Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

I really wonder if "all the buildings" is really necessary to change the equation. Seems to me that only a handful are actually affected.

 

Yeah, we talked about this earlier in the thread, and there's really only a single rooftop that needs to be bought out to do most of what they want(i.e. videoboard). Of course, if the gameplan is the rooftops collectively suing on zoning grounds then the fact that their views aren't blocked may not matter.

[treebird]

I think that a buyout of their contract is the most logical. I'm surprised that hasn't been seriously discussed at all.

 

i could be misremembering, but i think there were quotes at the convention from either kenney or ricketts that buying out the contract was basically impossible due to the fact that all the rooftop owners had such varied interests in what they'd want.

[UK1679666180]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

[ConstableRabbit]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is.

[jersey cubs fan]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

 

Start with a baseline of building a new "state of the art" stadium costing $1B and then dealing with selling off/devaluation of their Wrigleyville assets and I think it is quite easy to see how moving could be tough. Communities are willing to hand over the land, but they aren't going to build them the stadium.

 

You also might have a baseline of support of as much as 500,000 tickets sold per season based only on the fact that it is Wrigley Field.

[Banedon]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

 

Start with a baseline of building a new "state of the art" stadium costing $1B and then dealing with selling off/devaluation of their Wrigleyville assets and I think it is quite easy to see how moving could be tough. Communities are willing to hand over the land, but they aren't going to build them the stadium.

 

You also might have a baseline of support of as much as 500,000 tickets sold per season based only on the fact that it is Wrigley Field.

 

Bernstein also mentioned about there being a large amount of disposable income in the urban area around Wrigley.

[UK1679666180]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is.

 

Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it.

[Banedon]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is.

 

Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it.

 

FWIW, Boers was on your side. He couldn't fathom that the fanbase wouldn't follow the Cubs. He thought there would be a business model that would work for them in another location, it just may not be the one that currently works in the Wrigleyville area.

[jersey cubs fan]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is.

 

Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it.

 

What don't you get? The temporary draw of a new stadium might last two seasons, the Wrigley draw works every season. Increased seating is not necessarily a good thing. The scarcity of seating at Wrigley is part of what makes it such an easy sell when the team is any good at all.

 

It will also cost $1B or more to build the stadium.

 

And who knows if the rooftops will sue the Cubs if they abandon them in the middle of their contract.

Edited January 23, 2014 by jersey cubs fan

[Banedon]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is.

 

Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it.

 

What don't you get? The temporary draw of a new stadium might last two seasons, the Wrigley draw works every season. Increased seating is not necessarily a good thing. The scarcity of seating at Wrigley is part of what makes it such an easy sell when the team is any good at all.

 

It will also cost $1B or more to build the stadium.

 

Plus, #PoorTomRicketts will still own Wrigley that he's still paying for...what's he to do with that?

 

I'd love for the Cubs to move, but I definitely see the difficulty in doing so.

[SouthSideRyan]

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=60908&p=3000851&hilit=Bloomberg#p3000851

 

Even discounting the enormous expenditure required to build a new stadium, it's unlikely a new stadium would even bring in higher revenues than Wrigley. Nobody wants to go out to team owned bars and stay in team owned hotels when they're located in [expletive] rosemont, il.

[Derwood]

How can you even float the idea of just buying all the rooftop buildings. What if they don't want to sell? Do you go all Eminent Domain on their asses?

[Banedon]

How can you even float the idea of just buying all the rooftop buildings. What if they don't want to sell? Do you go all Eminent Domain on their asses?

 

No, and Berstein specifically mentioned that they wouldn't use Eminent Domain.

[USSoccer]

I'm sure that any attempt to buy the buildings out would totally not result in those assholes asking for a billion dollars. And if that fails, I'm sure that the attempt to buy out the contract would totally be met with reasonable requests.

 

If those were really options, they'd have been done by now.

 

These are billionaire businessmen being held over a barrel by some [expletive] bar owner and a windsock alderman.

[Ryne Ween]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

[treebird]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

 

the problem with doing stuff besides signs and jumbotrons is that those are the things that will actually bring in new money. the rest of the renovations are necessary and awesome but will basically amount to spending money without any immediate return (besides improving the value of the property i guess, but ricketts doesn't care about that unless this whole endeavor was a big scam designed to get him on some stupid hgtv "flip that house" show).

 

i agree entirely as far as the litigation excuse being lame.

[J.R.]

One of the buildings is publicly for sale right now, and others may be available given the financial hit the gang has taken due to the rotten teams of the last few years. Ricketts could start there and pick them off a few at a time, with the entire cabal collapsing once the end of the contract is within sight.

 

The Cubs' leverage improves with each passing day.

[USSoccer]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

 

I don't disagree; I feel like there has to be something missing, because on the surface its ridiculous that the Cubs are so terrified of bad PR or a lawsuit brought by Beth Murphy.

[J.R.]

The bad PR brought on by litigation would have to pale in comparison to the ill press generated when they put up the privacy screens in 2002, and that barely registered if memory serves. They were ugly as hell, but the fanbase didn't react at all.

[USSoccer]

The bad PR brought on by litigation would have to pale in comparison to the ill press generated when they put up the privacy screens in 2002, and that barely registered if memory serves. They were ugly as hell, but the fanbase didn't react at all.

 

Or, it would have to outweigh the bad press of having a terrible team and being unable to renovate your own stadium.

[KingCubsFan]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

It's not whether you would win or lose in litigation. It's whether the rooftop owners could get an injunction while litigation is pending.

[jersey cubs fan]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

It's not whether you would win or lose in litigation. It's whether the rooftop owners could get an injunction while litigation is pending.

 

This seems to me like the theory that in order to win consistently the team has to be built the right way and the only reason to build the team the right way is to lose a lot of games for several seasons to build up the farm system. We've already dealt with a year long delay. An injunction isn't going to cause a bigger problem than not doing anything in the first place.

[Ryne Ween]

Why did they enter into this contract in the first place tying a hand behind their back for 20 years. For 17pct of revenue of these things? Do we know how much the rooftops collectively remit annually to the cubs per this arrangement?

 

 

Pre contract why did the cubs settle for 17pct if they had the ability to render them completely valueless by blocking the views. Why sign a 20 year deal for a 17pct rake when you literally hold all the cards. Crain Kenney has survived too many bosses to be that stupid. There has to be more there.

[MWV]

Pre contract why did the cubs settle for 17pct if they had the ability to render them completely valueless by blocking the views. Why sign a 20 year deal for a 17pct rake when you literally hold all the cards. Crain Kenney has survived too many bosses to be that stupid. There has to be more there.

 

It is my understanding that in order to block their views, they would have had to deal with the landmark status of the ballpark, and that wasn't (for whatever reason) possible at the time.

[SouthSideRyan]

My guess it it was a short-sighted cash grab