Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77767073/

 

Like this:

 

Keeping the pots separate also may help ensure that the funds the Rickettses raise for the hotel and plaza are not defined as "baseball-related" under league rules and therefore not factored into the amount the Cubs must dedicate to smaller-market teams under the league's revenue-sharing agreement, team and W Partners officials confirmed. Ultimately, Major League Baseball will make the determination.

 

Plz go in our favor

Is it true though that the Cubs can't spend non-baseball revenue on the team because of tax implications due to the sale and Sam Zell's ownership stake? I remember hearing somewhere that the Cubs can't dedicate any outside funds to payroll until the tax agreement with Zell has run its course.

 

That's the word out there but I'm thinking beyond those 3 years.

[bhogg]

What kind of restriction are we looking at? Do we have to have a payroll akin to the 69 Seattle pilots or can we put together a upper middle kind of payroll? Where does the Soriano contract come into play?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What kind of restriction are we looking at? Do we have to have a payroll akin to the 69 Seattle pilots or can we put together a upper middle kind of payroll? Where does the Soriano contract come into play?

 

That depends on how much we spend on the renovations and how much attendance keeps falling.

 

Soriano's contact comes into play in that we are paying for a lot it, so it comes out of the budget.

[Guest]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-proposes-more-changes-to-wrigley-field-plan-20131016,0,3941490.story

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't know where this belongs, but the Cubs appear to be selling every flag used last season...and some random W flags from specific games. Have they always done this and I've just missed it, or are they re-designing the flags?...or #PoorTomRicketts?

[Guest]

I don't know where this belongs, but the Cubs appear to be selling every flag used last season...and some random W flags from specific games. Have they always done this and I've just missed it, or are they re-designing the flags?...or #PoorTomRicketts?

Well, I saw the ad for the Banks flag said something about used since June 2013 or something. Maybe they change them up periodically and sell them.

[SouthSideRyan]

Meant to include the link: http://auction.mlb.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ExecMacro/feature.d2w/report?wl=33072944&sort=team&teamname=Cubs

[seanimal]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-proposes-more-changes-to-wrigley-field-plan-20131016,0,3941490.story

 

lol what possible incentive would the rooftops have to agree to not sue the club? of course they're going to sue if they block their vantage point, wtf did they expect?

[Guest]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-proposes-more-changes-to-wrigley-field-plan-20131016,0,3941490.story

 

lol what possible incentive would the rooftops have to agree to not sue the club? of course they're going to sue if they block their vantage point, wtf did they expect?

 

maybe they're waiting for the city to tell the rooftops to [expletive] off. rahm wants this to happen.

 

the only other incentive would be the winning team that they won't be able to put on the field for much longer unless they get renovations done...but that's a reach.

[seanimal]

what power does the city have to tell the rooftops not to sue?

[Sammys Boombox]

I remember in 2004 they were selling all of these flags at a flat-rate during the last homestand of the season in a makeshift gift shop.

[Johnny Sleeper]

what power does the city have to tell the rooftops not to sue?

 

 

Since the city would be the jurisdiction of the law suit they can take the stance that the contract would not be in breach by obstructing some of the view. Without going through the contracts I have no idea how specific the language is, but it could have language that says they are guaranteed a certain number of viewable seats or how much of an unobstructed view they are guaranteed. It could also be that there are no provisions in the contract guaranteeing an unobstructed view in which case the city will pressure the judge to dismiss the case. This would be an overreach of powers, but again this is Chicago we are talking about. The other thing the city could do is to suddenly find a zoning problem and shut down the rooftop owners taking it out of the hands of the courts.

[davell]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77823550/

 

 

 

Pressure to make the team good again and soon?

[Guest]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77823550/

 

 

 

Pressure to make the team good again and soon?

 

The deal existing is $10M...how much are they going to throw at the big league team to keep from losing even as much as half of that?

[davell]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77823550/

 

 

 

Pressure to make the team good again and soon?

 

The deal existing is $10M...how much are they going to throw at the big league team to keep from losing even as much as half of that?

