Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Derwood]

How many years did they not pay for it, though?

[Geech]

"We’re not stealing their product because we pay them,” Murphy said on WSCR-AM 670's "The Mully and Hanley Show." “I don’t think it’s very much different from if you get the Major League package from Comcast or wherever and people come to your bar to watch the Blue Jays.”

 

The owner of Murphy's Bleachers also said: “I absolutely believe there’s a deal to be made. I keep making the point that we don’t have a seat at the table, so some of this is happening around us. … I think we can reach some type of consensus and I’m hopeful that we will.”

 

Well, the really really really obvious difference is that bar broadcasting Comcast isn't getting in the way of the Blue Jays renovating the stadium. So, you know, there's that.

[Guest]

Looks like the walls just might be moving.

 

If they do that, they should use some (I'm sure some will be used for concessions and stuff) of that space to put bullpens back there.'

 

EDIT - For those who don't know what I'm talking about...

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/19424461-418/wrigley-deal-said-to-be-close-and-include-extending-right-and-left-field-walls.html

 

The mayor’s optimistic outlook about a deal that appeared to be sealed a week ago comes amid word that the right- and left-field walls of 99-year-old Wrigley would be extended as much as ten feet outward — taking out the sidewalk on Sheffield and a lane of traffic on Waveland — to give the Cubs more concession space and mitigate the impact of a giant video scoreboard in left and a see-through sign in right on rooftop clubs overlooking Wrigley.

 

The Cubs plan also includes a proposed ornamental bridge across Clark Street that would allow guests staying at the hotel the Cubs plan to easily access a new office building expected to include conference rooms. Those air rights over Clark may trigger compensation to Chicago taxpayers.

 

Both sides agreed that demolishing the outfield walls in right- and left-fields was part of the plan, but the motive depends on whom you talk to.

 

The Cubs insist the move was being made solely to preserve rooftop views and mitigate blockage caused by the two new signs that will help bankroll a $300 million renovation of the landmark ballpark.

 

“The plan would be to move the wall as far back as possible so the Jumbotron would have less impact on rooftop views. There’s still some impact. But by moving it closer to the rooftops, their patrons would be able to look over the Jumbotron instead of having it block their views. Same with the sign in right,” said a source close to the Cubs.

 

“It does open up opportunities for us inside the ballpark — by making the concourses wider and opening up additional concession space beneath the bleachers. But, this particular idea originated based on the desire to accommodate the rooftops, period.”

 

City Hall had a different take.

 

“The Cubs came to us and said, ‘We’re landlocked. We need to get maximum use out of Wrigley Field.’ This way, they can expand their footprint even though they’re in a landlocked situation,” said a top mayoral aide, who asked to remain anonymous.

 

“This is not being done for the rooftops. We’re doing this to help the Cubs. But, there is an added benefit that will further reduce the impact on [rooftop] sight lines.”

[UMFan83]

Interesting. So are they going to have to rebuild the bleachers again after just doing it 5 years ago?

 

I'm guessing if they are getting rid of the sidewalk and one lane on Waveland they will get approval to shut down the street before, during and after games.

[Cubswin11]

"Don't block our views, but feel free to remove an entire [expletive] sidewalk and lane of a road in our neighborhood!"

[jersey cubs fan]

Both sides agreed that demolishing the outfield walls in right- and left-fields was part of the plan, but the motive depends on whom you talk to.

 

The Cubs insist the move was being made solely to preserve rooftop views and mitigate blockage caused by the two new signs that will help bankroll a $300 million renovation of the landmark ballpark.

 

“The plan would be to move the wall as far back as possible so the Jumbotron would have less impact on rooftop views. There’s still some impact. But by moving it closer to the rooftops, their patrons would be able to look over the Jumbotron instead of having it block their views. Same with the sign in right,” said a source close to the Cubs.

 

“It does open up opportunities for us inside the ballpark — by making the concourses wider and opening up additional concession space beneath the bleachers. But, this particular idea originated based on the desire to accommodate the rooftops, period.”

