Wrigley Renovation Thread

[SouthSideRyan]

If there were termination clauses, they would've been exercised by now

[davell]

Couple of things: SSR brought up a great point. Is the real estate alone worth 50 mill? If so, or even remotely close to that, then I'd look at 50 mill as a [expletive] insult too. I hope someone here is in commercial real estate in the area or knows someone that is, to shed light there. There's always been a sort of "we're the Cubs, we made you" vibe coming from Ricketts. Which, while certainly true, glosses over the dumbass contract he inherited with them.

 

Bernstein tweeted this is all due to one individual owner who won't, can't, has no idea how to negotiate. It absolutely sucks in trying to deal with that type of guy. Honestly, the rest of them could be quite content with things, but have to keep up the united front, because of this one [expletive]. They probably have no clue what he wants either.

 

Him- What's the offer?

Them-50 mill

Him-That's not enough

Them-What is?

Him-More than that

Them- how much more?

Him-I'll know when I see it

Them-Can you give us an idea?

Him-I just did

Them-No , an actual amount.

Him-I told you, I'll know it when I see it

[RynoRules]

If there were termination clauses, they would've been exercised by now

 

Agreed. I just wonder whether they have some funky language around notice or penalties that has stopped Ricketts from invoking them without the benefit of declaratory judgment or something like that.

[Soul]

If there were termination clauses, they would've been exercised by now

 

I'm sure you are right.

 

But isn't the ultimate termination clause the fact that the agreement doesn't run forever? And you've got to think about that, well in advance of the actual end of the contract.

[RynoRules]

Couple of things: SSR brought up a great point. Is the real estate alone worth 50 mill? If so, or even remotely close to that, then I'd look at 50 mill as a [expletive] insult too. I hope someone here is in commercial real estate in the area or knows someone that is, to shed light there. There's always been a sort of "we're the Cubs, we made you" vibe coming from Ricketts. Which, while certainly true, glosses over the dumbass contract he inherited with them.

 

Bernstein tweeted this is all due to one individual owner who won't, can't, has no idea how to negotiate. It absolutely sucks in trying to deal with that type of guy. Honestly, the rest of them could be quite content with things, but have to keep up the united front, because of this one [expletive]. They probably have no clue what he wants either.

 

Him- What's the offer?

Them-50 mill

Him-That's not enough

Them-What is?

Him-More than that

Them- how much more?

Him-I'll know when I see it

Them-Can you give us an idea?

Him-I just did

Them-No , an actual amount.

Him-I told you, I'll know it when I see it

 

This is pretty much what I wrote above. They have an Association and likely a contractual obligation to go down with the ship.

[Soul]

Couple of things: SSR brought up a great point. Is the real estate alone worth 50 mill? If so, or even remotely close to that, then I'd look at 50 mill as a [expletive] insult too. I hope someone here is in commercial real estate in the area or knows someone that is, to shed light there. There's always been a sort of "we're the Cubs, we made you" vibe coming from Ricketts. Which, while certainly true, glosses over the dumbass contract he inherited with them.

 

Bernstein tweeted this is all due to one individual owner who won't, can't, has no idea how to negotiate. It absolutely sucks in trying to deal with that type of guy. Honestly, the rest of them could be quite content with things, but have to keep up the united front, because of this one [expletive]. They probably have no clue what he wants either.

 

Him- What's the offer?

Them-50 mill

Him-That's not enough

Them-What is?

Him-More than that

Them- how much more?

Him-I'll know when I see it

Them-Can you give us an idea?

Him-I just did

Them-No , an actual amount.

Him-I told you, I'll know it when I see it

 

I don't know, man. It's not really a "vibe" coming from Ricketts. It's just the cold, hard reality of the situtation. The Cubs are the only reason the RTO's have a business.

[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.

 

 

That's not what my point was. They saw a way to make a [expletive] 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.

 

That is no different from sports owners that bought $50m franchises and saw their value skyrocket through the growth of spectator sports in general.

 

They bought the property and refurbished dingy old pieces of crap buildings. They invested in an opportunity.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The contract isn't dumb. When the Cubs are good, they get quite a bit of essentially free revenue from the rooftops.

 

It's not the contracts fault that the Cubs have been mismanaged into oblivion and that revenue has disappeared.

[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.

 

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).

 

In a world where nostalgia is always better than present day, sure. In real life, no.

[davell]

I get it. I agree with it. Wholeheartedly. Unfortunately a dumbass who worked on the Business side of the Trib(who is now your lead business ops guy) brokered this deal. You knew it when you bought it. Just because its s shitty deal for the Cubs-it IS a deal you inherited. Bitching and talking down about the rooftops( if you're Ricketts) does nothing, but make himself look bad.

[SouthSideRyan]

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] 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.

 

That is no different from sports owners that bought $50m franchises and saw their value skyrocket through the growth of spectator sports in general.

 

They bought the property and refurbished dingy old pieces of crap buildings. They invested in an opportunity.

 

Or an owner who bought a 650M franchise and saw its value clear 1B while doing literally nothing to improve it.

[Soul]

I get it. I agree with it. Wholeheartedly. Unfortunately a dumbass who worked on the Business side of the Trib(who is now your lead business ops guy) brokered this deal. You knew it when you bought it. Just because its s [expletive] deal for the Cubs-it IS a deal you inherited. Bitching and talking down about the rooftops( if you're Ricketts) does nothing, but make himself look bad.

