New bill would divert amusement tax funds for Wrigley work

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably not.

[SouthSideRyan]

We need another Bucktown like we need another Mt Greenwood

[jersey cubs fan]

There isn't a successful baseball stadium outside of Texas and California that's out in the burbs. You need public transport for an everyday sport like baseball. The Cubs will not move there.

[daske17]

There isn't a successful baseball stadium outside of Texas and California that's out in the burbs. You need public transport for an everyday sport like baseball. The Cubs will not move there.

 

It won't happen, but given how the Cubs were willing to use Naples as leverage against Arizona, I'm sure they'd be willing to "explore" their opportunities elsewhere. I'm sure somewhere like Rosemont/Des Plaines/Park Ridge would be willing to tear down some buildings near the convention center to make way for Wrigley North.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What if Ricketts decides to add more external advertising to raise revenues?

 

It would look tacky as hell, but he could sell advertising banners to put up on the outside where they had all the player banners last season. The neighborhood would hate it and maybe it would bring enough complaints to get people to the table about helping with the renovations.

[davell]

On a different subject, but probably the best revenue stream the Cubs could have, at what point is it feasible for the Cubs to get their own network? Is this something that could happen within the next 10 years possibly?

[baseballfan50]

From an outsider's perspective I can see both sides.

 

1) The Ricketts family is saying that it would not cost the city that much and the revenue it brought to the city would make up for it. I think they do have a point because Wrigley is very important.

 

2) The city is concerned about giving so much money to the Cubs. If the Cubs did not pay this back, what could the city do about it? A lot of newer parks that are financed by a city are also owned by it. So the city gets revenue from it for concerts and events. The city also gets taxes from the team.

 

From my own research, it appears that the Cardinals, Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays are the only teams that actually own their own stadiums. Busch Stadium was mostly funded by the Cardinals (but I don't know all of the details. They are currently paying back the $45 million loan St. Louis County gave them). Yankee Stadium was also mostly financed by the owners of the team. The Blue Jays bought their stadium from the previous owners in 2005. Of course Fenway and Wrigley are obviously a lot older so you can't really compare them.

 

I could see why the city would be cautious about paying that much for a stadium they don't technically own, even if they do get a lot of revenue from it. The city feels like the Ricketts are possibly trying to bully them, I'm sure. Politics plays a part here.

[BeerHere]

A park in the suburbs is a terrible idea.

Disagree. There is plenty of public transit, much more parking and a location could be found that is still close enough to the city to draw those fans. The city treats the Cubs like crap, so do the "neighbors" in Wrigleyville. They have gotten ridiculously wealthy off the Cubs product for long enough. The park itself is barely holding itself together as it is. If this funding option falls through, I do sincerely hope they move out of the city. Like I said though, there is a very small chance that happens.

[J.R.]

I think you should check out a suburban facility. I was in Arlington for the Series, and even for a game of magnitude, the area around the park was abysmal. Nothing but chain hotels and row after row of parked cars.

 

Stifling politics aside, Lakeview is what the 29 other owners want. Walking away would be the ultimate "Cub" move.

[baseballfan50]

I'm not a big fan of suburban parks. Miller is out in open space. It's a nice park but it has a view of nothing and the area is bland. That said, I can understand that Wrigley is a cramped place. I've been there once. I didn't care for it. The ivy and stuff was neat but the park wasn't very that great. It's historic, but not very comfortable. And I could understand wanting to get away from the neighborhood's control.

 

I'm just not a big fan of suburbs in general, but it definitely would make parking more efficient. So you have positives and negatives to the suburbs idea.

 

Busch Stadium is kind of in between Wrigley and Miller as far as suburbanness. Busch is Downtown, but unfortunately Downtown has too much parking. That also means cheaper parking. But it's more urban because it does have MetroLink and density with the old buildings (a lot of lofts now). And it has a good view. Miller had no view at all. Busch has the hotels around and Scottrade and the Ed are each within a mile or so of Busch and each other, so that makes it convenient when visiting both. Soulard is a short drive south and there are a few other places with bars and clubs. The Downtown area has had a lot of new development and rehabs and revitalization, but it's still not the urbanists ideal like Chicago, obviously. Never will be, but St. Louis has its own identity. Anyway, Busch Stadium doesn't have Wrigleyville. Neither is it typical suburbia like Miller. It's good to have a some suburban qualities (like parking) and also the urban density.

