Manchester United to Play at Wrigley this Summer?

[Guest]

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

This.

 

Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization?

 

And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective?

 

Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team.

 

If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go.

 

I personally love soccer.

 

But USS has made the point that this might not be a financial slam dunk. And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so? Remember the concert they had at Wrigley that wrecked the OF for weeks?

 

I don't care about how they brand Wrigley, but I think they're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by trying to fit other sports like this. Add in that it might not be a worthwhile endeavor financially, and I don't really see the point.

[davearm2]

I missed that too.

 

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

 

I phrased it poorly. It's probably not the Cubs paying United's appearance fee, but likely SUM. When SUM contracts a Euro team to go on a tour, they agree to give the touring club a cut of the gate as well as other rights, etc.

 

So the Cubs would just likely be renting out the field. They wouldn't likely see much of the gate. Not much of the merch either, and probably not concessions.

 

So what's the incentive?

The financial ins and outs of how this would work, and who would get what/how much, is purely speculative. None of us knows how the gate would be split, let alone things like merchandise and concessions. Presumably there'd be broadcast revenue as well.

 

You asked what's the incentive. I'd ask what's the downside. The Cubs get some unknown amount of cash, plus some exposure. Where's the problem?

[davearm2]

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

This.

 

Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization?

 

And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective?

 

Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team.

 

If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go.

 

I personally love soccer.

 

But USS has made the point that this might not be a financial slam dunk. And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so? Remember the concert they had at Wrigley that wrecked the OF for weeks?

 

I don't care about how they brand Wrigley, but I think they're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by trying to fit other sports like this. Add in that it might not be a worthwhile endeavor financially, and I don't really see the point.

The notion that this might not be a worthwhile financial endeavor for the Cub doesn't hold any water. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do it.

 

It's safe to assume that if the Cubs move forward, it'll be on the grounds that there's enough money to be made on the event to make it worth their while to participate.

[Guest]

You might be willing to assume complete competence from the executives, but I'm not going to think of it as a guarantee. "This is a good decision because it is a decision made by the people who make decisions" is bad reasoning.

 

And even then, there are varying degrees. How much do they have to make for it to be worth it to watch the Cubs(in TV or in person) play on a shredded field for a while? And again, what of the infield?

[J.R.]

Soccer was played at Fenway in the middle of the season last summer, and I don't recall any suicides because of the field's condition afterward.

 

http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/sp/reuters/20100722/02/1923569997-celtic-sporting-play-friendly-soccer-match-fenway-park-boston.jpg

[Soul]

It just sounds like this is very preliminary at this point, and nobody really knows how good or terrible it would even be.

[javy knows my name]

It just sounds like this is very preliminary at this point, and nobody really knows how good or terrible it would even be.

Thanks, PCP

[USSoccer]

The financial ins and outs of how this would work, and who would get what/how much, is purely speculative. None of us knows how the gate would be split, let alone things like merchandise and concessions. Presumably there'd be broadcast revenue as well.

 

You asked what's the incentive. I'd ask what's the downside. The Cubs get some unknown amount of cash, plus some exposure. Where's the problem?

 

 

Actually, the financial ins and outs are well known, and not really speculative at all. Do some research on SUM and you'll find everything you need there. This is a venture that been done time and time again, and the costs can vary but the structure of the deals are always the same. SUM control every aspect of the operation. We'd be renting the space. That's about it.

 

Broadcast revenues wouldn't have anything to do with the Cubs, as SUM control that aspect of the tour as well.

 

Finally, I'd argue that any benefits of "exposure" would be minimal in terms of real impact to the organization.

 

The downside is that it's probably a waste of time for the Cubs, it would potentially impact the playing surface and simply add one more useless event to put more wear and tear on an already dilapidated structure.

Edited January 6, 2011 by USSoccer

[Jon]

Everything the Cubs are doing now is to set up future events. They're not looking at these kinds off events as one-off deals. They went all out for Northwestern for the football game not because they just wanted to be nice, but because they wanted to get a future commitment for more games and work their way into a potential bowl game.

[Soul]

Everything the Cubs are doing now is to set up future events. They're not looking at these kinds off events as one-off deals. They went all out for Northwestern for the football game not because they just wanted to be nice, but because they wanted to get a future commitment for more games and work their way into a potential bowl game.

