Wrigley Renovation Thread

[mul21]

Can they get the Fire to play at Wrigley? Is it big enough? Can it be made big enough?

 

No, No, and kinda for stuff like exhibitions. The Fire's season overlaps almost entirely with Baseball season, it's a non-starter.

 

The Cardinals had a college football game at Busch toward the end of last season.

[Ryne Ween]

Id go to a bunch of fire games I they played at wrigley too bad.

 

Maybe he could do a sale lease back for 100 years and require the buyer to do the renovations themselves. By the time the lease runs up tom and everybody he loves will be dead and perhaps by then the fabric of life will change to the point that these concerns are trivial. Are there Cubs in Divergent or did nobody think to ask?

[Sammys Boombox]

I posted this in the Ricketts thread, but maybe it is more appropriate here.

 

Mully and Hanley are reporting that the Ricketts are considering selling a minority stake in the team to fund the renovations. Ricketts is going to be on the show later.

 

Any thoughts on if this is good or not? I do not know how to interpret this. On one hand I would think that it is good because more cash will flow into the organization, but on the other hand I'm thinking #broketomricketts.

 

Edit: I'm an idiot and missed this discussion entirely yesterday.

[jersey cubs fan]

I really don't think selling a minority stake in the team is meaningful in any way. It's just smart business. They bought the thing for ~$800m and some value it at ~$1.2B, why not take a little off the top while maintaining complete control? If they are smart they will keep selling off up to 49% of the company as the price rises.

[USSoccer]

Can they get the Fire to play at Wrigley? Is it big enough? Can it be made big enough?

 

No, for the reasons TT outlined and because Andrew Hauptmann makes @PoorTomRicketts look like a Rockefeller.

[WrigleyField 22]

I really don't think selling a minority stake in the team is meaningful in any way. It's just smart business. They bought the thing for ~$800m and some value it at ~$1.2B, why not take a little off the top while maintaining complete control? If they are smart they will keep selling off up to 49% of the company as the price rises.

While that's true for right now, the articles have mentioned the Ricketts wanting to make sure they maintain control into at least the "next generation". I'm not sure how it works anyways since it's owned by the trust, but my assumption is at the end of the day each Rickett right now has a ~23.75% stake and depending on how many kids they all have next in line, they want to be sure a couple family numbers couldn't jump ship so to speak and easily sell the club because ownership is so diluted. So maybe we'd only see up to about 20% or so depending on how they figure the numbers out or how the subsequent ownership is outlined in the trust docs.

[jersey cubs fan]

I really don't think selling a minority stake in the team is meaningful in any way. It's just smart business. They bought the thing for ~$800m and some value it at ~$1.2B, why not take a little off the top while maintaining complete control? If they are smart they will keep selling off up to 49% of the company as the price rises.

While that's true for right now, the articles have mentioned the Ricketts wanting to make sure they maintain control into at least the "next generation". I'm not sure how it works anyways since it's owned by the trust, but my assumption is at the end of the day each Rickett right now has a ~23.75% stake and depending on how many kids they all have next in line, they want to be sure a couple family numbers couldn't jump ship so to speak and easily sell the club because ownership is so diluted. So maybe we'd only see up to about 20% or so depending on how they figure the numbers out or how the subsequent ownership is outlined in the trust docs.

 

Well I was being a little facetious with the 49% comment, I doubt they actually do it that way. Right now they could theoretically sell a couple $60m chunks of 5% stakes in the company. There should not be much difficulty in maintaining control via the trust no matter how diluted the trust itself gets with offspring.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wouldn't minority stakes be worth less than x% of the team valuation?

[jersey cubs fan]

Wouldn't minority stakes be worth less than x% of the team valuation?

 

Well yeah, it won't be exactly the % of the valuation.

[Guest]

If I had $60 million to invest I'd be jamming their in box and phone lines right now. The return on investment will be huge over the long haul.

[Ryne Ween]

They could issue preferred shares and have a call provision that would allow them to repurchase the shares at a negotiated price.

 

I dont know how attractive an investment this will be, but there are ways for them to do this in a way that wouldnt dilute their ownership any more than the City or State financing.

 

I honestly believe that we can look at this step as a positive. And honestly nice that TR doesnt appear to be bullheaded if he actually was willing to be creative like this.

[davell]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/26643690-419/cubs-might-be-six-years-away-from-big-market-spending.html

 

Just 6 more years til we have money to spend!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/26643690-419/cubs-might-be-six-years-away-from-big-market-spending.html

 

Just 6 more years til we have money to spend!

