Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"when they are good" seems like the least relevant scenario when discussing the Chicago Cubs.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's a matter of degrees here. Wrigley >> Stadium in the heart of the city > Stadium in the city as long as an El stop is close > Stadium in Rosemont. Neither come close to the current ideal, but one is clearly better than the other.

 

 

A stadium butted up against an airport, minimizing access points that will choke access points from all those drivers parking in the huge lots and airplanes taking off or landing every 45 seconds would be a disaster and to suggest otherwise is idiotic.

 

 

They'd still sell it out (when they are good). It'd be an undesirable logistical hairball, but that wouldn't decimate attendance as much as some here are saying.

 

To me, a disaster would be if they only half filled the stadium on an consistent basis.

 

Which if they're bad they'd be certain to do. Somebody mentioned golden geese earlier, and that's what the Cubs have. To pretend that we can just get ourselves a new golden goose because they'll have nice parking for us poor oppressed suburbanites is lunacy.

[Guest]

I feel like we're focusing too much on attendance and not enough on revenue. What if a half paid for new stadium with a jumbotron, a huge parking lot, and signd everywhere a tv camera can be pointed, plus the ability to charge more for tickets due to less amusement taxes is simply more profitable (or at least comparably to)than a 75% (or whatever) full wrigley with limited signage, not much parking to speak of, and no jumbotron?

 

That's not to speak of the disparity when the team is good and both would be near or at Max capacity.

 

 

Sorry about any weird typing. Wrote this on my phone.

[XZero771679666304]

The notion that Wrigley sells out even when the Cubs are terrible because it's just so awesome and nostalgic and people just love to hang out there is an overblown fallacy. Attendance took a big uptick in the early 2000's and has been trending downward in the past few seasons. Go back further and there you'll find that poor attendance was the rule rather than the exception.

 

Wrigley isn't a golden goose. It's a dilapidated shithole in dire need of renovations the neighborhood and city seem loath to allow. The product drives attendance, just like anywhere else.

 

No one wants to see the team moved to [expletive] Rosemont or Schaumburg, but if the powers that be keep dicking around with the team's right to maintain their own facility, it is a scenario that needs to be entertained (or at least seriously threatened).

[Guest]

The notion that Wrigley sells out even when the Cubs are terrible because it's just so awesome and nostalgic and people just love to hang out there is an overblown fallacy. Attendance took a big uptick in the early 2000's and has been trending downward in the past few seasons. Go back further and there you'll find that poor attendance was the rule rather than the exception.

 

Wrigley isn't a golden goose. It's a dilapidated [expletive] in dire need of renovations the neighborhood and city seem loath to allow. The product drives attendance, just like anywhere else.

 

No one wants to see the team moved to [expletive] Rosemont or Schaumburg, but if the powers that be keep dicking around with the team's right to maintain their own facility, it is a scenario that needs to be entertained (or at least seriously threatened).

 

Yep.

[SouthSideRyan]

The notion that Wrigley sells out even when the Cubs are terrible because it's just so awesome and nostalgic and people just love to hang out there is an overblown fallacy. Attendance took a big uptick in the early 2000's and has been trending downward in the past few seasons. Go back further and there you'll find that poor attendance was the rule rather than the exception.

 

Wrigley isn't a golden goose. It's a dilapidated [expletive] in dire need of renovations the neighborhood and city seem loath to allow. The product drives attendance, just like anywhere else.

 

No one wants to see the team moved to [expletive] Rosemont or Schaumburg, but if the powers that be keep dicking around with the team's right to maintain their own facility, it is a scenario that needs to be entertained (or at least seriously threatened).

 

Now we're going with last year's team would've drawn close to the same amount in Rosemont? lol

[Guest]

The notion that Wrigley sells out even when the Cubs are terrible because it's just so awesome and nostalgic and people just love to hang out there is an overblown fallacy. Attendance took a big uptick in the early 2000's and has been trending downward in the past few seasons. Go back further and there you'll find that poor attendance was the rule rather than the exception.

 

Wrigley isn't a golden goose. It's a dilapidated [expletive] in dire need of renovations the neighborhood and city seem loath to allow. The product drives attendance, just like anywhere else.

 

No one wants to see the team moved to [expletive] Rosemont or Schaumburg, but if the powers that be keep dicking around with the team's right to maintain their own facility, it is a scenario that needs to be entertained (or at least seriously threatened).

