Rahm Emanuel call Epstein down to City hall for chat.

[A New Era]

" on the interests of the taxpayers. That's who I'm negotiating for," Emanuel said

 

Lol, for the taxpayers. This traitor and every damn person in office works for their donors. To actually try to pretend otherwise is sickening.

[Conky]

There is absolutely no reason that the funding can't come from a new tax on restaurants/ lodging. This is how the Cell money is being repaid. The tax zone created for that venture stops short of the North Side of the city. Politicians/ alderpersons in those wards are hesitant to back increased taxation for their districts.

 

It really has nothing to do with how cash strapped the city of Chicago is at all. It has to do with the current political landscape not favoring raising taxes to fund the Wrigley renovation. When the city revenue stream that is the Chicago Cubs decides that they will be forced to move for economic reasons, politicians will have public opinion on their side. They might even now if they were actually in touch with their constituents.

 

The comment about the Ricketts being billionaires is also a bit of a misnomer. The Ricketts were valued at $1.2B at the time of the $900M sale. While they could technically be valued approximately the same now, a good portion of that worth is wrapped up in the asset that is the Cubs/ Wrigley. I think it is obvious that they do not have access to ready cash to build the stadium currently. If they did, why bother with the city at all and offer to pay interest? Just fund the build yourself and profit.

 

Ricketts family worth mentioned here:

 

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/ricketts-family-is-high-bidder-for-cubs-900m.html

[Soul]

i love the cubs as much as anyone, but i really don't think i can find it within myself to root for a city government with a major financial crisis to give a billionaire money to make his profitable business even more profitable.

 

If they're not idiots about it the city will get paid back tenfold over time if they help with the initial investment. It's a win-win.

 

If it's that much of a profit-maker, then the city knows the Cubs will eventually do it anyway, and then they can reap the benefits without sharing in the costs.

 

Not if they actually get fed up and move.

[Wilson A2000]

I don't know all the ins and outs of this deal, but the city makes money on the interest they would collect from the Cubs, improves their credit rating, and keeps the Cubbies in the city. Would the city not be able to use the investment tax money for a few years or is Ricketts just asking for a loan on the money that is just sitting in the city's bank?

[Guest]

The Ricketts should sell minority ownership stakes to raise the money.

[Conky]

I don't know all the ins and outs of this deal, but the city makes money on the interest they would collect from the Cubs, improves their credit rating, and keeps the Cubbies in the city. Would the city not be able to use the investment tax money for a few years or is Ricketts just asking for a loan on the money that is just sitting in the city's bank?

 

The traditional way would be for the city to issue municipal bonds. These bonds are then sold to investors to generate the needed money upfront. In this way, the city becomes the guarantor on the loan. The money can be repaid in numerous ways, and this is where the issue gets sticky. The city seems to have a problem being associated with helping fund a private venture.

 

Taxpayers are paying off the debt on the U.S. Cellular Field construction. The $365M Soldier Field renovation was also 100% publicly funded. One thing to note here is that these two facilities were taken over and are now publicly held facilities. This option was brought up around the time of the sale of the Cubs/ Wrigley, but was shot down by Sam Zell.

[Scotti]

i love the cubs as much as anyone, but i really don't think i can find it within myself to root for a city government with a major financial crisis to give a billionaire money to make his profitable business even more profitable.

 

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for).

 

What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds).

 

Again, that is WAY fair because:

 

A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox).

 

B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City.

 

C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it.

 

D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area).

 

E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities.

 

All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S.

 

Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans.

 

To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game.

[Scotti]

There is absolutely no reason that the funding can't come from a new tax on restaurants/ lodging. This is how the Cell money is being repaid. The tax zone created for that venture stops short of the North Side of the city. Politicians/ alderpersons in those wards are hesitant to back increased taxation for their districts.

 

It really has nothing to do with how cash strapped the city of Chicago is at all. It has to do with the current political landscape not favoring raising taxes to fund the Wrigley renovation. When the city revenue stream that is the Chicago Cubs decides that they will be forced to move for economic reasons, politicians will have public opinion on their side. They might even now if they were actually in touch with their constituents.

 

The comment about the Ricketts being billionaires is also a bit of a misnomer. The Ricketts were valued at $1.2B at the time of the $900M sale. While they could technically be valued approximately the same now, a good portion of that worth is wrapped up in the asset that is the Cubs/ Wrigley. I think it is obvious that they do not have access to ready cash to build the stadium currently. If they did, why bother with the city at all and offer to pay interest? Just fund the build yourself and profit.

