Wrigley Renovation Thread

[KingCubsFan]

Kenney joined the Cubs in 2002 as chairman. Prior to that, he was the general counsel of Tribune.

 

What did that make McDonough?

McDonough was the President. When he left, Kenney took over as President and retained his Chairman title too.

[SouthSideRyan]

Kenney joined the Cubs in 2002 as chairman. Prior to that, he was the general counsel of Tribune.

 

What did that make McDonough?

McDonough was the President. When he left, Kenney took over as President and retained his Chairman title too.

 

So he at least had him and fitzsimons ahead of him calling shots

[KingCubsFan]

Kenney joined the Cubs in 2002 as chairman. Prior to that, he was the general counsel of Tribune.

 

What did that make McDonough?

McDonough was the President. When he left, Kenney took over as President and retained his Chairman title too.

 

So he at least had him and fitzsimons ahead of him calling shots

Kenney replaced Fitzsimons in 2002. I interviewed Kenney in law school, so I'm just going off what he told me.

[USSoccer]

NSBB has a great history of posters interviewing people in the public eye, such as Senator Nancy Pelosi.

[MSG T]

Crane Kenney enters his 20th season with the Cubs organization, and as president of business operations oversees all aspects of the club’s business operation. As the principal executive in charge of Cubs’ operations from 2003-10, he helped the Cubs welcome more than three million fans through Wrigley Field’s turnstiles each season since 2004, including a record mark of 3,300,200 fans in 2008.

 

Kenney has led numerous projects to expand Wrigley Field’s seating capacity and fan amenities, including the construction of the PNC Club, the Captain Morgan Club, the CBOE bullpen boxes, the Bud Light bleachers and the dugout boxes. He guided the team’s 2009 - 2011 effort to secure financing for a new state-of-the-art spring training facility in Mesa, Arizona, scheduled to be completed by 2014. From 2003 - 2009, Kenney increased the payroll by more than 70 percent, with the team winning the N.L. Central Division three times in those seven years.

 

Kenney founded Comcast SportsNet Chicago, the Cubs cable partner, with Jerry Reinsdorf in 2003 and has served on the board of directors since its formation. He holds a law degree from the University of Michigan and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame.

 

This is from the Evanta site, showing featured speakers, though I think the bio is similar to the one on the Cubs official site...

 

http://www.evanta.com/sports/global-sports-management-summit/may-2013/speakers#

[SouthSideRyan]

I forgot MacPhail was still a thing during this time. Every article I can find has Kenney listed as SVP and Fitzsimons as CEO of Trib. McDonough replaced MacPhail.

[apete6]

Cubs applied for permits for sign in Right Field as a response to the rooftops lawsuit last week.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/25218373-761/cubs-apply-for-permit-for-right-field-sign.html

[Banedon]

Just a way to instigate the necessary legal battles without committing to the amount of money the full renovation would take?

[Guest]

Cubs applied for permits for sign in Right Field as a response to the rooftops lawsuit last week.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/25218373-761/cubs-apply-for-permit-for-right-field-sign.html

 

That (sort of) came out last week. Story kind of buried the lede. They hadn't officially done anything yet, though.

 

 

That much was obvious Wednesday when the Cubs privately declared their intention to apply for a city permit to put up a 650-square-foot, see-through sign in right field that, the rooftop owners claim, will block their bird’s-eye view of the century-old stadium.

 

The decision to take immediate advantage of a sign already authorized by the City Council was made after a stormy negotiating session Tuesday and after rooftop club owners filed a defamation lawsuit against a stadium financing consultant who once advised the Cubs’ prior owner, the Tribune Co.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/25113883-419/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

[ctcf]

Cubs just applied for a permit for the right field bleachers sign. Here we go, apparently. Should be fun.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/21043/reports-cubs-apply-for-permit-for-sign

[Guest]

Cubs just applied for a permit for the right field bleachers sign. Here we go, apparently. Should be fun.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/21043/reports-cubs-apply-for-permit-for-sign

 

Good God man

[Guest]

I'm not sure we had heard this argument specifically yet:

 

The sides entered into a 20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark. The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners. The city removed the landmark status last summer, opening the door to a renovation.

[MWV]

From Crain's:

"Rooftop owners believe a blockage of our views violates the contract we have with the owners of the Cubs,” said Ryan McLaughlin, spokesman for the Wrigleyville Rooftops Association. “We have instructed our legal team to proceed accordingly.”

 

The statement adds only that the Cubs' move was “an unfortunate turn of events because our hope was to find a solution to this matter.”

