Wrigley Renovation Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

Can the Ricketts afford the legal expenses of a lawsuit? Seems like a sound strategy by the rooftop owners.

 

You'd think this thing would be so lopsided, but with the way the Cubs are seemingly desperate to avoid a lawsuit it's pretty worrisome.

 

That's where the story doesn't add up. They should be able to afford better lawyers and handle any lawsuit rather easily, the fact that they are waiting for guarantees that one won't happen (and lawsuits are always going to happen) suggests to me they just don't want to start the project.

[Guest]

Can the Ricketts afford the legal expenses of a lawsuit? Seems like a sound strategy by the rooftop owners.

 

it's sad that we're at the point where i'm not even sure if this is a poor tom ricketts joke. #poortomricketts

 

Hell, I don't know if it's a joke or if I'm serious.

[Guest]

Can the Ricketts afford the legal expenses of a lawsuit? Seems like a sound strategy by the rooftop owners.

 

You'd think this thing would be so lopsided, but with the way the Cubs are seemingly desperate to avoid a lawsuit it's pretty worrisome.

 

That's where the story doesn't add up. They should be able to afford better lawyers and handle any lawsuit rather easily, the fact that they are waiting for guarantees that one won't happen (and lawsuits are always going to happen) suggests to me they just don't want to start the project.

 

What's the likelihood of an injunction stopping construction after it's already started (even if the Cubs appear likely to win the suit)?

[MWV]

That's where the story doesn't add up. They should be able to afford better lawyers and handle any lawsuit rather easily, the fact that they are waiting for guarantees that one won't happen (and lawsuits are always going to happen) suggests to me they just don't want to start the project.

Why would they even propose the project, then? I'm not saying I disagree with you (this whole matter is very confusing and there is a lot of information we aren't privy to), but why go to the length of rolling out these proposed renovations if the end goal is too drag your feet until the project is dead?

[jersey cubs fan]

That's where the story doesn't add up. They should be able to afford better lawyers and handle any lawsuit rather easily, the fact that they are waiting for guarantees that one won't happen (and lawsuits are always going to happen) suggests to me they just don't want to start the project.

Why would they even propose the project, then? I'm not saying I disagree with you (this whole matter is very confusing and there is a lot of information we aren't privy to), but why go to the length of rolling out these proposed renovations if the end goal is too drag your feet until the project is dead?

 

It may have started with the foolish notion that they would have gotten money from the government. But it was also part of the storyline they are selling both season ticket holders and potential television partners. That story being that ownership is gung-ho about pouring money into this team at any moment, just as long as everything else lines up perfectly. They talked big about the construction from day one of their ownership and everybody covering the Cubs knew it needed massive overhaul. They sold Theo on a complete renovation that would mirror Fenway.

 

The threat of a lawsuit is just not a justifiable reason not to begin months ago. Large projects take lots of time and plenty of lawsuits take place. When you have money and city approval, you start, then deal with problems as they come up. That is, unless you were never serious about spending the money.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's where the story doesn't add up. They should be able to afford better lawyers and handle any lawsuit rather easily, the fact that they are waiting for guarantees that one won't happen (and lawsuits are always going to happen) suggests to me they just don't want to start the project.

Why would they even propose the project, then? I'm not saying I disagree with you (this whole matter is very confusing and there is a lot of information we aren't privy to), but why go to the length of rolling out these proposed renovations if the end goal is too drag your feet until the project is dead?

 

It may have started with the foolish notion that they would have gotten money from the government. But it was also part of the storyline they are selling both season ticket holders and potential television partners. That story being that ownership is gung-ho about pouring money into this team at any moment, just as long as everything else lines up perfectly. They talked big about the construction from day one of their ownership and everybody covering the Cubs knew it needed massive overhaul. They sold Theo on a complete renovation that would mirror Fenway.

 

The threat of a lawsuit is just not a justifiable reason not to begin months ago. Large projects take lots of time and plenty of lawsuits take place. When you have money and city approval, you start, then deal with problems as they come up. That is, unless you were never serious about spending the money.