 

Hmm. I watched that video, and didn't come away with that feeling about Ricketts at all. I felt pretty good about it, actually. Like maybe our erstwhile owner is finally going to do something that will benefit us as fans.

[Wilson A2000]

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.

 

If they fight until Ricketts raises his offer to say $150 million, it ends well. Probably what they are hoping for.

 

Yes I want the Cubs to have more financial resources, but if the rooftop contract is as the rooftop owners say it is, I can't blame them. You can't just let Tom block you.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Wilson A2000

[davell]

The contract isn't dumb. When the Cubs are good, they get quite a bit of essentially free revenue from the rooftops.

 

It's not the contracts fault that the Cubs have been mismanaged into oblivion and that revenue has disappeared.

 

Well, the contract was great for the Trib, as they took a short term money grab, knowing they wouldn't be the ones facing the repercussions of renovating the park.

 

However, it must have stuck out like a sore thumb during the Ricketts purchase. There had to be very preliminary talks with the rooftops even prior to the purchase. As it certainly affects the true value going forward from the purchase date.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

[davell]

I get it. I agree with it. Wholeheartedly. Unfortunately a dumbass who worked on the Business side of the Trib(who is now your lead business ops guy) brokered this deal. You knew it when you bought it. Just because its s [expletive] deal for the Cubs-it IS a deal you inherited. Bitching and talking down about the rooftops( if you're Ricketts) does nothing, but make himself look bad.

 

Hmm. I watched that video, and didn't come away with that feeling about Ricketts at all. I felt pretty good about it, actually. Like maybe our erstwhile owner is finally going to do something that will benefit us as fans.

 

I'm not talking about the video. Within the last year, he's compared them to the neighbor stealing your HBO. While funny, it's uncalled for, given the contract they have.

[Wilson A2000]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

 

Which is why you wonder if Tom didn't have the money for the renovations and now does.

[davell]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

 

Really? Are you an architect, Kyle? You can modernize Wrigley Field, give it the revenue streams to make it comparable to other large market parks, and unequivocally not disturb the rooftops......

[jersey cubs fan]

I get it. I agree with it. Wholeheartedly. Unfortunately a dumbass who worked on the Business side of the Trib(who is now your lead business ops guy) brokered this deal. You knew it when you bought it. Just because its s [expletive] deal for the Cubs-it IS a deal you inherited. Bitching and talking down about the rooftops( if you're Ricketts) does nothing, but make himself look bad.

 

Hmm. I watched that video, and didn't come away with that feeling about Ricketts at all. I felt pretty good about it, actually. Like maybe our erstwhile owner is finally going to do something that will benefit us as fans.

 

I'm not talking about the video. Within the last year, he's compared them to the neighbor stealing your HBO. While funny, it's uncalled for, given the contract they have.

 

That rhetoric worked fine while in the process of negotiating the first deal, but it makes you look stupid when said while you currently have a contract specifically sanctioning that activity.

[SouthSideRyan]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

 

Which is why you wonder if Tom didn't have the money for the renovations and now does.

 

The only thing that has changed financially between then and now is the plan calls for more signage and advertising in the outfield.

[SouthSideRyan]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

 

Really? Are you an architect, Kyle? You can modernize Wrigley Field, give it the revenue streams to make it comparable to other large market parks, and unequivocally not disturb the rooftops......

 

I don't think he said anything about revenue streams.

[jersey cubs fan]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

 

Really? Are you an architect, Kyle? You can modernize Wrigley Field, give it the revenue streams to make it comparable to other large market parks, and unequivocally not disturb the rooftops......

 

Renovating and putting up new big signs are not the same thing. You can absolutely renovate the park in a major way without interfering with the rooftop agreement. The Cubs don't want to do that though.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are no repercussions for renovating the park. You can renovate the park from here to doomsday without bothering the rooftops.

 

Really? Are you an architect, Kyle? You can modernize Wrigley Field, give it the revenue streams to make it comparable to other large market parks, and unequivocally not disturb the rooftops......

 

 

This:

give it the revenue streams to make it comparable to other large market parks,

 

is a [expletive] PR concept that is completely meaningless and tries to redefine what "renovation" means into something completely different from renovation.

[davell]

To renovate the park, you're not going to even BOTHER going thru with it, unless you're adding money streams to make it worthwhile. I may not like Ricketts myself, but I'm not expecting anyone to dump a couple hundred mill out of his own pocket just to keep something going.

 

But I would have been fine moving to begin with, if it were feasible.

 

In the end, you'd have a ballpark that has a limited amount of space and a limited amount of ways to make money. Putting you behind anyone else building a park that gets to use the additional revenue being generated for whatever they choose.

[Soul]

I get it. I agree with it. Wholeheartedly. Unfortunately a dumbass who worked on the Business side of the Trib(who is now your lead business ops guy) brokered this deal. You knew it when you bought it. Just because its s [expletive] deal for the Cubs-it IS a deal you inherited. Bitching and talking down about the rooftops( if you're Ricketts) does nothing, but make himself look bad.

 

Hmm. I watched that video, and didn't come away with that feeling about Ricketts at all. I felt pretty good about it, actually. Like maybe our erstwhile owner is finally going to do something that will benefit us as fans.

 

I'm not talking about the video. Within the last year, he's compared them to the neighbor stealing your HBO. While funny, it's uncalled for, given the contract they have.

 

That rhetoric worked fine while in the process of negotiating the first deal, but it makes you look stupid when said while you currently have a contract specifically sanctioning that activity.

 

Alright, I didn't catch him saying that and yeah it was probably the wrong thing to do.