[Sammys Boombox]

I'm not sure we had heard this argument specifically yet:

 

The sides entered into a 20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark. The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners. The city removed the landmark status last summer, opening the door to a renovation.

 

But if that were true then the Cubs would have no reason to worry themselves over losing a lawsuit to the rooftops and could have continued with their plans and told the rooftops to bring it on.

[Guest]

I'm not sure we had heard this argument specifically yet:

 

The sides entered into a 20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark. The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners. The city removed the landmark status last summer, opening the door to a renovation.

 

But if that were true then the Cubs would have no reason to worry themselves over losing a lawsuit to the rooftops and could have continued with their plans and told the rooftops to bring it on.

 

They weren't/aren't necessarily worried about LOSING a lawsuit.

[Wilson A2000]

If the Cubs can block the rooftops without getting sued, why wait this long to apply for the permit? What kind of contract would have been signed where the rooftop owners give 17% for obstructed views? No one would do that.

[Guest]

If the Cubs can block the rooftops without getting sued, why wait this long to apply for the permit? What kind of contract would have been signed where the rooftop owners give 17% for obstructed views? No one would do that.

 

Who said anything about them being able to block the rooftops without getting sued?

[mul21]

If the Cubs can block the rooftops without getting sued, why wait this long to apply for the permit? What kind of contract would have been signed where the rooftop owners give 17% for obstructed views? No one would do that.

 

Based on what it sounds like the Cubs are claiming, there was no need for obstructed/unobstructed view language in the 17% agreement because it was provided by the landmark status. When that was removed, away went the unobstructed view language, at least according to the Cubs. I really hope that's true and they aren't completely screwed here.

[Guest]

If the Cubs can block the rooftops without getting sued, why wait this long to apply for the permit? What kind of contract would have been signed where the rooftop owners give 17% for obstructed views? No one would do that.

 

Who said anything about them being able to block the rooftops without getting sued?

 

at this point, with an impending TV deal, I think the Cubs are gearing up for a war of attrition with these guys. The Cubs will win eventually.

[mul21]

If the Cubs can block the rooftops without getting sued, why wait this long to apply for the permit? What kind of contract would have been signed where the rooftop owners give 17% for obstructed views? No one would do that.

 

Who said anything about them being able to block the rooftops without getting sued?

 

at this point, with an impending TV deal, I think the Cubs are gearing up for a war of attrition with these guys. The Cubs will win eventually.

 

If there's really a big tv deal coming, then that's fine, but if there's not, I don't want to think about what a war of attrition would mean for being good at some point.

[Guest]

They can obviously get sued over literally anything, and this is a reasonable enough thing to sue them about that it wouldn't just get immediately thrown out in court, like, say some crazy old man suing them for the emotional distress caused by their losing. That's entirely separate from whether they would actually win a lawsuit or not.

 

Losing a lawsuit isn't the only thing the Cubs would want to avoid in not wanting to be involved in one.

[BeerHere]

Bernstein from B&B on The Score had an interesting point, supposedly from a caller/texter that was a lawyer. INAL, but apparently to obtain an injunction to prevent the signage the rooftops must first fund a bond to cover the Cubs' costs of the proposed injunction such that, should the injunction fail, the Cubs are not penalized. In other words, the rooftops are forced to fund a bond upfront to start the process of obtaining an injunction. Knowing this, the Cubs are sure to argue that the "costs" to them for the injunction are not just limited to the revenue lost by not being allowed to erect the signage, but will almost certainly include the overall costs of the renovation ($300M or whatever it is now). I can't remember if it was the same texter, or "Cubs contact" but apparently someone said that it was the Cubs plan to "out litigate" the rooftops -- making it so lengthy and expensive that the rooftops cannot possibly win.

 

Clearly this was all third-party and I missed some of the conversation, but the information is interesting none the less.

[davell]

That'd be nice, but I just don't want them TRYING to win and it taking a couple of years longer, to even begin the renovations. Continuances and whatever else, would it be possible to just become a nuisance to where they aren't spending THAT much money, while holding out for a large enough payoff that gets them more than they were originally going to get, based on public pressure to get this [expletive] over with?

[MWV]

From the Cubs/Rooftop contract, per Kaplan:

6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.

That last bit sounds promising...

[Wilson A2000]

If the Cubs can block the rooftops without getting sued, why wait this long to apply for the permit? What kind of contract would have been signed where the rooftop owners give 17% for obstructed views? No one would do that.

 

Who said anything about them being able to block the rooftops without getting sued?

 

Your quote a few places up. I meant a suit that has grounds and will win in court.