 

If the Cubs chose to move to a new area maybe they could find a place (city or county) with some good parking and space to move around but with the restaurants and bars like Wrigleyville. I wouldn't think a big empty space like Miller would be ideal, but I understand Wrigley is cramped. You would think if Wrigley moved the restaurants and bars would follow it. Although you don't want anything like our Ballpark Village fiasco either.

 

I've always been fascinated with cities and ballparks and stuff. That said, unlike most ballpark enthusiasts, I haven't been to many parks yet and I didn't care for Wrigley.

[daske17]

I've resigned myself to the fact that Chicago will never be happy with the Cubs and Wrigley Field. No matter what, the residents who moved in after the park opened will complain about noise, traffic and crowds. The city itself will never be satisfied with the revenue brought in by the park and its surrounding recreation. More and more people have no problem calling Wrigley a dump, yet any attempts to update it are met with opposition.

 

What does this city want? I have no clue. Some people will just never be happy.

[Wilson A2000]

Even if Ricketts wanted to move the team to the burbs, where is he going to get the money to pay for it? The burbs don't have $200 million sitting around. If Tom wanted to put the money up himself to build one in Hoffman Estates, why not just do that for Wrigley?

 

What is Ricketts' net worth right now? He has well over $200 left doesn't he?

[SouthSideRyan]

Nobody will go to Cubs games in Hoffman Estates or Naperville.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

First, let me begin by saying I don't think the Cubs should move from Wrigley. I think the Cubs staying in Wrigley and renovating it makes too much sense.

 

On the other hand, I think Ricketts should stop saying that he's staying in Wrigley no matter and begin making legitimate noise that all options are on the table.

 

It appears that the civic leaders believe that Ricketts/Cubs should pay for improvements to Wrigley without any outside help because of the Cubs profitability.

 

I believe the position that Rickets should begin to maintain is that it doesn't make economic sense for him to pour resources into a landmark and that if he's going to invest millions into a stadium, it should be a new one that doesn't have the restrictions of Wrigley. Whether or not he believes this, it should become his mantra. He could say that if the city and state want to guarantee that Wrigley remains the home of a baseball team, then they will need to assist in its upkeep.

 

I don't know if it would work or not, but I think right now, everyone knows he doesn't have many options.

[Soul]

I'm not a big fan of suburban parks. Miller is out in open space. It's a nice park but it has a view of nothing and the area is bland. That said, I can understand that Wrigley is a cramped place. I've been there once. I didn't care for it. The ivy and stuff was neat but the park wasn't very that great. It's historic, but not very comfortable. And I could understand wanting to get away from the neighborhood's control.

 

I'm just not a big fan of suburbs in general, but it definitely would make parking more efficient. So you have positives and negatives to the suburbs idea.

 

Busch Stadium is kind of in between Wrigley and Miller as far as suburbanness. Busch is Downtown, but unfortunately Downtown has too much parking. That also means cheaper parking. But it's more urban because it does have MetroLink and density with the old buildings (a lot of lofts now). And it has a good view. Miller had no view at all. Busch has the hotels around and Scottrade and the Ed are each within a mile or so of Busch and each other, so that makes it convenient when visiting both. Soulard is a short drive south and there are a few other places with bars and clubs. The Downtown area has had a lot of new development and rehabs and revitalization, but it's still not the urbanists ideal like Chicago, obviously. Never will be, but St. Louis has its own identity. Anyway, Busch Stadium doesn't have Wrigleyville. Neither is it typical suburbia like Miller. It's good to have a some suburban qualities (like parking) and also the urban density.

 

If the Cubs chose to move to a new area maybe they could find a place (city or county) with some good parking and space to move around but with the restaurants and bars like Wrigleyville. I wouldn't think a big empty space like Miller would be ideal, but I understand Wrigley is cramped. You would think if Wrigley moved the restaurants and bars would follow it. Although you don't want anything like our Ballpark Village fiasco either.