 

Ricketts family worth mentioned here:

 

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/ricketts-family-is-high-bidder-for-cubs-900m.html

 

Actually, when the family bought the Cubs, their wealth was low, relatively speaking, because the stock price for TD Ameritrade had plummeted. The stock has recovered much of its lost value and my guess is that the family is worth apx 2.5 billion (the family DID take it in the shorts on the $400 M in stock that they sold--it would be worth around a billion now so a rough loss of $600 M).

 

The family also didn't pay the agreed to $900M because Zell, after the agreement but before the actual sale, signed long-term deals with WGN radio and TV that were unfriendly to the Cubs (lowering the Cubs valuation). That was what took so long for the sale to actually happen. An entire season passed before TR got Zell to cut $50-150 off of the price (the sale has been reported at $750 and $850).

 

As to where the funding comes from, that is EXACTLY where TR proposed it come from--a bond backed by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (owners of the Cell) and its 2% sales tax on hotels that would be secured by any growth in the "entertainment tax" (any amount greater than the 2009 level of $16 million that Cub fans already pay).

[Scotti]

There is absolutely no reason that the funding can't come from a new tax on restaurants/ lodging. This is how the Cell money is being repaid. The tax zone created for that venture stops short of the North Side of the city. Politicians/ alderpersons in those wards are hesitant to back increased taxation for their districts.

 

It really has nothing to do with how cash strapped the city of Chicago is at all. It has to do with the current political landscape not favoring raising taxes to fund the Wrigley renovation. When the city revenue stream that is the Chicago Cubs decides that they will be forced to move for economic reasons, politicians will have public opinion on their side. They might even now if they were actually in touch with their constituents.

 

The comment about the Ricketts being billionaires is also a bit of a misnomer. The Ricketts were valued at $1.2B at the time of the $900M sale. While they could technically be valued approximately the same now, a good portion of that worth is wrapped up in the asset that is the Cubs/ Wrigley. I think it is obvious that they do not have access to ready cash to build the stadium currently. If they did, why bother with the city at all and offer to pay interest? Just fund the build yourself and profit.

 

Ricketts family worth mentioned here:

 

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/ricketts-family-is-high-bidder-for-cubs-900m.html

 

Actually, when the family bought the Cubs, their wealth was low, relatively speaking, because the stock price for TD Ameritrade had plummeted. The stock has recovered much of its lost value and my guess is that the family is worth apx 2.5 billion (the family DID take it in the shorts on the $400 M in stock that they sold--it would be worth around a billion now so a rough loss of $600 M).

 

The family also didn't pay the agreed to $900M because Zell, after the agreement but before the actual sale, signed long-term deals with WGN radio and TV that were unfriendly to the Cubs (lowering the Cubs valuation). That was what took so long for the sale to actually happen. An entire season passed before TR got Zell to cut $50-150 off of the price (the sale has been reported at $750 and $850).

 

As to where the funding comes from, that is EXACTLY where TR proposed it come from--a bond backed by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (owners of the Cell) and its 2% sales tax on hotels that would be secured by any growth in the "entertainment tax" (any amount greater than the 2009 level of $16 million that Cub fans already pay).

 

BTW, the ISFA is ALL for the deal. Finding private investors in the bond would be no problem what-so-ever. The only issue is repaying that bond. Yes, the family could sell some stock and pay for it themselves but the Village of Schaumburg would pay for the whole deal and wash TR's car every day. They'd bulldoze seven Children's Hospitals to make room if necessary. They'd rename themselves the Village of Tom Ricketts and Siblings if requested. They wouldn't tax a penny of Cub, or Cub fan, money at the park (and they'd still make bank). They'd even consider digging out Woodfield and creating a mini-Michigan replete with mini-millionaires in their mini-sailboats on sunny days. And they already have more Trixies in Jettas than you can shake a stick at.

[J.R.]

i love the cubs as much as anyone, but i really don't think i can find it within myself to root for a city government with a major financial crisis to give a billionaire money to make his profitable business even more profitable.

I generally agree, but the city has no problem aiding the business interests of Reinsdorf, the McCaskeys and the Wirtzes. Why should TR be treated differently, especially considering that his business brings more bank to the city than the other three combined?

