Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Soul]

Yep. Tom is a fan-owner and wanted to see the rooftops saved. Done doing that.

 

I don't think that's true at all.

 

Nice, patient guy who wanted to be fair? Maybe. I don't think he values or valued the rooftops or saving them at all.

 

Certainly not now, after realizing that the rooftops will hang like a cloud over him wherever he goes. Maybe when he first acquired the team.

[Guest]

Didn't the rooftop contracts stipulate that something like this would go through arbitration? How long would that take?

 

IIRC there was talk that it would be considerably quicker than a traditional court battle.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

A contract that we've seen (unless what we saw was a fabrication) and that does not protect them from what the Cubs want to do. It's a revenue sharing agreement and the provisions that could even possibly be interpreted as protecting their views still are pretty clearly in the Cubs' favor.

 

Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats.

[Wilson A2000]

What happens if Tom loses in court? This whole thing gets pushed back how long?

[SouthSideRyan]

What happens if Tom loses in court? This whole thing gets pushed back how long?

 

Until the new owner gets things moving.

[Guest]

 

A contract that we've seen (unless what we saw was a fabrication) and that does not protect them from what the Cubs want to do. It's a revenue sharing agreement and the provisions that could even possibly be interpreted as protecting their views still are pretty clearly in the Cubs' favor.

 

Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats.

 

Wasn't the language that any expansion project approved by the landmarks commission could not be fought even if it disrupts their views? I get what you're saying, but that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't want to come off like I think the rooftops are anything but pain in the ass parasites, but why are we calling Ricketts a nice guy who was just trying to do the right thing? Is this just because he's an oafish dork?

[Old Style]

Am I the only one that has never seen this mentioned before?

 

The Chicago Tribune reports the bullpens would be moved from the foul lines to underneath the bleachers, which would require the removal of some bricks and ivy.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/10967581/chicago-cubs-owner-tom-ricketts-opts-return-original-wrigley-field-renovation-plan

[SouthSideRyan]

 

A contract that we've seen (unless what we saw was a fabrication) and that does not protect them from what the Cubs want to do. It's a revenue sharing agreement and the provisions that could even possibly be interpreted as protecting their views still are pretty clearly in the Cubs' favor.

 

Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats.

 

Wasn't the language that any expansion project approved by the landmarks commission could not be fought even if it disrupts their views? I get what you're saying, but that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

I can't recall exactly, but wasn't the "expansion" portion tied to increasing capacity. If I'm working for the rooftops, I'm asking why any of the signage is considered part of an expansion project to increase capacity.

[Guest]

Am I the only one that has never seen this mentioned before?

 

The Chicago Tribune reports the bullpens would be moved from the foul lines to underneath the bleachers, which would require the removal of some bricks and ivy.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/10967581/chicago-cubs-owner-tom-ricketts-opts-return-original-wrigley-field-renovation-plan

 

That's part of the new plan.

 

They'll be putting more seats in where the bullpens are now.

[Wilson A2000]

No more tees for pinch hitters to use and a shaded bullpen. Watch out NL Central 2020!

[SouthSideRyan]

 

A contract that we've seen (unless what we saw was a fabrication) and that does not protect them from what the Cubs want to do. It's a revenue sharing agreement and the provisions that could even possibly be interpreted as protecting their views still are pretty clearly in the Cubs' favor.

 

Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats.

 

Wasn't the language that any expansion project approved by the landmarks commission could not be fought even if it disrupts their views? I get what you're saying, but that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

I can't recall exactly, but wasn't the "expansion" portion tied to increasing capacity. If I'm working for the rooftops, I'm asking why any of the signage is considered part of an expansion project to increase capacity.

 

And if the language is open-ended enough that the Cubs could expand the dugout boxes by 5 seats and then add 80 foot high signs pole-to-pole in the OF(with city approval) then whoever worked on the contract from the RTO side is an idiot

[Guest]

 

A contract that we've seen (unless what we saw was a fabrication) and that does not protect them from what the Cubs want to do. It's a revenue sharing agreement and the provisions that could even possibly be interpreted as protecting their views still are pretty clearly in the Cubs' favor.

 

Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats.

 

Wasn't the language that any expansion project approved by the landmarks commission could not be fought even if it disrupts their views? I get what you're saying, but that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

I can't recall exactly, but wasn't the "expansion" portion tied to increasing capacity. If I'm working for the rooftops, I'm asking why any of the signage is considered part of an expansion project to increase capacity.

 

And if the language is open-ended enough that the Cubs could expand the dugout boxes by 5 seats and then add 80 foot high signs pole-to-pole in the OF(with city approval) then whoever worked on the contract from the RTO side is an idiot

 

I think they were planning on the landscape of things to remain status quo circa 2002 or whenever that was. They probably thought the Landmarks Commission thing was a massive safeguard.

 

Still stupid.

[Guest]

I'm confused by the language stating that it'll increase seating but won't increase fan capacity? Maybe because some seats are lost in other areas?

 

 

loss of SRO sections?

 

Yeah, after I read more stuff that looks to be right.

[Guest]

City Hall tried. But Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a man of limited patience, has his own priorities. Such as getting a hallmark $300 million rebuild of Wrigley Field finally under way as he nears his own re-election race.

 

That's why, with a wink and a nod from Mr. Emanuel, Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts in a video is finally calling a halt to any further talks with the rooftops. And it's why, pending only a court suit that the rooftops promptly vowed to make, you can expect to see construction begin on new advertising signs, expanded bleachers, a new clubhouse and more shortly after the Cubs retire for the season this fall.

 

“The team needs to move on,” says Ald. Pat O'Connor (40th), who negotiated between the two sides at Mr. Emanuel's request. “And from the city's point of view, we need for them to move ahead with the stuff we gave them permission to do a year ago, so we can get the benefit of that investment.”