 

City Hall had a different take.

 

“The Cubs came to us and said, ‘We’re landlocked. We need to get maximum use out of Wrigley Field.’ This way, they can expand their footprint even though they’re in a landlocked situation,” said a top mayoral aide, who asked to remain anonymous.

 

“This is not being done for the rooftops. We’re doing this to help the Cubs. But, there is an added benefit that will further reduce the impact on [rooftop] sight lines.”

 

Not surprising, but that's an odd bit of nitpicking, to say they are doing it for the Cubs, not the rooftops. Of course the only reason anything is being agreed upon is first and foremost, because of the Cubs. They want to be able to maximize what they have to work with. That's the entire point of this discussion.

[WrigleyField 22]

Honestly, the long term goal for the cubs should be to remove regular traffic from waveland and sheffield permanently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cubswin11]

Honestly, the long term goal for the cubs should be to remove regular traffic from waveland and sheffield permanently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. And to bankrupt the rooftops so they can buy them out and either re-develop the area on Waveland/Sheffield or own the rooftops and continue running them as is.

[Guest]

For anyone looking to have an idea of the size of a 6000 sq. ft. screen, the center one at Yankee Stadium is 103'x58' (5,974 sq. ft.).

[Ryne Ween]

Im not really understanding why everybody hates the rooftops so much. Ive been up there a couple times and had a decent time. The Cubs dont own that land and under an agreement to not block their views. You can definately argue that the rooftops have added to the atmosphere that makes the cubs one of the most valuable franchises in pro sports.

 

ETA: As a fan I dont want a jumbotron because they are stupid looking and unnecessary. I dont think that the local ads they would run would drive revenue materially and I think the relatively austere aesthetic of the park best serves the team intact.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Ryne Ween

[jersey cubs fan]

Im not really understanding why everybody hates the rooftops so much. Ive been up there a couple times and had a decent time. The Cubs dont own that land and under an agreement to not block their views. You can definately argue that the rooftops have added to the atmosphere that makes the cubs one of the most valuable franchises in pro sports.

 

They are leaches who profit off of the Cubs and bribe politicians to make life harder on the Cubs than it should be. They devalue the team.

 

It's also a god awful way to watch a game.

[jersey cubs fan]

ETA: As a fan I dont want a jumbotron because they are stupid looking and unnecessary. I dont think that the local ads they would run would drive revenue materially and I think the relatively austere aesthetic of the park best serves the team intact.

 

The revenue would be meaningful and the asthetic is meaningless if you can't produce the team to be good enough.

[Guest]

Im not really understanding why everybody hates the rooftops so much. Ive been up there a couple times and had a decent time. The Cubs dont own that land and under an agreement to not block their views. You can definately argue that the rooftops have added to the atmosphere that makes the cubs one of the most valuable franchises in pro sports.

 

Or they might not be anymore.

 

Or it might not matter if the government approves the changes.

 

And no you can't really argue that they've added to the atmosphere. Maybe the old "couple of guys sitting on the roof grilling" added some cool charm. The monstrosities up there now are just eyesores. If you're really positing that idea, about how much of the Cubs' value do you think is owed to the rooftops?

[Ryne Ween]

They are leaches who profit off of the Cubs and bribe politicians to make life harder on the Cubs than it should be. They devalue the team.

 

They negotiated a contract with the Cubs to do their thing. Im not sure what harm they are currently doing other than trying to enforce it.

[Banedon]

How many people are coming to games because of the rooftops? Come on.

[Guest]

Im not really understanding why everybody hates the rooftops so much. Ive been up there a couple times and had a decent time. The Cubs dont own that land and under an agreement to not block their views. You can definately argue that the rooftops have added to the atmosphere that makes the cubs one of the most valuable franchises in pro sports.

 

They are leaches who profit off of the Cubs and bribe politicians to make life harder on the Cubs than it should be. They devalue the team.