 

Now we're going with last year's team would've drawn close to the same amount in Rosemont? lol

 

Might not have drawn close to the same and still might've made more money, which is what actually matters.

[XZero771679666304]

The notion that Wrigley sells out even when the Cubs are terrible because it's just so awesome and nostalgic and people just love to hang out there is an overblown fallacy. Attendance took a big uptick in the early 2000's and has been trending downward in the past few seasons. Go back further and there you'll find that poor attendance was the rule rather than the exception.

 

Wrigley isn't a golden goose. It's a dilapidated [expletive] in dire need of renovations the neighborhood and city seem loath to allow. The product drives attendance, just like anywhere else.

 

No one wants to see the team moved to [expletive] Rosemont or Schaumburg, but if the powers that be keep dicking around with the team's right to maintain their own facility, it is a scenario that needs to be entertained (or at least seriously threatened).

 

Now we're going with last year's team would've drawn close to the same amount in Rosemont? lol

 

Did I say that? I'm simply arguing against the notion that Wrigley is going to draw regardless, as if it is some exception to the rule, a "golden goose". It's not.

 

If the Cubs are bad, the stadium won't be full. And with relatively little advertising dollars being derived from the park itself, the net result might not be worse financially than with a bad team and a park in the 'burbs. Now if the neighborhood/city relent and the Ricketts can proceed with their plan, that's a whole other thing, then Wrigley becomes a money machine. But the point in all of this discussion is how to bring that to pass, because the old dump isn't laying any golden eggs right now.

[Pushfrog98]

I know it's apples and oranges, but having worked in Higher Ed the last decade, we fear having to base budgets on enrollment. We much rather have enough coming in via donations/grants/etc.

 

I'd have to think pro sports teams are similar in that the "other" revenue means as much or more than attendance. If this is the case, a new stadium w/ more night games and advertising would be more valuable to the team than the possible slight drop off in attendance. The key is knowing when that drop off is more than the increased revenue from other areas. There's a lot of hearsay about what location changes would do to attendance, but I'm sure if any move was considered, they'd be using more than just random opinions.

[Guest]

Asses in seats drives advertisement revenue.

[Pushfrog98]

Asses in seats drives advertisement revenue.

But what is the breaking point?

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably around 400 pounds.

[Guest]

Probably around 400 pounds.

 

hahahahaha

[Guest]

Asses in seats drives advertisement revenue.

Not nearly as much as eyeballs on TV's.

[Pushfrog98]

http://imgur.com/gallery/iujG3m7

[jersey cubs fan]

Did I say that? I'm simply arguing against the notion that Wrigley is going to draw regardless, as if it is some exception to the rule, a "golden goose". It's not.

 

Of course Wrigley draws regardless. The Cubs drew nearly 3 million people last year to see a [expletive] awful team plays its third consecutive awful season. That's half a million more than the Mets who still have a newish ballpark and played a similarly awful season. Attendance is down from the peak but it's still phenomenal.

 

Wrigley won't sell out every game no matter the record. But denying that Wrigley is a draw is taking the argument way beyond anything resembling a reasonable opinion.

Edited March 22, 2013 by jersey cubs fan

[jersey cubs fan]

Asses in seats drives advertisement revenue.

Not nearly as much as eyeballs on TV's.

 

MLB isn't NFL. Attendance matters. We're talking about millions in revenue every single game, 81 dates a year. The television fees are growing, but it's still a market where 600,000 eyeballs is considered solid. That is nothing. The Cubs sold 2.88 million tickets last year at an average cost over $40. That's the organization's bread basket.

[XZero771679666304]

Did I say that? I'm simply arguing against the notion that Wrigley is going to draw regardless, as if it is some exception to the rule, a "golden goose". It's not.

 

Of course Wrigley draws regardless. The Cubs drew nearly 3 million people last year to see a [expletive] awful team plays its third consecutive awful season. That's half a million more than the Mets who still have a newish ballpark and played a similarly awful season. Attendance is down from the peak but it's still phenomenal.

 

Wrigley won't sell out every game no matter the record. But denying that Wrigley is a draw is taking the argument way beyond anything resembling a reasonable opinion.

 

Interpreting my statement in the most extreme manner possible.

 

Of course Wrigley is a draw, but not nearly enough of one to ride on that alone. Go check out attendance numbers going back 20 or 30 years; there is no guarantee of great attendance. The facts bear this out.

