Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

More information in this article...

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/17755063-418/finish-this-up-emanuel-says-after-cubs-proposal-for-wrigley.html#

That's very encouraging.

[Guest]

In case anyone needs a point of reference, I just scanned the Cardinals schedule for this year, and there are 58 home night games on the schedule.

[UMFan83]

In case anyone needs a point of reference, I just scanned the Cardinals schedule for this year, and there are 58 home night games on the schedule.

 

I found some info on the number of night games for all 30 teams in 2011:

 

1. Florida Marlins – 66

2. Arizona Diamonbacks – 65

3. Baltimore Orioles – 64

4. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim – 62

5. Texas Rangers – 61

6. Kansas City Royals – 60

T-7. Atlanta Braves – 59

T-7. Houston Astros – 59

T-7. Los Angeles Dodgers – 59

10. Philadelphia Phillies – 58

11. Pittsburgh Pirates – 57

T-12. San Diego Padres – 55

T-12. Cleveland Indians – 55

T-12. Chicago White Sox – 55

T-12. Boston Red Sox – 55

16. Milwaukee Brewers – 54

T-17. Tampa Bay Rays – 53

T-17. Seattle Mariners – 53

T-19. St. Louis Cardinals – 52

T-19. Colorado Rockies – 52

T-19. Cincinnati Reds – 52

22. New York Mets – 51

23. Washington Nationals – 50

T-24. San Francisco Giants – 49

T-24. Toronto Blue Jays – 49

T-26. New York Yankees – 48

T-26. Minnesota Twins – 48

28. Detroit Tigers – 47

29. Oakland Athletics – 44

30. Chicago Cubs – 28

 

So it looks like the norm is somewhere between 50-60 night games.

[KingCubsFan]

To appease club owners who have invested millions to meet city standards, sources said the mayor’s office is prepared to support giving the rooftops “a little bit” of the advertising revenue from new signs.

 

I hate the rooftops.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

T-24. San Francisco Giants – 49

T-24. Toronto Blue Jays – 49

T-26. New York Yankees – 48

T-26. Minnesota Twins – 48

28. Detroit Tigers – 47

29. Oakland Athletics – 44

30. Chicago Cubs – 28

 

So it looks like the norm is somewhere between 50-60 night games.

 

I'd be happy to see the Cubs move into that lower tier of teams. As much as they want more night games, day baseball at Wrigley still holds cache and adds to the brand.

[KingCubsFan]

 

T-24. San Francisco Giants – 49

T-24. Toronto Blue Jays – 49

T-26. New York Yankees – 48

T-26. Minnesota Twins – 48

28. Detroit Tigers – 47

29. Oakland Athletics – 44

30. Chicago Cubs – 28

 

So it looks like the norm is somewhere between 50-60 night games.

 

I'd be happy to see the Cubs move into that lower tier of teams. As much as they want more night games, day baseball at Wrigley still holds cache and adds to the brand.

I'd be OK with as many night games during the week as possible and more 3:05 starts on the weekends (and Friday).

[Guest]

 

T-24. San Francisco Giants – 49

T-24. Toronto Blue Jays – 49

T-26. New York Yankees – 48

T-26. Minnesota Twins – 48

28. Detroit Tigers – 47

29. Oakland Athletics – 44

30. Chicago Cubs – 28

 

So it looks like the norm is somewhere between 50-60 night games.

 

I'd be happy to see the Cubs move into that lower tier of teams. As much as they want more night games, day baseball at Wrigley still holds cache and adds to the brand.

I'd be OK with as many night games during the week as possible and more 3:05 starts on the weekends (and Friday).

 

Same. But I'm fine with anything that results in them just not being a distant last.

[Guest]

@DannyEcker: Rooftops about to show off their ideas for advertising outside Wrigley. Check it out:

 

 

Please don't close the streets, this is a neighborhood. Please let us put up giant signs on the facades of residential buildings, we'd like the money.

[Guest]

Well if most of the money is going to the Cubs (huge IF, I realize...but they're proposing this as a counter to the Cubs putting ads in the stadium itself, so maybe), I actually sort of like that look vs having them all up on the chain link fences or something.

 

It's nice because it leaves Wrigley itself looking a little cleaner too.

[Cubswin11]

@DannyEcker: Rooftops about to show off their ideas for advertising outside Wrigley. Check it out:

 

 

Please don't close the streets, this is a neighborhood. Please let us put up giant signs on the facades of residential buildings, we'd like the money.

FFS, what a bunch of hypocritical pricks

[Guest]

@DannyEcker: Rooftops about to show off their ideas for advertising outside Wrigley. Check it out:

 

 

Please don't close the streets, this is a neighborhood. Please let us put up giant signs on the facades of residential buildings, we'd like the money.

FFS, what a bunch of hypocritical pricks

 

I think it's just their solution to the problem they're worried about (having the view - which they are entitled to given the agreement they have with the Cubs - blocked by signs), and I think it's a pretty good solution. I don't think it's all that hypocritical.

 

 

I'm all for [expletive] on the rooftop owners, but I think this is a constructive idea.

 

Again, all depends on how much of a cut they intend to take out of it, but based on that Sun Times article I posted, if this is what they're referring to, the Cubs would be getting the large majority.

[Cubswin11]

Then don't play up the residential neighborhood thing and complain about streets being shut down because they are clearly taking part in it. Also, pay for your own [expletive] street/sidewalk/intersection/light/train stop improvements if you are getting in on this additional revenue.

