?

 

Wrigley needs a jumbotron like the Cubs need another overpaid middle reliever.

 

Yes, because we should remain in the early 20th century in terms of amenities. Every other park in the country has one and it doesn't detract from the game. If the Cubs are serious about enhancing revenue within the park, that's a pretty big way to do it.

 

And really what's the downside? That spot already is just one giant ad. There aren't rooftop bleachers on that corner. If that Cubs set it back on the NE corner of Waveland and Seminary, there wouldn't even be problems with HRs flying onto the street.

 

 

You mean Kenmore.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Part of me hopes this leads to a jumbotron in that space, especially since that's the one area around Wrigley that wouldn't block the rooftops.

I'm all for it. Does anyone know whether there would be a significant revenue difference between a jumbotron or a fixed advertising board? I would guess

[daske17]

I'm all for it. Does anyone know whether there would be a significant revenue difference between a jumbotron or a fixed advertising board? I would guess

 

I would think that you would get more from a jumbotron because you could have multiple advertisers throughout the game and season, as opposed to uber-charging one advertiser for a full-season sign.

[Derwood]

a jumbotron would be heinous. I hope it never happens

[BigbadB1679666149]

a jumbotron would be heinous. I hope it never happens

 

Considering all the other revenue generating ad spaces they've already sold, it's only a matter of time.

[GhostRunner]

The Cubs don't need the extra revenue from a Jumbotron ... they're already one of the highest payrolls in MLB and continually sell over 3 million seats each season, with a hopelessly devoted fanbase that doles out the cash despite the team's record.

 

Aren't we all embarassed that a $135 million team finished only 2 games over .500? I'd feel even worse if it was a $150 million team. The problem isn't in the Cubs making or spending money - it's how they're spending it.

 

EDIT: Does anyone know why the Cubs suddenly care about the ad on the building across the street? Ricketts? Is it the fact that it's advertising a casino? So many years as the Budweiser house seemingly without any problems ...

[BigbadB1679666149]

The Cubs don't need the extra revenue from a Jumbotron ... they're already one of the highest payrolls in MLB and continually sell over 3 million seats each season, with a hopelessly devoted fanbase that doles out the cash despite the team's record.

 

Aren't we all embarassed that a $135 million team finished only 2 games over .500? I'd feel even worse if it was a $150 million team. The problem isn't in the Cubs making or spending money - it's how they're spending it.

 

EDIT: Does anyone know why the Cubs suddenly care about the ad on the building across the street? Ricketts? Is it the fact that it's advertising a casino? So many years as the Budweiser house seemingly without any problems ...

 

Read the article. It sort of details why they've done it. The ad is visible during games at certain times and the owner of the building is the one profiting from selling that particular advertising. And if I had to guess, the owner of the building isn't sharing any profits with the Cubs.

 

Ricketts believes that he can generate income from those two billboards, so he is sort of killing two birds with one stone. Block someone else out completely and generate your own income by selling ad space. I wonder how much of a bath that building owner will stand to lose if the billboards completely block out the view of the stadium? Surely, the property value will shrivel up.

[GhostRunner]

I'm well aware of everything you mention, and I did read the article. I'm questioning why Ricketts is making it an issue now. The same guy (Gramatis) with the casino ad was making dough on the Budweiser ad that was there before, and the Cubs (or, Tribune) didn't seem to give a damn then.

 

I'm guessing that Budweiser is pissy about the ad change, and leaned on Ricketts to build the billboards. This seems especially likely since the boards will probably be sold to Bud Light in 2010.

 

Hopefully this falls the same way as the rooftop screens did, with the building owner agreeing to split the profit with the club, then the boards come down.

Edited November 25, 2009 by GhostRunner

[ConstableRabbit]

A-B was probably mad that the guy sold the ad rights to Horseshoe, I wonder if this has anything to do with the Cubs organization's relationship with A-B.

[Jon]

a jumbotron would be heinous. I hope it never happens

HD-quality tractor races and giant closeups of Aaron Miles would at least distract from the product on the field.

[sherwood921]

I'm well aware of everything you mention, and I did read the article. I'm questioning why Ricketts is making it an issue now. The same guy (Gramatis) with the casino ad was making dough on the Budweiser ad that was there before, and the Cubs (or, Tribune) didn't seem to give a damn then.

 

I'm guessing that Budweiser is pissy about the ad change, and leaned on Ricketts to build the billboards. This seems especially likely since the boards will probably be sold to Bud Light in 2010.

 

Hopefully this falls the same way as the rooftop screens did, with the building owner agreeing to split the profit with the club, then the boards come down.

 

Bud was a sponsor when that signage was up. The Cubs were cool with it because it enhanced their relationship with one of their sponsors. Horseshoe Casino isn't a sponsor - so they're not benefitting at all.

[Derwood]

so what if the billboard faces Wrigley? Is there a law against that? If so, could I have won a pile of lawsuits for every Chicago apartment I lived in where the view out my window was half a dozen billboards?

[Sammy Sofa]

so what if the billboard faces Wrigley? Is there a law against that? If so, could I have won a pile of lawsuits for every Chicago apartment I lived in where the view out my window was half a dozen billboards?

 

http://blog.kir.com/archives/stunned%20coach.jpg

[sherwood921]

so what if the billboard faces Wrigley? Is there a law against that? If so, could I have won a pile of lawsuits for every Chicago apartment I lived in where the view out my window was half a dozen billboards?

 

The point is that the Cubs want to be able to take advantage of a fantasic advertising placement. While they don't own the property, they are within their rights (I believe) to build on their own property. This essentially blocks the Horseshoe signage (not a Cubs sponsor) and replaces it visually with signage of their choosing (a Cubs sponsor).

[ConstableRabbit]

so what if the billboard faces Wrigley? Is there a law against that? If so, could I have won a pile of lawsuits for every Chicago apartment I lived in where the view out my window was half a dozen billboards?

That's not the point.

[erik316wttn]

Hell, if you're going to have a jumbotron, lets go whole-hog and have mascot races and a corporate name, too!

 

One of the greatest things about Wrigley is it's traditional feel. I don't want to give that away.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hell, if you're going to have a jumbotron, lets go whole-hog and have mascot races and a corporate name, too!

 

One of the greatest things about Wrigley is it's traditional feel. I don't want to give that away.

 

The irony never gets old.

[erik316wttn]

Hell, if you're going to have a jumbotron, lets go whole-hog and have mascot races and a corporate name, too!

 

One of the greatest things about Wrigley is it's traditional feel. I don't want to give that away.

 

The irony never gets old.

 

Yeah. Stadiums named after the family that once owned the team is SO much like some generic insurance company or faceless corporation buying rights to the stadium. I can't believe I didn't see it myself!

[Sammy Sofa]

A name that's also the name of one of the most famous candy companies in the world. Which is where the money came from. Just because it's not explicitly named after the company (though it arguably is since William Wrigley was the damn company), it's ridiculous to act like there were no corporate connotations to the name "Wrigley."