Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

Also, not giving the tax credits is a way of not funding the renovations, because PTR and his kin are counting on the money.

 

If you think this then why are you +1'ing Tree's post when you were just complaining about them giving the Cubs a hard time?

Because was under the impression that if they didn't get approval that would mean the construction couldn't go on. Now I know they can do whatever they want, but they might not get tax breaks that they should not get anyway, so [expletive] PTR.

 

Its all a bunch of [expletive], they are not poor and are doing things that they obviously abhor in others, namely, sucking off the government's tit.

[Guest]

Also, not giving the tax credits is a way of not funding the renovations, because PTR and his kin are counting on the money.

 

If you think this then why are you +1'ing Tree's post when you were just complaining about them giving the Cubs a hard time?

Because was under the impression that if they didn't get approval that would mean the construction couldn't go on. Now I know they can do whatever they want, but they might not get tax breaks that they should not get anyway, so [expletive] PTR.

 

Its all a bunch of [expletive], they are not poor and are doing things that they obviously abhor in others, namely, sucking off the government's tit.

 

If they're counting on the money, like your posts says, then that would seem to be an impediment to construction going on, too.

 

And that would seem to be what you were trying to imply with that post in the first place, as a defense of your original post complaining about the park service giving them a hard time. If not, what point are you trying to make with the obvious statement that "not giving the tax credits is a way of not funding the renovations?"

Edited September 5, 2014 by David

[Guest]

This isn't someone getting scholarship money for being 1/16th native american, there's a very real downside to having the status that enables them to apply for those tax credits. We've already seen it play out with the ludicrous extra approvals from the Landmark commission and now (for some reason) the National Park Service. This ownership isn't the ones who pushed or even asked for landmark status. If you think from a societal point of view that those tax credits shouldn't be given out, that's fine, but considering that landmark status has been a big part of delaying the project for months/years I don't think it's subversive for them to try for that incentive.

[Cubfanintheknow]

This isn't someone getting scholarship money for being 1/16th native american, there's a very real downside to having the status that enables them to apply for those tax credits. We've already seen it play out with the ludicrous extra approvals from the Landmark commission and now (for some reason) the National Park Service. This ownership isn't the ones who pushed or even asked for landmark status. If you think from a societal point of view that those tax credits shouldn't be given out, that's fine, but considering that landmark status has been a big part of delaying the project for months/years I don't think it's subversive for them to try for that incentive.

 

Well said. It's crazy that the National Park Service is even involved. But if you're the Cubs and you're going to have to work around the landmark status, you might as well take advantage of it if you can. It would have been one thing if the Cubs had asked for landmark status just so they could take advantage of the tax credit. But that was done long before Ricketts bought the Cubs.

[WrigleyField 22]

This isn't someone getting scholarship money for being 1/16th native american, there's a very real downside to having the status that enables them to apply for those tax credits. We've already seen it play out with the ludicrous extra approvals from the Landmark commission and now (for some reason) the National Park Service. This ownership isn't the ones who pushed or even asked for landmark status. If you think from a societal point of view that those tax credits shouldn't be given out, that's fine, but considering that landmark status has been a big part of delaying the project for months/years I don't think it's subversive for them to try for that incentive.

 

Well said. It's crazy that the National Park Service is even involved. But if you're the Cubs and you're going to have to work around the landmark status, you might as well take advantage of it if you can. It would have been one thing if the Cubs had asked for landmark status just so they could take advantage of the tax credit. But that was done long before Ricketts bought the Cubs.

The landmark status with the NPS is separate though from the city landmark status. They are definitely seeking it out for the tax credit. They can do the project without NPS involvement. The question is if the renovations are dependent on the tax credit from a cost perspective. I hope not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[George Hayduke]

This isn't someone getting scholarship money for being 1/16th native american, there's a very real downside to having the status that enables them to apply for those tax credits. We've already seen it play out with the ludicrous extra approvals from the Landmark commission and now (for some reason) the National Park Service. This ownership isn't the ones who pushed or even asked for landmark status. If you think from a societal point of view that those tax credits shouldn't be given out, that's fine, but considering that landmark status has been a big part of delaying the project for months/years I don't think it's subversive for them to try for that incentive.

 

Well said. It's crazy that the National Park Service is even involved. But if you're the Cubs and you're going to have to work around the landmark status, you might as well take advantage of it if you can. It would have been one thing if the Cubs had asked for landmark status just so they could take advantage of the tax credit. But that was done long before Ricketts bought the Cubs.

The landmark status with the NPS is separate though from the city landmark status. They are definitely seeking it out for the tax credit. They can do the project without NPS involvement. The question is if the renovations are dependent on the tax credit from a cost perspective. I hope not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, but they have to adhere to the Landmark Commission's guidelines, and doing so probably gets them 95% or better of the way there with meeting the NPS guidelines for the tax credit. So it's kind of a pain in the ass, but if tweaking a few of the plans a little beyond what you've already done for the Landmark Commission nets you $75M in tax credits, then that's nothing to snub your nose at, especially if you need the cost savings immediately. Otherwise as David pointed out, if you expect the value of the extra signage to be well beyond the $75M, then you don't worry about it.

[Guest]

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/emanuel-gives-cubs-green-light-break-ground-wrigley-field/tue-09162014-238pm

 

There’s nothing a Chicago mayor with dismal poll numbers likes more heading into a potentially difficult re-election campaign than a groundbreaking ceremony for a $575 million project that creates 2,100 jobs.

 

That’s apparently why Mayor Rahm Emanuel is gung-ho about the Cubs’ plan to start renovating Wrigley Field and developing the land around it, even before a pending lawsuit filed by rooftop club owners is decided. Last week, the Cubs applied for a permit to expand the Wrigley bleachers.