[Guest]

Then don't play up the residential neighborhood thing and complain about streets being shut down because they are clearly taking part in it.

 

Of course they are taking part in it if they are trying to work with the Cubs to reach a compromise. It is the Cubs who are seeking ways to put up signage......

 

Rahm is just offering them a small cut of the revenue to grease the wheels.

 

Again, though, my opinion on this depends mostly on how much the cut actually is. If it's small enough, it's a good solution for everyone.

[Cubswin11]

Then don't play up the residential neighborhood thing and complain about streets being shut down because they are clearly taking part in it.

 

Of course they are taking part in it if they are trying to work with the Cubs to reach a compromise. It is the Cubs who are seeking ways to put up signage......

Rahm is just offering them a small cut of the revenue to grease the wheels.

Inside the park though, right? That's why the rooftop owners started complaining about losing their views and it being a "residential neighborhood" and why this, this and that couldn't happen before the Cubs fixed/improved this that and this because it's "residential." This is a proposal from the rooftop owners, no? Now it's suddenly fine to put up signs in the sacred "residential neighborhood?"

 

I am absolutely fine with the Cubs either lowering their cut of rooftop bleacher seat revenue and/or including the owners in a small, very small, percentage of new revenue created from ads that may block the views if that's what it takes to get the renovation started. But don't play up the residential neighborhood thing when things aren't going your way and then send out a proposal with signage all over your "residential" buildings.

[pitchcs]

it better be a [expletive] of night games if we're stuck with the outcome for 10 years.

As for additional night games, I think they only really need to add Friday night games to be similar to the rest of the league. The first two games of a three game series are usually night games anyways. And, like most teams, getaway days, Saturdays (due to FOX) and Sundays are day games.

 

And I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding the selfishness of Wrigleyville residents. If it weren't for the Cubs, their inflated property values wouldn't be so high.

 

You really think the actual residents or "Wrigleyville" or Lakeview have any say about this? Get a [expletive] clue.

[Guest]

Then don't play up the residential neighborhood thing and complain about streets being shut down because they are clearly taking part in it.

 

Of course they are taking part in it if they are trying to work with the Cubs to reach a compromise. It is the Cubs who are seeking ways to put up signage......

Rahm is just offering them a small cut of the revenue to grease the wheels.

Inside the park though, right? That's why the rooftop owners started complaining about losing their views and it being a "residential neighborhood" and why this, this and that couldn't happen before the Cubs fixed/improved this that and this because it's "residential." This is a proposal from the rooftop owners, no? Now it's suddenly fine to put up signs in the sacred "residential neighborhood?"

 

I am absolutely fine with the Cubs either lowering their cut of rooftop bleacher seat revenue and/or including the owners in a small, very small, percentage of new revenue created from ads that may block the views if that's what it takes to get the renovation started. But don't play up the residential neighborhood thing when things aren't going your way and then send out a proposal with signage all over your "residential" buildings.

 

You're combining the issues of the neighborhood in general with that of the rooftops. I don't think the rooftops are fighting the "residential neighborhood" fight. They are businesses. That makes no sense.

 

As far as what is at issue here, which is the signage, if the Cubs are getting, say, 90% of the revenue, from the signs, why does it matter that they're outside? In fact, it's a little bonus that they are more aesthetically pleasing outside (at least, in my opinion).

 

The Cubs do have to be mindful of preserving the views of the rooftops because they are business partners and they have an agreement with them.

 

Why is reducing the Cubs cut of rooftop revenue in return for blocking their views with signs inside the park more OK with you than putting the signs outside, which works out better for everybody?

[davell]

Loukas said the Cubs may not be here without Murphy's and Cubbybear.

[XZero771679666304]

Loukas said the Cubs may not be here without Murphy's and Cubbybear.

whut

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, if only we could test that theory about Cubby Bear

[Guest]

Loukas said the Cubs may not be here without Murphy's and Cubbybear.

 

lol wtf

[XZero771679666304]

Loukas said the Cubs may not be here without Murphy's and Cubbybear.

 

lol wtf

 

 

These people are some of the most deluded twits I've ever heard of. That's just spectacularly stupid.

[Guest]

Levine:

 

Roof top owners say Cubs will get $3.5million a year for 20 years. Sounds low.

 

Rooftop owner believes Cubs would like to run down rooftop revenue to buy buildings for the themselves.

[USSoccer]

And this is why I honestly hope the Cubs explore moving. If this is the [expletive] they'll have to deal with in perpetuity, then I want that neighborhood fucked over even if it means some lame assed stadium in Evanston or Waukegan or Schaumburg.

 

ETA: All venting aside, if it means a short term hit to revenue to build a stadium for the team to be better off in the long run from a revenue standpoint, I think that outweighs any hesitancy to ditch Wrigley. The goal is to win games, not be a tourist attraction in a run down dump that you're handcuffed on with respect to attempts at renovations and revenue streams.

Edited January 25, 2013 by USSoccer

[Cubswin11]

Treymon, can we get another photoshop thread on the negotiations of this once it's figured out with Ricketts/Theo/Clown v. Tunney/Wrigleyville/Roof Top Bleachers/Guys that think the Cubbybear is a reason we have the Cubs/Sullivan joking about the additional reveunes and then signing Hairston? Pretty, please?

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm glad Kenney is on the Cubs side in this debate.