 

People are turning out on the back of their memories of Sammy Sosa, '03-04', '07-'08 and the Epstein honeymoon, but attendance is waning, and will continue to wane until the on field product improves. I mean, it wasn't that long ago when the Cubs didn't even draw two million, let alone three. People's memory on this issue is really short.

 

If the rebuild went sideways and the team were terrible with no headline act like Sosa, and the renovations never happen, the team could find itself in a very bad financial way relative to the other large market teams. There's no sweet TV deal or huge advertising revenue to fall back on. Wrigley is a draw, but it is not some kind of golden goose that will keep the masses enthralled and coffers full on its own merits.

[jersey cubs fan]

Did I say that? I'm simply arguing against the notion that Wrigley is going to draw regardless, as if it is some exception to the rule, a "golden goose". It's not.

 

Of course Wrigley draws regardless. The Cubs drew nearly 3 million people last year to see a [expletive] awful team plays its third consecutive awful season. That's half a million more than the Mets who still have a newish ballpark and played a similarly awful season. Attendance is down from the peak but it's still phenomenal.

 

Wrigley won't sell out every game no matter the record. But denying that Wrigley is a draw is taking the argument way beyond anything resembling a reasonable opinion.

 

Interpreting my statement in the most extreme manner possible.

 

Of course Wrigley is a draw, but not nearly enough of one to ride on that alone. Go check out attendance numbers going back 20 or 30 years; there is no guarantee of great attendance. The facts bear this out.

 

They really don't. The team has played three consecutive seasons of awful baseball. They have had only one really great seasons in the past 20 years and only 2 playoff appearances in the past nine years and they still drew over 2.8 million people. That is phenomenal and is directly due to the fact that they play in Wrigley Field. Wrigley offers a buffer in bad seasons that other stadiums do not. They cannot go on forever as a 70 win team and expect to draw, but as long as they stay relevant and succeed on occasion Wrigley will sell. That is a huge benefit to the team.

 

I cannot imagine they have much interest in spending $1B on a stadium in the suburbs only to risk losing that draw.

[J.R.]

As an out-of-town fan, I can confidently say that the desirability of seeing the Cubs play a home game in person declines markedly if they are located in bum [expletive] Illinois.

 

The environment surrounding an urban ballpark is absolutely electric. Taking Wrigley out of the discussion for a moment, there is no comparison between parks in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh - purposely built in the densest points of their respective cities - and the parks in Atlanta and Arlington, TX, which were built where the land was cheapest (adjacent to their old parks and already under government control,) the Interstate ramps were wide and the parking plentiful. I reference these because I have visited all of them recently, and the experience is just better when the park is not bordered by miles of asphalt.

 

The Cubs could not credibly play in a place like Schaumburg. It would be a joke, much like the Red Sox playing in a place like Foxboro or the Yankees taking up residence in the Meadowlands. It is too idiotic to even consider. There is an excellent reason why the majority of the new parks were built closer to their respective city centers than the parks they replaced.

 

The suburban ballpark is a dinosaur in today's MLB, which has embraced Wrigleyville as the archetype for its ideal environs (if not Tunney as the ideal community partner.) The Rosemont proposition is straight out of the distant past.

[UMFan83]

I wouldn't say Rosemont is bum [expletive]. It borders the city and about a 15-20 minute drive to the Loop so its not like it's in St. Charles or something.

[J.R.]

I've been to Rosemont, and relative to Lakeview, it is most certainly bum [expletive].

[Geech]

They really don't. The team has played three consecutive seasons of awful baseball. They have had only one really great seasons in the past 20 years and only 2 playoff appearances in the past nine years and they still drew over 2.8 million people. That is phenomenal and is directly due to the fact that they play in Wrigley Field. Wrigley offers a buffer in bad seasons that other stadiums do not. They cannot go on forever as a 70 win team and expect to draw, but as long as they stay relevant and succeed on occasion Wrigley will sell. That is a huge benefit to the team.

 

I cannot imagine they have much interest in spending $1B on a stadium in the suburbs only to risk losing that draw.

 

This is an assertion without evidence. You're making Wrigley the sole reason that Cubs draw better than other teams for no other reason than the fact that it fits your preferred narrative.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think it's the logo.

[Geech]

I think it's the logo.

 

Well, surely it's one of those two things!