 

The Cubs in Schaumburg? It would be the bluff of the century, as no one can say that with a straight face. It was ridiculous when Dallas Green threatened it, and it would be even more ridiculous now as in the intervening years the Cubs have succeeded in inexorably linking themselves with the neighborhood that causes them so much grief.

 

Of course, Green did bluff his way into getting the lights approved. The difference is that he came in as an outsider with no ties to the park - TR has made no secret of his love for the park.

[Scotti]

i love the cubs as much as anyone, but i really don't think i can find it within myself to root for a city government with a major financial crisis to give a billionaire money to make his profitable business even more profitable.

I generally agree, but the city has no problem aiding the business interests of Reinsdorf, the McCaskeys and the Wirtzes. Why should TR be treated differently, especially considering that his business brings more bank to the city than the other three combined?

 

The Cubs in Schaumburg? It would be the bluff of the century, as no one can say that with a straight face. It was ridiculous when Dallas Green threatened it, and it would be even more ridiculous now as in the intervening years the Cubs have succeeded in inexorably linking themselves with the neighborhood that causes them so much grief.

 

Of course, Green did bluff his way into getting the lights approved. The difference is that he came in as an outsider with no ties to the park - TR has made no secret of his love for the park.

 

However, TR is also a very successful business guy who has stated that the only goal is making the Cubs better. He was willing, and able, to stare down Zell. He was willing, and able, to stare down Mesa. He was willing, and able, to stare down the "brain trust" of the Red Sox. One way or another the City needs to get some skin in the game and I think TR is equipped to get the job done. He/they are in this for the long haul, so obviously they are willing to wait, if need be (for economic conditions to improve), but Wrigley is literally falling to pieces. Wrigley is, again very literally, antiquated. And, in all honesty, Schaumburg is closer to the Cubs fan base than Sheffield and Addison. TR needs to make a stand and to tell the City that it is screwing over Cub fans and that it is no longer acceptable.

[Derwood]

Rather than tax everyone in Illinois (or Chicago) to help pay for stadium renovations, just target the residents and businesses of Wrigleyville who have made money hand over fist because the stadium is there

[Sammy Sofa]

i love the cubs as much as anyone, but i really don't think i can find it within myself to root for a city government with a major financial crisis to give a billionaire money to make his profitable business even more profitable.

 

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for).

 

What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds).

 

Again, that is WAY fair because:

 

A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox).

 

B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City.

 

C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it.

 

D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area).

 

E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities.

 

All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S.

 

Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans.

 

To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game.

 

Well said. The general idea that "the city would be paying to fix/expand Wrigley" is woefully misunderstood.

[seanimal]

the schaumburg thing would be such an easy bluff to call because it's a terrible location. now lombard, that would get their attention.

[Conky]

There is absolutely no reason that the funding can't come from a new tax on restaurants/ lodging. This is how the Cell money is being repaid. The tax zone created for that venture stops short of the North Side of the city. Politicians/ alderpersons in those wards are hesitant to back increased taxation for their districts.

 

It really has nothing to do with how cash strapped the city of Chicago is at all. It has to do with the current political landscape not favoring raising taxes to fund the Wrigley renovation. When the city revenue stream that is the Chicago Cubs decides that they will be forced to move for economic reasons, politicians will have public opinion on their side. They might even now if they were actually in touch with their constituents.

 

The comment about the Ricketts being billionaires is also a bit of a misnomer. The Ricketts were valued at $1.2B at the time of the $900M sale. While they could technically be valued approximately the same now, a good portion of that worth is wrapped up in the asset that is the Cubs/ Wrigley. I think it is obvious that they do not have access to ready cash to build the stadium currently. If they did, why bother with the city at all and offer to pay interest? Just fund the build yourself and profit.

 

Ricketts family worth mentioned here:

 

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/ricketts-family-is-high-bidder-for-cubs-900m.html

 

Actually, when the family bought the Cubs, their wealth was low, relatively speaking, because the stock price for TD Ameritrade had plummeted. The stock has recovered much of its lost value and my guess is that the family is worth apx 2.5 billion (the family DID take it in the shorts on the $400 M in stock that they sold--it would be worth around a billion now so a rough loss of $600 M).

