Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

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...

 

I remember us discussing that bit from before...like way before. Last spring/summer.

 

Odd that Kaplan would see that when he earlier said that he thinks this contract looks good for the rooftops.

 

Obviously he's going back on that now.

 

and lol at his subtle brag about having gotten into law school and his dad having been a successful attorney.

Edited January 28, 2014 by David

[Wilson A2000]

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.

 

I don't know why the rooftops don't just take the Cubs offer and get bought out. Guaranteed money and you can only at best get to the point where you you make as much money year after year as the Cubs were willing to buy you out for. Maybe this is more than money for the rooftops. There is so much ill will right now that even if the rooftops have views they can sell when their deal is up, Ricketts will block them all out when the contract is up anyway.

[SouthSideRyan]

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...

 

I remember us discussing that bit from before...like way before. Last spring/summer.

 

Odd that Kaplan would see that when he earlier said that he thinks this contract looks good for the rooftops.

 

Obviously he's going back on that now.

 

and lol at his subtle brag about having gotten into law school and his dad having been a successful attorney.

 

Somebody tell that bald doof that 1. everyone gets into law school and 2. "getting into law school" correlates about 0% with being able to read and understand a contract.

[Guest]

From a lawyer who looked at the contract.

 

 

"Now, in looking at 6.6, the question that will have to be decided is whether or not the word 'expansion' will apply to a sign or Jumbotron. Looking at the wording of the contract, any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section. Is a sign in right field or a Jumbotron in left field an expansion of Wrigley Field? Or is an expansion of Wrigley Field something that would have to include seating or making the ballpark bigger? This is no slam dunk win for the Cubs, although I think they would ultimately prevail, but I would say the same about the rooftops."

 

 

Huh? He would say the same about the rooftops?

 

Anyway, to me, since they're expanding the park out into the street (which they go on to talk about) (maybe this is the real reason they decided to do this??!), that would seem to qualify as an expansion.

[Guest]

Finished reading that whole thing and to me, I don't see how the Cubs could lose this. Actually, I'm not even sure where the grey area that makes this not a slam dunk lies (but I am not a lawyer). It seems like all of the wording is in favor of the Cubs.

 

The biggest gray area would be, I suppose, where it doesn't say anything about what happens after the 8 year period (under which the Cubs have to compensate the rooftops for any blockage) lapses, but what kind of [expletive] would someone have to be to interpret that any other way than "proceed at your own risk" after the 8 years are up if nothing else was specified?

[MWV]

I think much depends upon how the word "expansion" is to be interpreted. It doesn't appear clear to me that expansion, in this case, refers exclusively to a physical embiggening of the park. A jumbotron could be considered an expansion of the park in a multimedia/patron service capacity (not to mention revenue generating capability). I have no idea if this reading of the word is reasonable from a legal standpoint, but it seems perfectly cromulent to me.

[SouthSideRyan]

So you put a couple seats on the Budweiser ad

[MWV]

and a crow's nest on top of the jumbotron. I like the direction this is going in.

[ctcf]

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...

 

I remember us discussing that bit from before...like way before. Last spring/summer.

 

Odd that Kaplan would see that when he earlier said that he thinks this contract looks good for the rooftops.

 

Obviously he's going back on that now.

 

and lol at his subtle brag about having gotten into law school and his dad having been a successful attorney.

 

Somebody tell that bald doof that 1. everyone gets into law school and 2. "getting into law school" correlates about 0% with being able to read and understand a contract.

 

I can confirm this.

[KingCubsFan]

Finished reading that whole thing and to me, I don't see how the Cubs could lose this. Actually, I'm not even sure where the grey area that makes this not a slam dunk lies (but I am not a lawyer). It seems like all of the wording is in favor of the Cubs.

 

The biggest gray area would be, I suppose, where it doesn't say anything about what happens after the 8 year period (under which the Cubs have to compensate the rooftops for any blockage) lapses, but what kind of [expletive] would someone have to be to interpret that any other way than "proceed at your own risk" after the 8 years are up if nothing else was specified?

Have a link?

[WrigleyField 22]

Having sat in the rooftops before I really don't even think a slightly blocked view hurts their business model that much.

[jersey cubs fan]

Having sat in the rooftops before I really don't even think a slightly blocked view hurts their business model that much.

 

I concur

[Guest]

Finished reading that whole thing and to me, I don't see how the Cubs could lose this. Actually, I'm not even sure where the grey area that makes this not a slam dunk lies (but I am not a lawyer). It seems like all of the wording is in favor of the Cubs.