 

And they kind of screwed it up. But yes, that's my thinking as well.

 

I know you don't agree USS :)

[apete6]

The financial ins and outs of how this would work, and who would get what/how much, is purely speculative. None of us knows how the gate would be split, let alone things like merchandise and concessions. Presumably there'd be broadcast revenue as well.

 

You asked what's the incentive. I'd ask what's the downside. The Cubs get some unknown amount of cash, plus some exposure. Where's the problem?

 

 

Actually, the financial ins and outs are well known, and not really speculative at all. Do some research on SUM and you'll find everything you need there. This is a venture that been done time and time again, and the costs can vary but the structure of the deals are always the same. SUM control every aspect of the operation. We'd be renting the space. That's about it.

 

Broadcast revenues wouldn't have anything to do with the Cubs, as SUM control that aspect of the tour as well.

 

Finally, I'd argue that any benefits of "exposure" would be minimal in terms of real impact to the organization.

 

The downside is that it's probably a waste of time for the Cubs, it would potentially impact the playing surface and simply add one more useless event to put more wear and tear on an already dilapidated structure.

 

And, whatever the research/payroll that is being put toward these types of endeavors is NOT being spent on baseball operations.

 

Maybe the Cubs should just build an actual nice stadium somewhere and we could play a few series a year at Wrigley and then they could have all kinds of events there. Tractor pulls, little league games, concerts, etc..

 

Why the hell can't the organization just focus on baseball? I guarantee Mark Cuban would have been more than willing to put up his own money for a team improvement rather than focusing on crap like this.

[J.R.]

Since when does an effort to expand the ballclub's revenue stream indicate a lack of "focus on baseball?"

 

I think soccer is a [expletive] sport, but there is no risk here. Even a meager profit is better than no profit at all, and there's the civic benefit of drawing more people to Lakeview businesses and Chicago as a whole on a day when nothing would otherwise be going on at the park.

[UMFan83]

Since when does an effort to expand the ballclub's revenue stream indicate a lack of "focus on baseball?"

 

I think soccer is a [expletive] sport, but there is no risk here. Even a meager profit is better than no profit at all, and there's the civic benefit of drawing more people to Lakeview businesses and Chicago as a whole on a day when nothing would otherwise be going on at the park.

 

You just wait until the Cubs have to play a home game at the Cell because Wrigley is hosting a NASCAR race.

[SouthSideRyan]

I hear the Cubs will be making extra money on Safaris this season

[davearm2]

You might be willing to assume complete competence from the executives, but I'm not going to think of it as a guarantee. "This is a good decision because it is a decision made by the people who make decisions" is bad reasoning.

 

And even then, there are varying degrees. How much do they have to make for it to be worth it to watch the Cubs(in TV or in person) play on a shredded field for a while? And again, what of the infield?

The point I was making (albeit not well) is that the Cubs' financial stake in this endeavor will be spelled out in black and white on a contract. Thus the notion that this is a bad idea in part because the finances of the thing are uncertain falls flat.

 

Now weighing the dollars against the wear and tear on the facility etc. is another matter, but they'll go in having a good idea of what those dollars are going to be.

[davearm2]

Why the hell can't the organization just focus on baseball? I guarantee Mark Cuban would have been more than willing to put up his own money for a team improvement rather than focusing on crap like this.

Frankly you should want Ricketts to focus on things other than baseball, and delegate the baseball operations to the front office folks.

 

Meanwhile bringing a soccer game to Wrigley field is not going to be occupying the baseball folks.

[davearm2]

This article seems pretty well reasoned.

 

http://www.hottimeinoldtown.com/2011/1/3/1889286/manchester-united-in-my-wrigley-field-its-more-likely-than-you-think

[USSoccer]

This article seems pretty well reasoned.

 

http://www.hottimeinoldtown.com/2011/1/3/1889286/manchester-united-in-my-wrigley-field-its-more-likely-than-you-think

 

That blog post is pretty meh. Having a soccer field at the barest minimum width allowed by the LOTG (50 yards) would make for a crap exhibition. That's incredibly narrow for a soccer field. For reference, the San Jose Earthquakes (MLS) played a few years in Spartan stadium, whose field dimensions were 106x69.5, and it was ridiculously narrow and made the game a congested mess.