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140522/BLOGS02/140529926?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

[Soul]

City Hall tried. But Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a man of limited patience, has his own priorities. Such as getting a hallmark $300 million rebuild of Wrigley Field finally under way as he nears his own re-election race.

 

That's why, with a wink and a nod from Mr. Emanuel, Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts in a video is finally calling a halt to any further talks with the rooftops. And it's why, pending only a court suit that the rooftops promptly vowed to make, you can expect to see construction begin on new advertising signs, expanded bleachers, a new clubhouse and more shortly after the Cubs retire for the season this fall.

 

“The team needs to move on,” says Ald. Pat O'Connor (40th), who negotiated between the two sides at Mr. Emanuel's request. “And from the city's point of view, we need for them to move ahead with the stuff we gave them permission to do a year ago, so we can get the benefit of that investment.”

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140522/BLOGS02/140529926?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

 

Yeah.

 

I mean, at some point (which appears to be NOW), they just tie this up in court -- if necessary, all the way until the agreement runs out.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm confused by the language stating that it'll increase seating but won't increase fan capacity? Maybe because some seats are lost in other areas?

 

 

loss of SRO sections?

 

Yeah, after I read more stuff that looks to be right.

 

Trib piece had 300 SRO being added as well. Maybe taking away some Terrace seats to make way for the concourse.

[RynoRules]

I seriously doubt that (this thing being locked up in court) will happen. What is more likely, IMO, is that the Cubs will settle with the rooftop association for a significant amount. By now Ricketts already has a range in mind that he would be willing to agree to. Regardless of the contract Ricketts has the leverage. Moreover, there are probably termination clauses in the contract that we aren't privy to. Everyone will play the game for a few months before reaching some kind of resolution.

 

On a more emotional note, [expletive] the rooftop owners. They made tons of money off the Cubs for a long time and in so doing destroyed the way people used to watch games on those rooftops when I was a kid. Now they want to keep the team's facilities stuck in the 1980's (at best)? I have no sympathy for them. This is life in big business and the big city. No one said it would be fair.

Edited May 22, 2014 by RynoRules

[SouthSideRyan]

City Hall tried. But Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a man of limited patience, has his own priorities. Such as getting a hallmark $300 million rebuild of Wrigley Field finally under way as he nears his own re-election race.

 

That's why, with a wink and a nod from Mr. Emanuel, Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts in a video is finally calling a halt to any further talks with the rooftops. And it's why, pending only a court suit that the rooftops promptly vowed to make, you can expect to see construction begin on new advertising signs, expanded bleachers, a new clubhouse and more shortly after the Cubs retire for the season this fall.

 

“The team needs to move on,” says Ald. Pat O'Connor (40th), who negotiated between the two sides at Mr. Emanuel's request. “And from the city's point of view, we need for them to move ahead with the stuff we gave them permission to do a year ago, so we can get the benefit of that investment.”

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140522/BLOGS02/140529926?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

 

Yeah.

 

I mean, at some point (which appears to be NOW), they just tie this up in court -- if necessary, all the way until the agreement runs out.

 

Pretty sure the court case won't be going for 8 years

[jersey cubs fan]

They made tons of money off the Cubs for a long time and in so doing destroyed the way people used to watch games on those rooftops when I was a kid.

 

Yes, they really destroyed the lives of those 14 people that brought up a folding chair to watch the game.

[Guest]

They made tons of money off the Cubs for a long time and in so doing destroyed the way people used to watch games on those rooftops when I was a kid.

 

Yes, they really destroyed the lives of those 14 people that brought up a folding chair to watch the game.

 

I mean, it's not a big thing to be concerned with by any means, but that is definitely cooler than the monstrosities now (not that I blame them for monetizing their views).

[RynoRules]

They made tons of money off the Cubs for a long time and in so doing destroyed the way people used to watch games on those rooftops when I was a kid.

 

Yes, they really destroyed the lives of those 14 people that brought up a folding chair to watch the game.

 

 

That's not what my point was. They saw a way to make a [expletive]-ton of money with little or no investment on their part. They didn't create any entertainment for their patrons - they let someone else do it for them and had minimal expenses(liability insurance, if even that) for years and years. Good for them, but their time has run out. Again, that's how business works.

[Sammys Boombox]

I am so glad that I am standby support at work today, which means I surf the Internet until something goes wrong.

[Soul]

City Hall tried. But Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a man of limited patience, has his own priorities. Such as getting a hallmark $300 million rebuild of Wrigley Field finally under way as he nears his own re-election race.

 

That's why, with a wink and a nod from Mr. Emanuel, Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts in a video is finally calling a halt to any further talks with the rooftops. And it's why, pending only a court suit that the rooftops promptly vowed to make, you can expect to see construction begin on new advertising signs, expanded bleachers, a new clubhouse and more shortly after the Cubs retire for the season this fall.

 

“The team needs to move on,” says Ald. Pat O'Connor (40th), who negotiated between the two sides at Mr. Emanuel's request. “And from the city's point of view, we need for them to move ahead with the stuff we gave them permission to do a year ago, so we can get the benefit of that investment.”

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140522/BLOGS02/140529926?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

 

Yeah.

 

I mean, at some point (which appears to be NOW), they just tie this up in court -- if necessary, all the way until the agreement runs out.

 

Pretty sure the court case won't be going for 8 years

 

There won't be a renewal on that agreement, that's for sure.

 

The point being, it's pretty short-sighted to fight the Cubs on this thing, either way. It can't end well for them.

[RynoRules]

They are screwed either way. My guess is that the most influential member of their association doesn't like the amount they are being offered and is playing the last card he has in his hand in order to get more. As soon as the construction crews show up they will file an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and off we go...