 

I've always been fascinated with cities and ballparks and stuff. That said, unlike most ballpark enthusiasts, I haven't been to many parks yet and I didn't care for Wrigley.

 

I've been to both Miller & Wrigley many times.

 

Yes, there are advantages & disadvantages. However, I'd still take Wrigley all things considered.

 

Miller isn't really much more comfortable. The seats are still small & hard. The sight lines are better on the whole, but really unless you have good seats you will still be crooning your neck to see around someone's head, or be constantly shifting because people coming up & down the isles block your view. So I can't say it's really much better.

 

Unless you pay extra for premium parking, you are still going to walk a good distance from your parking spot to the ballpark, over bridges & such. Even with premium parking, unless you get there 2 hours before the game it's still a good long walk.

 

So that's not much better, if at all.

 

Look, it's a baseball game. There's going to be crowds & congestion unless the team is terrible and nobody wants to see them. In which case the whole experience sucks anyway. I can probably park right next to the ballpark at a Marlins game. But I won't -- because I'd rather watch paint dry than go see the Marlins, and so would pretty much everyone else.

 

The problem with a ballpark like Miller Park is exactly what you said -- it's out on this parcel with nothing around it. People try to compensate by tailgating. OK, fine -- but that just doesn't come close to the ambience of the surrounding area that you get with Wrigley. Think about it: would you rather sit out among smelly parked cars and throw bean bags, or spend some time in one of the best pre/post game club scenes in all of sports? I'll take the latter, thanks.

 

In my world, the Cubs are doing exactly what they should do -- seeking to keep Wrigley's atmosphere & neighborhood experience intact, while improving it as much as they can. I used to want them to look at building a new ballpark. I've changed my opinion on that -- they need to stay in Wrigley, whatever hell they have to go through to get it done is fine.

 

As for the complainers? /ignore.

[SouthSideRyan]

Miller Park is a [expletive] hole. Worst park I've ever been to.

[squally1313]

I'm with everyone else on keeping the Cubs at Wrigley, in Lakeview, long term. Like it or not, the Cubs rely on tourists money to have the payroll they do, and while some of the tourists are just Cubs fans from the days when WGN had every game, a lot of them come for the unique experience Wrigley, and Wrigleyville offers. We move the Cubs, we lose that, and suddenly we become the second most accessible baseball team to see in Chicago. That said, it's becoming increasingly clear that the stadium needs major renovations to remain safe and profitable. Just the fact that the Ricketts' asked for this bill should be a good sign of this.

 

Thinking outside the box a little bit, is there anywhere the Cubs could play for a year or two that could give some sort of novelty factor and draw fans, while allowing Wrigley to undergo the major renovations it needs? Maybe it's just with the game coming up on Saturday, but I started thinking about a football stadium, somewhere with the crowd capacity to hold all the fans that Cubs games typically bring out. Now, I haven't been to a Bears or Northwestern football game in over 10 years, but is there any way at all one of those could be modified to accommodate the Cubs for a couple years? I mean, odds are I'm completely off base and sound like an idiot, but I think you need to find somewhere to put them for a couple years that is still accessible to Cubs fans to give the organization time to "modernize" Wrigley. Finding somewhere that draws the intrigue of both die hard and casual Cubs fans would only be a bonus.

[Soul]

Well, Soldier field is too small because it's only scoped for football.

 

The folks in Milwaukee aren't likely to want to give over their stadium for Cubs home games.

 

I don't think Northwestern has the place. Ryan field has a big track around, right? - so that probably wouldn't work.

 

The Big 10 baseball stadiums are small because baseball isn't all that huge in the Big 10.

 

You aren't going to want to put them in a minor league stadium because of the obvious capacity limitations.

 

Cardinals would die first before allowing the Cubs to play there. So would the Sox, I think.

 

I'm running out of ideas here.

[jersey cubs fan]

Soldier Field would never work. Ryan Field seems to me to have enough space around the field to fit a temporary baseball stadium, but I think it's a horrible place to try and get people to attend 81 times a year. Is there any sizable baseball stadium closer than the Kane County Cougars? That's way too far in the boonies and even if you went there I'm guessing they would have to find a reasonable way to add 20,000 temporary seats to make some money. I think the only realistic option is play at US Cellular and/or Miller for a season. You could split the two to offset conflicting schedules plus satisfy far northern fans/city based fans.