 

The biggest gray area would be, I suppose, where it doesn't say anything about what happens after the 8 year period (under which the Cubs have to compensate the rooftops for any blockage) lapses, but what kind of [expletive] would someone have to be to interpret that any other way than "proceed at your own risk" after the 8 years are up if nothing else was specified?

Have a link?

 

It's in MWV's post.

[Guest]

http://aeryssports.com/cubs-contract-rooftop-owners/

 

 

Julie DiCaro ‏@JulieDiCaro 3m

My take on the #Cubs rooftop contract is more aggressive than the lawyers @thekapman spoke to. Reasonable people can disagree on this.

 

David Kaplan ‏@thekapman 2m

@JulieDiCaro One lawyer who has been involved thinks the Cubs have a 60-70% chance of winning. Others are 80%. None I found are higher.

 

Julie DiCaro ‏@JulieDiCaro 1m

@thekapman I think 80% is a good estimate. I don't think I'd ever go higher than that on anything. Judges do crazy things.

[Guest]

Sooo if they actually get started on this sign, does that mean they're moving the walls out now (and narrowing the street) too?

[mul21]

Man, I don't see how the Cubs could possibly lose this, especially with the specific use of the word "expand" used in the city's approval of the project. I just hope it's dealt with quickly so they can get on with it.

[Fro]

I presume they're more worried about the rooftop owners getting a stay blocking construction then actually losing the case.

[UMFan83]

I presume they're more worried about the rooftop owners getting a stay blocking construction then actually losing the case.

 

I heard on the Score yesterday that in order to get a stay, the rooftops would have to pay some sort of fee plus be liable for the amount of revenue lost by not having the ad up if they were to lose the case. So if the lawsuit drags on for most of the baseball season and they rule in the Cubs favor, the rooftops would have to pay the Cubs millions.

[KingCubsFan]

I presume they're more worried about the rooftop owners getting a stay blocking construction then actually losing the case.

 

I heard on the Score yesterday that in order to get a stay, the rooftops would have to pay some sort of fee plus be liable for the amount of revenue lost by not having the ad up if they were to lose the case. So if the lawsuit drags on for most of the baseball season and they rule in the Cubs favor, the rooftops would have to pay the Cubs millions.

They would have to post it at the beginning of the litigation.

[apete6]

I presume they're more worried about the rooftop owners getting a stay blocking construction then actually losing the case.

 

I heard on the Score yesterday that in order to get a stay, the rooftops would have to pay some sort of fee plus be liable for the amount of revenue lost by not having the ad up if they were to lose the case. So if the lawsuit drags on for most of the baseball season and they rule in the Cubs favor, the rooftops would have to pay the Cubs millions.

They would have to post it at the beginning of the litigation.

 

If that's true, why not just start building the Jumbotron and really twist the knife?

[KingCubsFan]

I presume they're more worried about the rooftop owners getting a stay blocking construction then actually losing the case.

 

I heard on the Score yesterday that in order to get a stay, the rooftops would have to pay some sort of fee plus be liable for the amount of revenue lost by not having the ad up if they were to lose the case. So if the lawsuit drags on for most of the baseball season and they rule in the Cubs favor, the rooftops would have to pay the Cubs millions.

They would have to post it at the beginning of the litigation.

 

If that's true, why not just start building the Jumbotron and really twist the knife?

There's always the risk that the Cubs' argument fails, and the rooftops would be able to get an injunction in place and the Cubs lose all the leverage.

[Guest]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/kaplan-key-points-cubs-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Kaplan with more contract details

[pitchcs]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/kaplan-key-points-cubs-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Kaplan with more contract details

 

Props to lawyers; I get bored after reading about 2 sentences of contracts.

[Benny Rodriguez]

I have a problem/question with the wording. I really can see it being taken two ways. I have to say it is very poorly worded for both sides.

The part that says" any expansion ok'd by the government shall not be a violation of the agreement".

Ok, they Cubs feel that means if the government ok's it, it's not considered a violation.

 

I can see the rooftops saying that it means any expansion even ok'd by government can't be in violation of the contract.

 

 

To me the wording (if Cubs are right) should have said= any expansion ok'd by the government shall not be "considered" a violation of this contract.

[Sammy Sofa]

I have a problem/question with the wording.

 

http://static.tumblr.com/sid4ptl/3szm13rzn/irony.gif