 

I think that they basically got in over their head in terms of what kind of money they'd have and how this would play out is more likely than them effectively making up stories about money they'd never spend.

[SouthSideRyan]

Goony is just saying this because he's mad the FO cut off all his sources

[Sammys Boombox]

I know it has been discussed before, but if the rooftops do sue, what are their odds of success, with the Cubs having the backing of the city?

 

I'm not sure if they even need the city's backing...but I'm guessing their odds are pretty good and that they just wanted to avoid the whole process.

 

The rooftops are desperate and have nowhere else to go, so I wouldn't take the fact that they're willing to go this route to mean that they have or should have any sort of confidence in winning.

 

I'd take the fact that they're putting up the most contentious portion of all of this, the RF sign, now as a decent sign.

 

Maybe putting up the RF sign is the cheapest thing they can do that will anger the rooftops enough to force litigation. Get the litigation out of the way, and then when/if the Cubs win they will complete the rest of the renovations. Instead of sitting around trying to get the RTOs to agree not to sue, force them to sue (or shut up), so the Cubs can get along with the rest of the renovations.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think that they basically got in over their head in terms of what kind of money they'd have and how this would play out is more likely than them effectively making up stories about money they'd never spend.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying is different than what I am saying.

[davell]

Goony on the #PoorTomRicketts train?

[dfnowak]

A little off topic here, but was playing one season in U.S. Cellular Field ever considered an option? Is it even possible? I, for one, would be in favor of it, if it meant getting the renovations done sooner. There could be scheduling problems, but 95% of the time, both the Cubs and Sox aren't in town at the same time anyways. I'd imagine business owners in Wrigleyville wouldn't be in favor of it.

[Guest]

A little off topic here, but was playing one season in U.S. Cellular Field ever considered an option? Is it even possible? I, for one, would be in favor of it, if it meant getting the renovations done sooner. There could be scheduling problems, but 95% of the time, both the Cubs and Sox aren't in town at the same time anyways. I'd imagine business owners in Wrigleyville wouldn't be in favor of it.

 

It came up and the Cubs decided against it. They've said it somewhere along the way.

 

 

Also, for whoever missed it, the Cubs claimed they could finish in 4 years what they originally set out to complete in 5. Just gonna cost them like 10% more.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think that they basically got in over their head in terms of what kind of money they'd have and how this would play out is more likely than them effectively making up stories about money they'd never spend.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying is different than what I am saying.

 

Well, you were saying that maybe they were never serious about spending, which to me sounds like you think they've basically just been lying. I think they do want to do all of things they've talked about, but they've just mostly fucked it up.

[Guest]

A little off topic here, but was playing one season in U.S. Cellular Field ever considered an option? Is it even possible? I, for one, would be in favor of it, if it meant getting the renovations done sooner. There could be scheduling problems, but 95% of the time, both the Cubs and Sox aren't in town at the same time anyways. I'd imagine business owners in Wrigleyville wouldn't be in favor of it.

 

That would require putting a lot more money up front and not having some of the renovations pay for the rest of them.

[crazycooter]

This is the best explanation for the Cubs reluctance to begin renovations that I've seen:

 

Well, for the first time, we got a clear answer from the Cubs, per General Counsel Mike Lufrano: the method by which the rooftops would legally challenge the outfield signage (the only part of the renovation with which they take issue) would actually challenge the zoning of the entire project. In other words, the Cubs really can’t start the rest of the renovation, because if things come to blows legally with the rooftops, the Cubs could have already done work that is subsequently determined to be unlawful. Can you imagine that disaster?

 

That's from Brett's "Convention Info Dump" on the renovations. http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/01/20/convention-info-dump-wrigley-field-renovation-and-the-ongoing-rooftop-saga/

 

Also, under those circumstances if the Cubs actually start the renovations, they lose whatever leverage they have with Rahm Emanuel. Once they sink money into the building, Rahm would know that they more or less have to go through with the whole thing -- and that's all he wants. At that point he has little incentive to lean on the rooftops.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think that they basically got in over their head in terms of what kind of money they'd have and how this would play out is more likely than them effectively making up stories about money they'd never spend.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying is different than what I am saying.