 

The family also didn't pay the agreed to $900M because Zell, after the agreement but before the actual sale, signed long-term deals with WGN radio and TV that were unfriendly to the Cubs (lowering the Cubs valuation). That was what took so long for the sale to actually happen. An entire season passed before TR got Zell to cut $50-150 off of the price (the sale has been reported at $750 and $850).

 

As to where the funding comes from, that is EXACTLY where TR proposed it come from--a bond backed by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (owners of the Cell) and its 2% sales tax on hotels that would be secured by any growth in the "entertainment tax" (any amount greater than the 2009 level of $16 million that Cub fans already pay).

 

NIce evaluation of the situation, Scotti. I agree with a great deal of what you say in your posts here on the topic of the Ricketts and organizing funding for Wrigley. I was painting in broad strokes, whereas you have narrowed scope and highlighted some of the finer details of the situation. The one place where I disagree somewhat is the numbers regarding the Ricketts family net worth.

 

Since we do not have access to books for either TD Ameritrade or the Cubs franchise, we are forced to speculate on worth a bit. Further, the actual details of the Cubs sale have never been made public to my knowledge. What we do know is that the deal hinged on the Ricketts financing a large portion (reportedly up to $700M) of the purchase price in order to save Tribco creditors some $300M in capital gain taxes. Forbes also lists the Cubs sale at $700M. (Current value $775M).

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html

 

We also know that the Ricketts reportedly sold off 4.3% of their holdings in TD Ameritrade, leaving them a 17.7% stake in the company (right at 100M shares by my calculations) raising $403M for the purchase of the Cubs. What we don't know is how the final deal came together or the debt structure of the Cubs currently.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/brokerage/2009-02-18-td-ameritrade-cubs_N.htm

 

Current market capitalization values TDA holdings at $9.96B. A better way of looking at the value of the company would be to look at enterprise value. The company had an enterprise value of $8.71B in January of 2009 and $12.16B in September 2009, close to the time of the finalized sale of the Cubs. TDA enterprise value currently stands at $9.65B. Although unclear, it would appear that the Ricketts sold the 4.3% of shares needed for the sale in the final quarter of 2009. Using the 17.7% number we have for Ricketts holdings in TDA in 2009, that would place their current TDA share value at roughly $1.7B.

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/AMTD/enterprise_value

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=AMTD

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/21/news/companies/zell_tribune_chicago_cubs.fortune/index.htm

 

A search of Forbes this morning does not turn up the Ricketts family in the current list of over 1000 billionaires. This could be for many reasons, but my guess would be that the Ricketts family is no longer being lumped together by Forbes due to diversification of their interests. Point being, Tom Ricketts is by no stretch of the imagination, a billionaire.

 

What he is however, is a shrewd investment banker. He owns his own venture, Incapital, a securities and investment banking firm founded in 1999. With offices in several major cities, including Chicago and London, Tom Ricketts is a leader among today's investment bankers. Forbes describes the company as a "technologically-oriented investment bank focused exclusively on the underwriting and distribution of fixed income products to individual investors."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapital

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Incapital underwrites and distributes fixed income securities and structured notes through more than 700 broker-dealers, banks and institutional accounts in the U.S., Europe and Asia. With a diverse range of new issue and secondary market offerings, Incapital specializes in U.S. Agency securities, corporate notes, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), municipal bonds, and structured notes and CDs. Incapital also provides resources for financial advisors and investors to create income-producing portfolios and notes linked to a wide range of asset classes.

 

Incapital is a leading distributor of corporate bonds designed for individual investors. Since 2000, over $250 billion of new issue corporate and U.S. Agency securities have been issued through retail note programs. . Incapital’s capital markets team offers a cost effective way to customize and diversify funding needs while expanding an investor base nationally. Incapital is lead agent for over 30 investment grade issuers, with secondary trading specialists covering a wide range of previously offered and similar issues. Based in both Chicago and Boca Raton, Incapital’s institutional group offers multiple products to a range of institutional investors.

 

Simply stated, Tom Ricketts knows financing. I have every confidence that he has the ability to broker the best deal for the Chicago Cubs in financing a Wrigley renovation if that is feasible, or a move to a more forgiving and beneficial climate in another venue. As Scotti said, he has begun to rack up quite the impressive track record here in dealings with Zell, MLB, the city of Mesa, and the Boston Red Sox (not to mention the coup of luring in some of the top minds in all of baseball to run his team).