[jersey cubs fan]

The folks in Milwaukee aren't likely to want to give over their stadium for Cubs home games.

Cardinals would die first before allowing the Cubs to play there. So would the Sox, I think.

 

STL is unrealistic. But money would be involved so I am sure Milwaukee and the White Sox would welcome some extra income to take on some Cubs home games for a season.

[daske17]

Soldier Field would never work. Ryan Field seems to me to have enough space around the field to fit a temporary baseball stadium, but I think it's a horrible place to try and get people to attend 81 times a year. Is there any sizable baseball stadium closer than the Kane County Cougars? That's way too far in the boonies and even if you went there I'm guessing they would have to find a reasonable way to add 20,000 temporary seats to make some money. I think the only realistic option is play at US Cellular and/or Miller for a season. You could split the two to offset conflicting schedules plus satisfy far northern fans/city based fans.

 

The closest would be the Schaumburg Flyers stadium, but that only holds a shade over 7,000. There's nothing within 50 miles that could accommodate an MLB team.

 

I also doubt the Cubs players would agree to split home games between parks so far away from each other. Didn't Montreal complain to the union about having to play in Puerto Rico?

[jersey cubs fan]

Soldier Field would never work. Ryan Field seems to me to have enough space around the field to fit a temporary baseball stadium, but I think it's a horrible place to try and get people to attend 81 times a year. Is there any sizable baseball stadium closer than the Kane County Cougars? That's way too far in the boonies and even if you went there I'm guessing they would have to find a reasonable way to add 20,000 temporary seats to make some money. I think the only realistic option is play at US Cellular and/or Miller for a season. You could split the two to offset conflicting schedules plus satisfy far northern fans/city based fans.

 

The closest would be the Schaumburg Flyers stadium, but that only holds a shade over 7,000. There's nothing within 50 miles that could accommodate an MLB team.

 

I also doubt the Cubs players would agree to split home games between parks so far away from each other. Didn't Montreal complain to the union about having to play in Puerto Rico?

 

That's freaking Puerto Rico. Of course they complained. They were from Canada. And of course it still happened. Home games at US Cellular should not mean a damn thing to them. And Miller isn't much of a big deal either. As long as the team puts them up in a suitable hotel in Milwaukee they will be fine with it.

[J.R.]

I agree that Ricketts erred - it should be stated that without the government's cooperation, the park will be dark for perhaps two seasons to get the renovation work done. Put the focus on the neighborhood businesses, not the wealthy family.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree that Ricketts erred - it should be stated that without the government's cooperation, the park will be dark for perhaps two seasons to get the renovation work done. Put the focus on the neighborhood businesses, not the wealthy family.

 

They are already doing that. Ricketts has been saying he does not want to leave the park for a full season because it will damage the local businesses.

[daske17]

Soldier Field would never work. Ryan Field seems to me to have enough space around the field to fit a temporary baseball stadium, but I think it's a horrible place to try and get people to attend 81 times a year. Is there any sizable baseball stadium closer than the Kane County Cougars? That's way too far in the boonies and even if you went there I'm guessing they would have to find a reasonable way to add 20,000 temporary seats to make some money. I think the only realistic option is play at US Cellular and/or Miller for a season. You could split the two to offset conflicting schedules plus satisfy far northern fans/city based fans.

 

The closest would be the Schaumburg Flyers stadium, but that only holds a shade over 7,000. There's nothing within 50 miles that could accommodate an MLB team.

 

I also doubt the Cubs players would agree to split home games between parks so far away from each other. Didn't Montreal complain to the union about having to play in Puerto Rico?

 

That's freaking Puerto Rico. Of course they complained. They were from Canada. And of course it still happened. Home games at US Cellular should not mean a damn thing to them. And Miller isn't much of a big deal either. As long as the team puts them up in a suitable hotel in Milwaukee they will be fine with it.

 

Whoa, settle down cowboy. I only mentioned it in the context of using Milwaukee AND the Cell for their home games. Using one or the other wouldn't make a different.