 

Furthermore, and this is something that cannot be stressed enough, why the hell would United want to play in a stadium that's only 40k capacity? They could probably come close to selling out Soldier Field if their opponent was another Euro team (Barca and United have a exhibition at FedEx in DC this summer). Given that United are going to want to make as much money with any exhibition as possible, why limit yourself?

[shnsajax]

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

This.

 

Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization?

 

And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective?

 

Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team.

 

If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go.

 

I personally love soccer.

 

But USS has made the point that this might not be a financial slam dunk. And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so? Remember the concert they had at Wrigley that wrecked the OF for weeks?

 

I don't care about how they brand Wrigley, but I think they're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by trying to fit other sports like this. Add in that it might not be a worthwhile endeavor financially, and I don't really see the point.

The notion that this might not be a worthwhile financial endeavor for the Cub doesn't hold any water. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do it.

 

It's safe to assume that if the Cubs move forward, it'll be on the grounds that there's enough money to be made on the event to make it worth their while to participate.

 

It will make money for the Cubs but ManU can draw twice as many people at any other location. They will draw 75,000+ at an NFL stadium.

[davearm2]

This article seems pretty well reasoned.

 

http://www.hottimeinoldtown.com/2011/1/3/1889286/manchester-united-in-my-wrigley-field-its-more-likely-than-you-think

 

That blog post is pretty meh. Having a soccer field at the barest minimum width allowed by the LOTG (50 yards) would make for a crap exhibition. That's incredibly narrow for a soccer field. For reference, the San Jose Earthquakes (MLS) played a few years in Spartan stadium, whose field dimensions were 106x69.5, and it was ridiculously narrow and made the game a congested mess.

 

Furthermore, and this is something that cannot be stressed enough, why the hell would United want to play in a stadium that's only 40k capacity? They could probably come close to selling out Soldier Field if their opponent was another Euro team (Barca and United have a exhibition at FedEx in DC this summer). Given that United are going to want to make as much money with any exhibition as possible, why limit yourself?

So 69.5 yards wide is ridiculously narrow, but the EPL stadiums are just a few yards wider on average but are just fine? Only 5 of the 20 are wider than 75 yards, if that blog is correct.

 

And again, my opinion is that width could be added fairly easily in Wrigley. Length is the limiting factor. 120 was the absolute upper bound as shown by the NU - ILL game. IMO you'd gain a lot of flexibility to both widen and reposition the pitch by shortening it down to 110 yards long. Sure seems that way looking at the pictures of the football layout anyway.

[davearm2]

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

This.

 

Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization?

 

And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective?

 

Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team.

 

If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go.

 

I personally love soccer.

 

But USS has made the point that this might not be a financial slam dunk. And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so? Remember the concert they had at Wrigley that wrecked the OF for weeks?

 

I don't care about how they brand Wrigley, but I think they're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by trying to fit other sports like this. Add in that it might not be a worthwhile endeavor financially, and I don't really see the point.

The notion that this might not be a worthwhile financial endeavor for the Cub doesn't hold any water. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do it.

 

It's safe to assume that if the Cubs move forward, it'll be on the grounds that there's enough money to be made on the event to make it worth their while to participate.

 

It will make money for the Cubs but ManU can draw twice as many people at any other location. They will draw 75,000+ at an NFL stadium.

Who's to say they can't double their ticket prices for a game at Wrigley?

 

Not saying they would/could, but capacity is only one half of the revenue equation.

[wvcbxl]

... And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so?

 

There's a window in the Cubs' schedule between 07/26 and 08/04 when they play away games only.

Assuming the EPL would start in the 08/13-14 weekend, with the Charity Shield (or whatever it's called nowadays) in the previous weekend, a game at Wrigley involving ManU could be fitted in, I suppose.

[USSoccer]

So 69.5 yards wide is ridiculously narrow, but the EPL stadiums are just a few yards wider on average but are just fine? Only 5 of the 20 are wider than 75 yards, if that blog is correct.

 

And again, my opinion is that width could be added fairly easily in Wrigley. Length is the limiting factor. 120 was the absolute upper bound as shown by the NU - ILL game. IMO you'd gain a lot of flexibility to both widen and reposition the pitch by shortening it down to 110 yards long. Sure seems that way looking at the pictures of the football layout anyway.

 

Yes, 69.5 is ridiculously narrow. 3 yards on either side makes a big difference.