 

It's also a god awful way to watch a game.

 

All of this.

[XZero771679666304]

If someone waved a magic wand and the rooftops were gone, the effect on the Cubs would be negligible at best. Edited April 12, 2013 by XZero77

[Ryne Ween]

And no you can't really argue that they've added to the atmosphere. Maybe the old "couple of guys sitting on the roof grilling" added some cool charm. The monstrosities up there now are just eyesores. If you're really positing that idea, about how much of the Cubs' value do you think is owed to the rooftops?

 

Youre probably right here. The new incarnation of the rooftops doesnt add charm, whereas the prior I think probably did. So when they were infringing on the cubs property they were adding a bit of charm and since the agreement they are providing the consideration to do what they are doing.

 

So basically im not gonna fault them for advocating for their businesses and trying to enforce their contract.

[jersey cubs fan]

And no you can't really argue that they've added to the atmosphere. Maybe the old "couple of guys sitting on the roof grilling" added some cool charm. The monstrosities up there now are just eyesores. If you're really positing that idea, about how much of the Cubs' value do you think is owed to the rooftops?

 

Youre probably right here. The new incarnation of the rooftops doesnt add charm, whereas the prior I think probably did. So when they were infringing on the cubs property they were adding a bit of charm and since the agreement they are providing the consideration to do what they are doing.

 

So basically im not gonna fault them for advocating for their businesses and trying to enforce their contract.

 

You're for the bribing of politicians and against the Cubs?

[Ryne Ween]

You're for the bribing of politicians and against the Cubs?

 

Pretty simplistic. Contributing is pretty much their only way to get an advocate. The cubs have and im sure use leverage points and contacts in the city. If it were so simple the Cubs would save a ton of money and throw $200k at Tunney have him flip his position and be done with it.

[XZero771679666304]

And no you can't really argue that they've added to the atmosphere. Maybe the old "couple of guys sitting on the roof grilling" added some cool charm. The monstrosities up there now are just eyesores. If you're really positing that idea, about how much of the Cubs' value do you think is owed to the rooftops?

 

Youre probably right here. The new incarnation of the rooftops doesnt add charm, whereas the prior I think probably did. So when they were infringing on the cubs property they were adding a bit of charm and since the agreement they are providing the consideration to do what they are doing.

 

So basically im not gonna fault them for advocating for their businesses and trying to enforce their contract.

 

Advocating their business is one thing, but their notion that relationship is somehow strongly symbiotic is preposterous. It's a parasite/host relationship.

[Ryne Ween]

The 17% revenue they get from the rooftops is a bonus to the extent that not blocking the views doesnt reduce revenue from additional signage. So its not that parasitic. And Id think those two sides would be firmly alligned when it comes to night-games, which in terms of additional revenue is a game-changer and absolutely dwarfs the revenue impact of a Bobak's vs Al's race or whatever other hell is gonna go on the jumbotron.

[jersey cubs fan]

The 17% revenue they get from the rooftops is a bonus to the extent that not blocking the views doesnt reduce revenue from additional signage. So its not that parasitic. And Id think those two sides would be firmly alligned when it comes to night-games, which in terms of additional revenue is a game-changer and absolutely dwarfs the revenue impact of a Bobak's vs Al's race or whatever other hell is gonna go on the jumbotron.

 

People who would otherwise spend money to attend games at Wrigley are siphoned off into the rooftops. It's a parasite. They have fought any and all types of upgrades to Wrigley, including bleacher expansion, because their only way of remaining an ongoing enterprise is by maintaining the status quo in Wrigley Field.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

At the time the deal was signed, it was seen as an indirect way to expand Wrigley, which was always sold out and always would be for a long time, or so it was believed.

[Guest]

At the time the deal was signed, it was seen as an indirect way to expand Wrigley, which was always sold out and always would be for a long time, or so it was believed.

 

No, it wasn't. It resulted in a lower scale bleacher expansion. Had they not had to appease them, those extra seats would be in Wrigley.