To me, it's the bigger picture. The WGN TV deal is implicated in my mind. I'm as big a believer in Theo as anyone here, but if I'm negotiating against the Cubs, I'm certainly basing it off recent results and not the future.

 

Does this mean we need to produce a 95 win team next year? No. But to keep people watching, they need to be more competitive obviously. Even a .500ish team with some youth showing up and helping at some point during the season is probably enough to help with the ratings a fair amount.

 

But if you want WGN and/or Comcast to up the ante and give out the mega deal, it's not coming from the promise of future success. It's got to be further along in the process than where it currently is. Especially if they go the route of just Comcast, where you'd want them to tear up their current agreement, which is in place thru 2019.

[Banedon]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77823550/

 

 

 

Pressure to make the team good again and soon?

 

The deal existing is $10M...how much are they going to throw at the big league team to keep from losing even as much as half of that?

To me, it's the bigger picture. The WGN TV deal is implicated in my mind. I'm as big a believer in Theo as anyone here, but if I'm negotiating against the Cubs, I'm certainly basing it off recent results and not the future.

 

Does this mean we need to produce a 95 win team next year? No. But to keep people watching, they need to be more competitive obviously. Even a .500ish team with some youth showing up and helping at some point during the season is probably enough to help with the ratings a fair amount.

 

But if you want WGN and/or Comcast to up the ante and give out the mega deal, it's not coming from the promise of future success. It's got to be further along in the process than where it currently is. Especially if they go the route of just Comcast, where you'd want them to tear up their current agreement, which is in place thru 2019.

 

I don't think the Cubs are all that interested in WGN TV anyway.

[apete6]

The way this is playing out is making the Ricketts look extremely bad. I'm sure it will all end up being fine, but at this point in time, the Cubs are a laughingstock not only on the field, but off of it. If not for the Astros incompetence on the field and with the Comcast Houston debacle, the Cubs would be the worst organization in baseball (adjusted for market and resources).

[Vinestal]

The way this is playing out is making the Ricketts look extremely bad. I'm sure it will all end up being fine, but at this point in time, the Cubs are a laughingstock not only on the field, but off of it. If not for the Astros incompetence on the field and with the Comcast Houston debacle, the Cubs would be the worst organization in baseball (adjusted for market and resources).

I personally don't see how. it makes the rooftop owners look bad. I don't live in Chicago but its hard for me to understand why anyone would be mad at the Ricketts family when they are fully funding this thing. Especially since the Whitesox are playing in a fully public funded stadium. I sure don't blame them for not starting construction when the rooftops could sue and have anything they start halted. That would be a huge waste of money.

[jersey cubs fan]

The way this is playing out is making the Ricketts look extremely bad. I'm sure it will all end up being fine, but at this point in time, the Cubs are a laughingstock not only on the field, but off of it. If not for the Astros incompetence on the field and with the Comcast Houston debacle, the Cubs would be the worst organization in baseball (adjusted for market and resources).

I personally don't see how. it makes the rooftop owners look bad. I don't live in Chicago but its hard for me to understand why anyone would be mad at the Ricketts family when they are fully funding this thing. Especially since the Whitesox are playing in a fully public funded stadium. I sure don't blame them for not starting construction when the rooftops could sue and have anything they start halted. That would be a huge waste of money.

 

A billion dollar organization run by people with all sorts of top notch education versus a couple bar owners and a local hack politician? All of this was known before the purchase went through. If you can't run your business because of potential fallout related to an agreement (which pales in comparison from a financial standpoint) your own business president structured then you are a complete mess.

[seanimal]

i totally agree with goony

 

gonna go shower now

[Soul]

I don't live in Chicago but its hard for me to understand why anyone would be mad at the Ricketts family when they are fully funding this thing.

 

In my view, it's not this aspect that makes them look bad. It's the fact that they are allowing this situation to rule the way they are running the ballclub. It's limiting the on-field product. That can't be allowed to happen -- not if they want to be considered top notch ownership.

