Wrigley Renovation Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

and "Jim Hendry," can be subbed in for, "a former major league GM who is currently scouting for another franchise?"

 

I would doubt that, because the implication is Jim Hendry did a god awful job when he had a chance to make them a powerhouse.

[Pushfrog98]

Safe to say that, "Crane Kenney," can be substituted in for his Cubs source, and "Jim Hendry," can be subbed in for, "a former major league GM who is currently scouting for another franchise?"

I was thinking the same thing about Jim Hendry.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

I still can't believe the clowns in the previous regime gave the rooftop owners a twenty year deal...

[Cubswin11]

I still can't believe the clowns in the previous regime gave the rooftop owners a twenty year deal...

Really? We are talking about the Tribune here, I'm surprised they didn't give them a longer deal. They proved that they were completely inept at running a baseball team. They did a terrible job of maximizing revenues.

[Guest]

(CBS) Despite reports that a Wrigley Field renovation is expected to be agreed upon before Monday’s home opener, the rooftop owners are still unhappy with the negotiations.

It is expected that the Cubs will be able to build a new video scoreboard in left field and it will impact some of the views from the Waveland rooftops.

Friday, the Wrigleyville Rooftops Association reiterated that any construction that interrupts the rooftop views will effectually drive them out of business and vowed to fight the Cubs in court.

“We reserve judgment until said proposals are publicized, however we are deeply troubled that 16 small businesses were not party to talks where their contractual rights were at stake,” Beth Murphy, owner of Murphy’s Bleachers and spokesperson for the Wrigleyville Rooftops Association, said in a statement. “Rooftop owners reserve the right to use any and all means necessary to enforce the remaining 11 years of our 20-year contract. We support a renovated Wrigley Field, but the neighborhood and its businesses should be partners in the debate as we have over the last 30 years.”

 

 

lol at them

[GammonsPocketTweets]

Rickett's lawyers vs rooftop lawyers. I like the Cub's odds.

[Guest]

I really wish that that deal were finalized and the Cubs released a statement like "We are deeply troubled that previous ownership stooped to entering into a contract with parasites who seek to profit off of our product, and look forward to the day when those parasites are no longer expending government resources and influence trying to harm the host they leech upon."

[Banedon]

I'm not gonna lie, I was hoping that the Cubs would buy their way out of that contract.

[Guest]

I'm not gonna lie, I was hoping that the Cubs would buy their way out of that contract.

 

I'm guessing they don't need to.

[UMFan83]

I really wish that that deal were finalized and the Cubs released a statement like "We are deeply troubled that previous ownership stooped to entering into a contract with parasites who seek to profit off of our product, and look forward to the day when those parasites are no longer expending government resources and influence trying to harm the host they leech upon."

 

I don't think they'd throw Kenney under the bus like that, but I'd love that too.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm not gonna lie, I was hoping that the Cubs would buy their way out of that contract.

 

I'm guessing they don't need to.

 

 

IIRC, the wording was such that after a certain number of years (which has passed) the contract didn't offer much protection of the rooftop views.

[MSG T]

I'm not gonna lie, I was hoping that the Cubs would buy their way out of that contract.

 

I'm guessing they don't need to.

 

 

IIRC, the wording was such that after a certain number of years (which has passed) the contract didn't offer much protection of the rooftop views.

 

 

A while back, Brett linked an article saying essentially that any expansion of Wrigley that was approved by government wouldn't be a violation of the rooftop deal.

 

I can't see the original, it's behind a pay/register wall at the Trib, but here's Brett's article with an embedded link.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/02/04/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-some-reported-details-about-the-contract-with-the-rooftops/

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All it takes is one judge with a weird interpretation.

 

I'm guessing a lot of the language is vague because hammering it out would have made it harder to reach a deal and that was future people's problem.

[J.R.]

I still can't believe the clowns in the previous regime gave the rooftop owners a twenty year deal...

Really? We are talking about the Tribune here, I'm surprised they didn't give them a longer deal. They proved that they were completely inept at running a baseball team. They did a terrible job of maximizing revenues.

The die was cast when they failed to buy up the neighborhood in 1981. They could have bought every surrounding structure for chump change.