 

The city of Chicago may think they have the Cubs over a barrel. My money is on Tom Ricketts' vision and apparent ability to achieve results. Chicago can landmark Wrigley all they want. However, they simply can't force the Cubs to continue to handicap themselves financially in an antique and unsafe ballpark. Looks to me like Ricketts MO is to work things out amicably at first in any deal, but to do what is necessary when forced to.

 

Go ahead, Chicago. Make his day.

[Magnetic Curses]

i love the cubs as much as anyone, but i really don't think i can find it within myself to root for a city government with a major financial crisis to give a billionaire money to make his profitable business even more profitable.

 

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for).

 

What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds).

 

Again, that is WAY fair because:

 

A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox).

 

B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City.

 

C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it.

 

D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area).

 

E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities.

 

All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S.

 

Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans.

 

To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game.

 

ok, now i'm pissed off.

 

acecubbie needs to post this on his blog. people need to see this because i had no idea.

[Scotti]

the schaumburg thing would be such an easy bluff to call because it's a terrible location. now lombard, that would get their attention.

 

Schaumburg has to be the best location because it is 15 minutes from my doorstep... ;-)

[Scotti]

The one place where I disagree somewhat is the numbers regarding the Ricketts family net worth.

 

Using the 17.7% number we have for Ricketts holdings in TDA in 2009, that would place their current TDA share value at roughly $1.7B.

 

Good research and those are some of the sources I used to get to apx $2.5 billion. Add the $400 million (assumed invested, in part if not whole, in the Cubs) to the 1.7B and you get 2.1B. Add the other Ricketts family holdings (TR's company, land, homes, toys, etc.) and a higher valuation of the Cub investment (IIRC Forbes has not included Mesa yet) and you get to around 2.5B for the family (the owner is the family--TR is the Chairman).

 

If the family wanted they could sell more stock and pay for the Wrigley deal themselves (they are still planing to plop down $200M of their own money for the Triangle building and other local improvements once there is a commitment on Wrigley).

 

But that would assume that it is "just fine" for the City/County/State to rape Cub fans blind without ever committing any resources. And that Cub fans should be expected to pay the gov'ts way out of miserable fiscal management. The City/County/State make bank on the Cubs and they need some skin in the game.

[Guest]

Can we all agree that they are among the wealthiest families in the world and be done with parsing out whether it's 1 billion or something slightly over or under that? It's pedantic. The notion that the city is raping Cub fans any more than other fans of other teams in other cities is beside the point and overstating the conditions.

 

The Cubs make loads of money for them and they bought the franchise knowing what condition Wrigley was in. If they can figure out some way to get a loan from the city to refurbish Wrigley I'd be all for that. But if they want the city to pay, they can go [expletive] themselves unless they want to sell a piece of Wrigley to the city or the entity that owns the other venues.

Edited November 7, 2011 by CubinNY

[Sammy Sofa]

But if they want the city to pay, they can go [expletive] themselves unless they want to sell a piece of Wrigley to the city or the entity that owns the other venues.

 

Great job reading the rest of this page.

[Guest]

Unless the Cubs want to sell Wrigley to the city, what happens with the Bears and White Sox has no bearing.

 

It's my opinion that there should be no public financing. I recognize that others will disagree.

[Sammy Sofa]

Did you read any of Scotti's posts?

[jersey cubs fan]

Can we all agree that they are among the wealthiest families in the world and be done with parsing out whether it's 1 billion or something slightly over or under that? It's pedantic. The notion that the city is raping Cub fans any more than other fans of other teams in other cities is beside the point and overstating the conditions.

 

The Cubs make loads of money for them and they bought the franchise knowing what condition Wrigley was in. If they can figure out some way to get a loan from the city to refurbish Wrigley I'd be all for that. But if they want the city to pay, they can go [expletive] themselves unless they want to sell a piece of Wrigley to the city or the entity that owns the other venues.

 

The entity that "owns" US cellular is just a shell to protect Reinsdorf.

[Guest]

Did you read any of Scotti's posts?

Yes I read the entire thing. The Cubs, Bears, and Sox are not equitable because the public has an ownership stake in the Bears and Sox venues.

[Guest]

Did you read any of Scotti's posts?

Yes I read the entire thing. The Cubs, Bears, and Sox are not equitable because the public has an ownership stake in the Bears and Sox venues.

1) You missed the finer points of those comparisons

2) that was far from the only thing he discussed