[Guest]

what power does the city have to tell the rooftops not to sue?

 

This is not meant as an "i told you so" or something by any means (and this excerpt certainly wouldn't qualify as such)...just an example of what my line of (very uninformed) thinking was.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/10/18/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-night-game-change-outfield-bump-out-signage-battle/

 

Interestingly, though, the Mayor included in his ordinances a request that the Cubs be permitted to put up their outfield signs with “minimal further red tape,” per the Tribune report. Does that mean the Mayor’s Office will actually be leaning, somehow, on the rooftops to get construction started? A source told the Sun-Times earlier this month that, because the Mayor was helping the Cubs on the above items, he expected them to get construction underway soon.

 

As these renovation pieces all seem to end these days: we’ll see what happens.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-proposes-more-changes-to-wrigley-field-plan-20131016,0,3941490.story

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/10/03/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-three-lingering-issues-reportedly-resolved/

[jersey cubs fan]

what power does the city have to tell the rooftops not to sue?

 

This is not meant as an "i told you so" or something by any means (and this excerpt certainly wouldn't qualify as such)...just an example of what my line of (very uninformed) thinking was.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/10/18/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-night-game-change-outfield-bump-out-signage-battle/

 

Interestingly, though, the Mayor included in his ordinances a request that the Cubs be permitted to put up their outfield signs with “minimal further red tape,” per the Tribune report. Does that mean the Mayor’s Office will actually be leaning, somehow, on the rooftops to get construction started? A source told the Sun-Times earlier this month that, because the Mayor was helping the Cubs on the above items, he expected them to get construction underway soon.

 

As these renovation pieces all seem to end these days: we’ll see what happens.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-proposes-more-changes-to-wrigley-field-plan-20131016,0,3941490.story

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/10/03/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-three-lingering-issues-reportedly-resolved/

 

All that indicates is that the mayor wants to fast track the actual paperwork required with the city to start a construction project, it doesn't tell us anything about the rooftops. Red tape is a bureaucracy thing, not a civil litigation issue.

[Guest]

what power does the city have to tell the rooftops not to sue?

 

This is not meant as an "i told you so" or something by any means (and this excerpt certainly wouldn't qualify as such)...just an example of what my line of (very uninformed) thinking was.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/10/18/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-night-game-change-outfield-bump-out-signage-battle/

 

Interestingly, though, the Mayor included in his ordinances a request that the Cubs be permitted to put up their outfield signs with “minimal further red tape,” per the Tribune report. Does that mean the Mayor’s Office will actually be leaning, somehow, on the rooftops to get construction started? A source told the Sun-Times earlier this month that, because the Mayor was helping the Cubs on the above items, he expected them to get construction underway soon.

 

As these renovation pieces all seem to end these days: we’ll see what happens.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-proposes-more-changes-to-wrigley-field-plan-20131016,0,3941490.story

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/10/03/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-three-lingering-issues-reportedly-resolved/

 

All that indicates is that the mayor wants to fast track the actual paperwork required with the city to start a construction project, it doesn't tell us anything about the rooftops. Red tape is a bureaucracy thing, not a civil litigation issue.

 

I understand that. I also understand that the city does a lot of shady [expletive] that they shouldn't and could see some sort of pressure being exerted on the rooftops to get them to back off. Something like what Johnny Sleeper described.

 

We still don't know how much of a leg to stand on the rooftops have. If they didn't have one, you wouldn't think the Cubs would be worried about it...but if they did, you wouldn't have thought the Cubs would have been so adamant about moving forward earlier in this year. Dan Bernstein had reported back in May or April that the Cubs' lawyers were confident that the rooftops couldn't muddy up the works and any attempt at litigation from them would only be a minor annoyance. Kyle half-joked the other day that maybe the Cubs are just fronting with the concern about the rooftops suing and really they just don't have money to start the project.

[seanimal]

well, kyle's posit makes no sense, so it has to be that there is a legitimate threat that litigation will result and that there is some expectation that the result would go against the team