[MSG T]

I just happened to think, I was perusing Youtube the other day and ran across the Glenallen Hill HR video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wDrw76ieTs. It was interesting to look back and see how little the rooftops were built up. They all looked like they had bleachers, but most looked like something you'd see at the local Little League field. And that was in 2000 (IIRC)

 

And that compared to the time I went to one (an early April series and the rooftop was freaking cold) around 20-ish years ago, and none of the rooftops had any seating, you had to stand to see.

[Guest]

I just happened to think, I was perusing Youtube the other day and ran across the Glenallen Hill HR video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wDrw76ieTs. It was interesting to look back and see how little the rooftops were built up. They all looked like they had bleachers, but most looked like something you'd see at the local Little League field. And that was in 2000 (IIRC)

 

And that compared to the time I went to one (an early April series and the rooftop was freaking cold) around 20-ish years ago, and none of the rooftops had any seating, you had to stand to see.

 

They built them up quite a bit after the agreement.

[Cubswin11]

Tom, you magnificent bastard, you appear to have done it again. =D>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/edstevensiscool/2-2.jpg

[Sammy Sofa]

I still can't believe the clowns in the previous regime gave the rooftop owners a twenty year deal...

Really? We are talking about the Tribune here, I'm surprised they didn't give them a longer deal. They proved that they were completely inept at running a baseball team. They did a terrible job of maximizing revenues.

The die was cast when they failed to buy up the neighborhood in 1981. They could have bought every surrounding structure for chump change.

 

Why 1981?

[J.R.]

That was when they bought out the Wrigleys, and the neighborhood was in tatters.

[Sammy Sofa]

That was when they bought out the Wrigleys, and the neighborhood was in tatters.

 

Ah, gotcha; I wasn't sure if there was something specific in regards to the neighborhood.

[J.R.]

Consider the wildly divergent paths this situation could have careened down from the point that the club was first put up for sale in 2007.

 

Zell's original intent was to sell the park and team separately. He then tried to have the state take ownership of the park. The neighborhood NIMBYs did all they could to force the team out.

 

Now, the team will retain complete control of the assets at Clark and Addison, with the added benefit of unlocking revenue streams heretofore forbidden and wresting other sources of income from the parasitic rooftop owners. A defanged Tunney is just gravy.

 

I am rather happy with our ownership at this point.

[dfnowak]

I'm not gonna lie, I was hoping that the Cubs would buy their way out of that contract.

 

I'm guessing they don't need to.

 

 

IIRC, the wording was such that after a certain number of years (which has passed) the contract didn't offer much protection of the rooftop views.

I thought the contract was more about what the rooftop owners would pay the Cubs for stealing their product and less about what the Cubs can and cannot do regarding blocking the rooftop views. So, maybe Ricketts has just been gentlemanly and neighborly with the rooftop owners this whole time including this deal where the views would only be "minimally blocked" by the new signage?

[Banedon]

I'm not gonna lie, I was hoping that the Cubs would buy their way out of that contract.

 

I'm guessing they don't need to.

 

 

IIRC, the wording was such that after a certain number of years (which has passed) the contract didn't offer much protection of the rooftop views.

 

 

A while back, Brett linked an article saying essentially that any expansion of Wrigley that was approved by government wouldn't be a violation of the rooftop deal.

 

I can't see the original, it's behind a pay/register wall at the Trib, but here's Brett's article with an embedded link.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/02/04/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-some-reported-details-about-the-contract-with-the-rooftops/

 

Heh, this quote is interesting after the threat from the rooftop owners to take this to court....

 

"What we are trying to do is resolve this right now," Jim Lourgos, one of the rooftop club owners, said recently during a visit to Tribune Tower. "If you're in court on something like this, my feeling has always been that by the time you're in court, you've already lost."

[USSoccer]

http://deadspin.com/if-the-chicago-cubs-want-their-big-renovation-its-tim-470999748

 

What a terrible article.

[J.R.]

(Tom Ricketts) refused to put a price on abandoning Wrigley Field.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-spt-0407-haugh-chicago-20130407,0,7103172.column