Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Wrigley Renovation Thread

David

By David,
in Chicago Cubs Talk

 Share
  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

MWV First Round Pick

MWV

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
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.

 

From the contract:

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.

 

The first sentence states that the Cubs can't erect any barrier that would obstruct the rooftop views.

The last sentence, were it to be interpreted as you suggest the rooftops might, would be redundant. To read it in that manner would be to say, "Any obstruction of our views is not allowed. Also, any obstruction that the government OKs is not allowed." Draw up a venn diagram. It would be pointless to read/write it that way.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
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.

 

From the contract:

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.

 

The first sentence states that the Cubs can't erect any barrier that would obstruct the rooftop views.

The last sentence, were it to be interpreted as you suggest the rooftops might, would be redundant. To read it in that manner would be to say, "Any obstruction of our views is not allowed. Also, any obstruction that the government OKs is not allowed." Draw up a venn diagram. It would be pointless to read/write it that way.

 

 

Seems pretty clear to me that an thing approved by the government is not a violation. If the word "in" was inserted, you could interpret it otherwise.

davell Chicago Cubs

davell

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
During the 8AM hour tomorrow morning, Levine and Finfer are going to have Rooftop spokesperson Ryan McLaughlin and Cubs spokesperson Julian Green on together.
Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted

If it wasn't clear before, that leaked section of the contract is pretty much the fulcrum for both sides.

 

Green spent his time talking about how the contract doesn't guarantee the views won't change, and how they've changed the number, size, and location of the signs in negotiating with rooftops, but there are limits(they aren't putting the video board outside the stadium). He also mentioned something I hadn't heard before, that there were (financial) protections for views that changed during the first 8 years of the deal, but that's expired now. He also gave a pretty party line answer about moving the team. Levine joked in closing that the Cubs should buy the rooftops out

 

McLaughlin focused almost exclusively on protecting the views, even going as far to insinuate that the shadow of a video board would be an obstruction of a view. He also continued with the party line about how they pay millions in taxes and are just trying to stay in business by protecting their rights, and that they don't understand why all the other renovation stuff can't happen while they work on signage. He closed by telling Levine that he had the best advice of the day(presumably re: buying them out).

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
If it wasn't clear before, that leaked section of the contract is pretty much the fulcrum for both sides.

 

Green spent his time talking about how the contract doesn't guarantee the views won't change, and how they've changed the number, size, and location of the signs in negotiating with rooftops, but there are limits(they aren't putting the video board outside the stadium). He also mentioned something I hadn't heard before, that there were (financial) protections for views that changed during the first 8 years of the deal, but that's expired now. He also gave a pretty party line answer about moving the team. Levine joked in closing that the Cubs should buy the rooftops out

 

McLaughlin focused almost exclusively on protecting the views, even going as far to insinuate that the shadow of a video board would be an obstruction of a view. He also continued with the party line about how they pay millions in taxes and are just trying to stay in business by protecting their rights, and that they don't understand why all the other renovation stuff can't happen while they work on signage. He closed by telling Levine that he had the best advice of the day(presumably re: buying them out).

 

Wouldn't that be the stuff that expired after the 2011 season that was mentioned in the leaked stuff where it said that if the view was obstructed in such a way as to make their business no longer viable, they would be compensated with x amount of the money they produced for the Cubs being returned or whatever?

Ryne Ween First Round Pick

Ryne Ween

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Yes buy them out. Its not the hard. Commercial real estate is a very mature market. They know the cash flows, they cant be far off on what they are worth, these things are pretty much a formula. This is an outside entity, very simple for them to buy. Leverage it. Great history of financial health, historically low commercial interest rates, aggressive lending environment. Keep the prior owners on to run their shops, keep them on as minority owners. When you get serious about a payday for these roof top people you will start to see them divide on it, cut off the vindictive people, unreasonable people. At the end of the day people love to sell their businesses especially to strategic buyers who can pay more. This isnt hard to figure out. Ricketts must run in a wealthy crowd. Get a friendly buyer to come in with assurances of cooperation with the team. This is easy just do it.
Benny Rodriguez Prep Ball

Benny Rodriguez

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
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.

 

From the contract:

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.

 

The first sentence states that the Cubs can't erect any barrier that would obstruct the rooftop views.

The last sentence, were it to be interpreted as you suggest the rooftops might, would be redundant. To read it in that manner would be to say, "Any obstruction of our views is not allowed. Also, any obstruction that the government OKs is not allowed." Draw up a venn diagram. It would be pointless to read/write it that way.

 

 

Seems pretty clear to me that an thing approved by the government is not a violation. If the word "in" was inserted, you could interpret it otherwise.

I agree the "in" would shift it toward rooftops. It just is poorly worded on both sides. I find it hard to think the rooftops put their entire business future in the hands of a landmark status, and the always up and up Chicago government.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted

It's Loxas, so take with a grain of salt...but FWIW, if there's anything I could see some local blogger having sources on, it would be what's going on with the rooftops

 

 

Sounds like Ricketts needs to make a deal (buy out?) of a specific Waveland property. Should have more on Monday.

 

— TomLoxas (@TomLoxas) February 1, 2014

jersey cubs fan GOAT

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v31272181/cubs-wrigley-field-restoration

 

Looks like this has been up for a while, but I didn't catch it the first time around. Len Kasper narrates a virtual tour of the renovated Wrigley model.

 

Well, it looks pretty damn great.

 

Yeah, it's awesome.

Was expecting a replay of a thing I saw before but that looks new.

 

Or I was too drunk when I saw it last year.

J.R. ACL Cubs

J.R.

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Spectacular.

 

Very nice work on the upper bleacher tier, the only section left untouched by the 05-06 expansion. They're adjusting the rake to allow for more headroom and a patio under the scoreboard, and to make room for a new LED board at the base in a manner that won't result in obstructed views.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    6,793
    Total Members
    13,056
    Most Online
    Kevin OBrien
    Newest Member
    Kevin OBrien
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...