New bill would divert amusement tax funds for Wrigley work

[Soul]

Ricketts is a businessman and this is how big businesses interact with government so you cant blaming him for trying. Heck he strong armed the city of Mesa to figure something out for the spring training complex or he would move it to naples. And it worked. Its pretty clear that in its current form it wont work here for reasons outlined above. Plus I think that the two hundred million dollar investment in the area amounts to the planned triangle building structure. So really this deal would be incredibly one sided.

 

Is the structure of wrigley field really that unstable? I just dont see whats wrong with a rehab plan that occurs over then next ten years without closing the stadium. Really, whether it needs to be closed or not he needs to just man up and pay for it. As cubs fans we pay enough and two raises in ticket prices in the same amount of years to watch what amounts to hot garbage is not endearing him to fans. Nor is the fact that payroll has been reduced in the same time period, our first round pick this year was a DII player or signability pick, we arent competing for decent free agents, and now as tax payers we are being asked to divert money from the future revenue pool? I get the feeling that our owner is a big time penny pincher.

 

He doesn't need to be a free spender to be successful. We all know that. I actually don't mind his attempts to build up the ballpark, the system, the ST facilities, etc. That's all good stuff, IMO.

 

I really wonder about his decision to keep Hendry in place. It feels like he's punting on a big decision when he should be aggressively acting to change the philosophy of how the big club is run. Especially if he wants to match up with a lower-payroll strategy, which it looks like he is attempting to do. I don't want to be sitting here 5 years from now, changing GMs after a bunch of wasted years because Ricketts finally figured out that Jim can't win without a very loose purse. I'd rather make that change now, up front...

[baseballfan50]

I've browsed some articles about Wrigley and the replies. It seems like the majority of the responses are along the lines of "Wrigley's a cathedral of baseball! How could you tear it down?" to "Wrigley smells like urine/it's a dump!" It seems like most commenters I've read either really love or really hate Wrigley. I wasn't all that impressed with it myself, but I don't hate it. But I've just noticed Wrigley seems to be a place people either love or hate.

[treebird]

I've browsed some articles about Wrigley and the replies. It seems like the majority of the responses are along the lines of "Wrigley's a cathedral of baseball! How could you tear it down?" to "Wrigley smells like urine/it's a dump!" It seems like most commenters I've read either really love or really hate Wrigley. I wasn't all that impressed with it myself, but I don't hate it. But I've just noticed Wrigley seems to be a place people either love or hate.

 

people either love it or they hate it or they think it's okay.

[UMFan83]

Some people are really into the 'baseball is a slice of americana' thing, and those people usually adore Wrigley. I'd say casual fans typically adore Wrigley as the media generally bows to it whenever they discuss these type of things. The bigger baseball fan tends to dislike Wrigley Field because they see past the romantic descriptions of the ballpark, they hate the baseball americana people and prefer modernizing the game, they disregrad a lot of the tradition that Wrigley supposedly has as it hasn't seen a WS game since 1945 and has never hosted a Cubs World Series champ. They think the cramped seats and lack of a jumbotron lessen the experience of the game, and many people think the stadium smells (lol).

[jersey cubs fan]

Bigger baseball fans hate the American thing and require jumbotrons? Do you just mean great big fat people or people who are fans of baseball? Because if it's the latter I don't think you could be more wrong.

[Soul]

Yeah, I don't think you can put people into one bucket or another based on their level of fandom (whatever that is).

 

What I have found with these Wrigley improvements is that you just need to ignore the noise and do them. Certain people freak out whenever changes are suggested. Just ignore them. After 6 months or a year, they forget what they were even complaining about. We've seen this over & over, from the bleacher rebuild to the Under Armor signage.

 

Just move forward.

[UMFan83]

Meh its just what I've noticed. Obviously it's not absolute.

[baseballfan50]

Looks this proposal of using tax credits is not going to be successful:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/02/the-state-of-illinois-will-not-pay-for-wrigley-field-renovations/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2938874,CST-NWS-wrig1202.article

 

But the Cubs are not giving up:

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/12/plan-stalls-to-use-tax-dollars-to-renovate-wrigley.html

 

I don't really understand why the city should have to pay for renovations on a privately-owned ballpark. Most ballparks which are paid for by a city are also partially or totally owned by that city and the team pays lease. At the same time, the city needs the Cubs, but the Cubs also need the city. It's a difficult situation.

[ConstableRabbit]

Looks this proposal of using tax credits is not going to be successful:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/02/the-state-of-illinois-will-not-pay-for-wrigley-field-renovations/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2938874,CST-NWS-wrig1202.article

 

But the Cubs are not giving up:

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/12/plan-stalls-to-use-tax-dollars-to-renovate-wrigley.html

 

I don't really understand why the city should have to pay for renovations on a privately-owned ballpark. Most ballparks which are paid for by a city are also partially or totally owned by that city and the team pays lease. At the same time, the city needs the Cubs, but the Cubs also need the city. It's a difficult situation.

I think just because it's such a revenue generating ballpark. Something like the #3 tourist destination in the state.

 

That's the organization's argument, at least.