 

“They are going to start construction at Wrigley Field, the modernization, but also at the school playground in making their investment and living up to the commitment they made at the table to the entire package, both for Wrigley Field and the neighborhood of Wrigleyville,” the mayor said.

 

“I believe we’ve worked out what I think is a win-win strategy for both Wrigley Field — to modernize it, create economic opportunity — and also for Wrigleyville. Prior to the agreement, there was no transportation plan. No overall security plan. No investments in the neighborhood. The alderman was a strong advocate for that. So, they’re going forward based on a comprehensive plan.”

 

Cubs spokesman Julian Green said the team is not about to wait for a judge to rule on a lawsuit filed against the city last month by eight rooftop club owners who share 17 percent of their revenues with the team.

 

The city is now in the process of relocating water and sewer lines outside Wrigley in preparation for the bleacher expansion. The underground infrastructure needs to be shifted because, what was once city land is now “Cubs property,” Green said.

 

“The video board will be up in 2015 — the big one approved [in left-field]. So will the Budweiser sign in right,” Green said.

 

“We just got [the five additional] signs approved this summer. As the summer comes to a close, we’ll be in the marketplace talking to potential and existing sponsors. If there are sponsors who want to purchase those assets, we’ll put them up as quickly as possible.”

 

Rooftop club owners had no comment on plans for an October groundbreaking.

 

In their lawsuit, club owners claim the revenue-sharing agreement gives them a “legally protected interest in their views of Wrigley Field.” They also accuse the team of using strong-arm tactics by attempting to coerce them into selling their businesses.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

“The video board will be up in 2015 — the big one approved [in left-field]. So will the Budweiser sign in right,” Green said.

 

Assuming we can get the design elements hammered out by then.

[Guest]

i want ALL the signs for next year

[SouthSideRyan]

i want ALL the signs for next year

 

Yeah, I don't quite get why we're waiting 9 months to negotiate with sponsors for the other 5.

[Guest]

i want ALL the signs for next year

 

Yeah, I don't quite get why we're waiting 9 months to negotiate with sponsors for the other 5.

 

plus there's the other scoreboard in right which is more of a video board than a sign. i think it'll have a sign component, but it's not like it's just the toyota sign or the budweiser sign.

[Derwood]

 

“The video board will be up in 2015 — the big one approved [in left-field]. So will the Budweiser sign in right,” Green said.

 

Assuming we can get the design elements hammered out by then.

 

Problem is, Ricketts can't afford the hammer

[UMFan83]

Looks like construction is starting on the bleachers immediately following today's home finale

 

[Guest]

i'm such a dork for stuff like this

 

i can't wait to see progress pics all offseason. wish they were doing a web cam.

[Guest]

lmfao this headline

 

http://abc7chicago.com/sports/wrigley-field-$575m-renovation-set-to-begin/323525/

 

it's not just in teh headline, either...they go on to say it in the story

[jersey cubs fan]

lmfao this headline

 

http://abc7chicago.com/sports/wrigley-field-$575m-renovation-set-to-begin/323525/

 

it's not just in teh headline, either...they go on to say it in the story

 

The team aims to have the project should be complete by Opening Day of the 2015 season.

[Guest]

raher than post stuff myself, i'll let BN do all the work

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/09/27/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-outfield-demolition-coming-more-pictures/

[Guest]

i want ALL the signs for next year

 

Yeah, I don't quite get why we're waiting 9 months to negotiate with sponsors for the other 5.

 

I will post one thing tho

 

By opening day, 2015, Wrigley will begin to resemble Boston’s Fenway Park, Ricketts’ model for all things Wrigley.

 

“I’m not at liberty to say [who all the sponsors are], but we’re confident we’ll have all seven signs up by next year,” Green said.

 

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/demolition-wrigley-bleachers-begins-monday-ceremony/fri-09262014-554pm

[XZero771679666304]

Man, I'm really amped up to see all these changes actually happen. I think it's going to be great, but the impatient side of me hates that it can't all be done in one offseason. I love seeing these things progress.

 

I'd also like to be a fly on Beth Murphy's (and the other rooftop owners) wall as all these changes come to pass, especially the signs.

[Guest]

Man, I'm really amped up to see all these changes actually happen. I think it's going to be great, but the impatient side of me hates that it can't all be done in one offseason. I love seeing these things progress.

 

I'd also like to be a fly on Beth Murphy's (and the other rooftop owners) wall as all these changes come to pass, especially the signs.

 

so much of what we actually see on tv will be done next year. the grandstands and clubhouses will be nice to see done, though. plaza too.

[XZero771679666304]

Man, I'm really amped up to see all these changes actually happen. I think it's going to be great, but the impatient side of me hates that it can't all be done in one offseason. I love seeing these things progress.

 

I'd also like to be a fly on Beth Murphy's (and the other rooftop owners) wall as all these changes come to pass, especially the signs.

 

so much of what we actually see on tv will be done next year. the grandstands and clubhouses will be nice to see done, though. plaza too.

 

We won't see things like the clubhouse and player facilities much, but it'll be nice not to have them be a laughingstock, and it'll make us more appealing to free agents.

[Guest]

more things are happening

[Guest]

is it just me or does it look like his arms are just gonna snap off supporting the weight of that base

[jersey cubs fan]

is it just me or does it look like his arms are just gonna snap off supporting the weight of that base

I assume they detached the feet from the bottom.

[Guest]

is it just me or does it look like his arms are just gonna snap off supporting the weight of that base

I assume they detached the feet from the bottom.

 

that would make sense