 

If I'm reading that right, it went something like this:

 

Wittenmeyer: Can you deny that it will take six years to get the TV money?

 

PTR: I can't say anything right now, we'll know more about the TV deal by the end of the year.

 

Wittenmeyer rushes off to write lead about how it might be six more years and PTR didn't deny it.

[davell]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/would-selling-cubs-shares-do-anything-theos-rebuild

 

If you think Wittenmyer is a back, here's Mooney mentioning the FO's frustration and starting to see this is just how things are going to be.

[KingCubsFan]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/would-selling-cubs-shares-do-anything-theos-rebuild

 

If you think Wittenmyer is a back, here's Mooney mentioning the FO's frustration and starting to see this is just how things are going to be.

Other than the renovation delays, I don't see why anything else would be a surprise to the front office. It was all in place when they took over.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Other than the renovation delays, I don't see why anything else would be a surprise to the front office. It was all in place when they took over.

 

They've faced some roadblocks but they also haven't been as good as they think they are and have made a lot of mistakes. I have a feeling I know which part they'll focus on if things continue to go south.

[Guest]

Apparently, Warren Buffett is interested.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/04/04/warren-buffett-interested-in-buying-piece-of-chicago-cubs/

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Hell yeah, let's go Warren.

[Gmoney08]

The only better dream pairing in my life besides for Warren Buffet & the Cubs would be to go gamble and hit the strip club with Michael Jordan.

[dfnowak]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/would-selling-cubs-shares-do-anything-theos-rebuild

 

If you think Wittenmyer is a back, here's Mooney mentioning the FO's frustration and starting to see this is just how things are going to be.

 

There’s been simmering frustration inside the baseball operations department as the Cubs missed on players that would make sense for the long-term — prime-age free agents like Yoenis Cespedes, Hyun-Jin Ryu and Masahiro Tanaka

 

I remember missing on Cespedes was about years, not money. But, was missing on both Ryu and Tanaka really due to lack of financial support or the FO's decision to not exceed their respective values?

[Guest]

Cespedes signed for 4/40, but he also didn't sign til February in an offseason where the team didn't spend much, so they may have been limited on that front.

 

Ryu signed for 6/36 in between the Feldman and Jackson signings, so there's no reason to blame finances there.

 

Tanaka signed for 7/155. The team left money on the table this year, presumably in their attempt to sign him. If they're frustrated that it wasn't enough(my money's on the frustration being at the posting system changing last minute), they should have read the market for him better and gone after contingencies.

[Cubswin11]

Didn't we, supposedly, offer Cespedes a 6 year deal (I think higher AAV than the A's) but he wanted a shorter deal so he could get to his 2nd (and presumably) more lucrative contract faster and we just wouldn't go down to fewer years?

[treebird]

Didn't we, supposedly, offer Cespedes a 6 year deal (I think higher AAV than the A's) but he wanted a shorter deal so he could get to his 2nd (and presumably) more lucrative contract faster and we just wouldn't go down to fewer years?

 

the rumor has always been that we offered 6/40 and the a's offered 4/40 but only if he signed without letting the cubs or anyone else counter. i don't know how much i buy that, though.

[Fro]

Cespedes signed for 4/40, but he also didn't sign til February in an offseason where the team didn't spend much, so they may have been limited on that front.

 

Ryu signed for 6/36 in between the Feldman and Jackson signings, so there's no reason to blame finances there.

 

Tanaka signed for 7/155. The team left money on the table this year, presumably in their attempt to sign him. If they're frustrated that it wasn't enough(my money's on the frustration being at the posting system changing last minute), they should have read the market for him better and gone after contingencies.

 

There's going to be players like that that they miss on (Cespedes and Ryu) no matter how much money the Cubs spend and how good their front office is. You're always going to be able to have some players where you say "man this money for player X would have been better spent on player Y, hindsight being 20/20".

[Sammy Sofa]

Cespedes signed for 4/40, but he also didn't sign til February in an offseason where the team didn't spend much, so they may have been limited on that front.

 

Ryu signed for 6/36 in between the Feldman and Jackson signings, so there's no reason to blame finances there.

 

Tanaka signed for 7/155. The team left money on the table this year, presumably in their attempt to sign him. If they're frustrated that it wasn't enough(my money's on the frustration being at the posting system changing last minute), they should have read the market for him better and gone after contingencies.

 

There's going to be players like that that they miss on (Cespedes and Ryu) no matter how much money the Cubs spend and how good their front office is. You're always going to be able to have some players where you say "man this money for player X would have been better spent on player Y, hindsight being 20/20".

 

Well, they've missed on all of them except for Soler so far.