 

Well, you were saying that maybe they were never serious about spending, which to me sounds like you think they've basically just been lying. I think they do want to do all of things they've talked about, but they've just mostly [expletive] it up.

 

No. I was saying they may have wanted to start way back when they foolishly thought they could get hundreds of millions from the government during a massive recession. And that now they have to wait until the TV money comes in because the thought of a jumbotron and a couple signs offsetting the cost of a $500m project doesn't add up.

 

I wasn't saying they were never serious about spending, just not about the timing of when they were going to spend.

[Guest]

I think that they basically got in over their head in terms of what kind of money they'd have and how this would play out is more likely than them effectively making up stories about money they'd never spend.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying is different than what I am saying.

 

Well, you were saying that maybe they were never serious about spending, which to me sounds like you think they've basically just been lying. I think they do want to do all of things they've talked about, but they've just mostly [expletive] it up.

 

No. I was saying they may have wanted to start way back when they foolishly thought they could get hundreds of millions from the government during a massive recession. And that now they have to wait until the TV money comes in because the thought of a jumbotron and a couple signs offsetting the cost of a $500m project doesn't add up.

 

I wasn't saying they were never serious about spending, just not about the timing of when they were going to spend.

 

But they didn't roll out any serious renovation plans until after they said they were privately financing it (at last year's convention).

[SouthSideRyan]

Goony on the #PoorTomRicketts train?

 

SRO still available

[jersey cubs fan]

But they didn't roll out any serious renovation plans until after they said they were privately financing it (at last year's convention).

 

But they were certainly working on those plans before then.

 

It also serves the purpose of keeping the Cubs in the headlines. They do have to maintain interest in the meantime.

[ConstableRabbit]

40% of Cubs fans are renovation truthers.

[jersey cubs fan]

WITCH HUNT

[davell]

WITCH HUNT

 

Well, we do have the newt version of Theo......

[Ryne Ween]

When is this deal up 2022? If that’s the case do everything you can do that doesn’t violate your contract until the deal is up. Then in 2022 completely box the rooftops out. If they have the patience to lose 100 games for 8 years, surely their video-board can wait until it can be legally built. In the interim maximize as much revenue through the sources at your disposal. They are wasting time on things that need to be done with or without satisfactory resolution to the RTO issue. As the contract with the RTOs nears maturity, the Cubs leverage increases.

[davell]

While Cubs executives praised themselves for pushing a deal with the rooftop owners to the finish line at last weekend's Cubs Convention, news came out Wednesday that the Cubs' rhetoric -- Ricketts basically called them crooks again while president Crane Kenney blamed them for the slow start to city-approved Wrigley renovations -- had helped to sour negotiations.

 

[expletive] idiots.

[KingCubsFan]

That's where the story doesn't add up. They should be able to afford better lawyers and handle any lawsuit rather easily, the fact that they are waiting for guarantees that one won't happen (and lawsuits are always going to happen) suggests to me they just don't want to start the project.

Why would they even propose the project, then? I'm not saying I disagree with you (this whole matter is very confusing and there is a lot of information we aren't privy to), but why go to the length of rolling out these proposed renovations if the end goal is too drag your feet until the project is dead?

 

It may have started with the foolish notion that they would have gotten money from the government. But it was also part of the storyline they are selling both season ticket holders and potential television partners. That story being that ownership is gung-ho about pouring money into this team at any moment, just as long as everything else lines up perfectly. They talked big about the construction from day one of their ownership and everybody covering the Cubs knew it needed massive overhaul. They sold Theo on a complete renovation that would mirror Fenway.

 

The threat of a lawsuit is just not a justifiable reason not to begin months ago. Large projects take lots of time and plenty of lawsuits take place. When you have money and city approval, you start, then deal with problems as they come up. That is, unless you were never serious about spending the money.

This is asinine. No sane business starts a $500 million project with a legitimate injunction/stay threat looming, no matter how much people want to paint the owners as a bunch of dumb, entitled brats with no real money.