Wrigley Renovation Thread

[davell]

By the way, I can't find it anywhere, but I'd love to know the approximate revenue the rooftops generate. I have no idea, so it's not worth me guessing on. I'm just trying to figure where they're coming in at 250 from. Is that 10 years of revenue, minus the 17% they pay the Cubs possibly? Or is it way higher than that?

 

When I've been approached at selling a business or when I've attempted to buy one, the general starting point is 3 years of profit. Obviously, things can complicate that very simplistic view,(10 years left on contract in this case). But I'd like to try and truly figure out which side is truly the unreasonable one here.

 

But I have absolutely no idea what position the rooftops are coming from here. Rightly or wrongly though, they DO have their contract and unfortunately, as leechy and unlikable as they are, if they're coming at it from 10 years minus 17% as their starting point, I at least understand their opening position.

 

There's 16 of them, right? Do they average profiting around 1.6 mill a year after paying the Cubs? Does that seem likely?

[Wilson A2000]

Won't the value of the houses the rooftops are on lose a sizable percentage if they can't host customers too?

[Wilson A2000]

20k a game in profit per rooftop is way too high isn't it? That would equal out to $250 million over 10 years. I can see why Ricketts doesn't want to pay that.

[Guest]

Tommy Boy finally showed some stones. Good for him.

[SouthSideRyan]

20k a game in profit per rooftop is way too high isn't it? That would equal out to $250 million over 10 years. I can see why Ricketts doesn't want to pay that.

 

20K has to be too high. The biggest ones might exceed that on marquee games, but that's about all I can see.

Edited May 22, 2014 by SouthSideRyan

[davell]

20k a game in profit per rooftop is way too high isn't it? That would equal out to $250 million over 10 years. I can see why Ricketts doesn't want to pay that.

 

I didn't even look at the value of the real estate. Do the rooftops host events that aren't game related? I know nothing of what they do. Are the Cubs entitled to 17% of that money, if they do have other events?

[SouthSideRyan]

20k a game in profit per rooftop is way too high isn't it? That would equal out to $250 million over 10 years. I can see why Ricketts doesn't want to pay that.

 

I didn't even look at the value of the real estate. Do the rooftops host events that aren't game related? I know nothing of what they do. Are the Cubs entitled to 17% of that money, if they do have other events?

 

I believe some will do private events whenever you want them (Come experience your wedding on a concrete slab overlooking an empty ballpark), and they do general sales for the concerts.

[SouthSideRyan]

If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"

[davell]

If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"

 

If that's the case, I definitely side with Ricketts. But if they're THAT unreasonable, the decision to move forward should have happened long ago.

[Wilson A2000]

I know this question has long been answered in this thread, but can Ricketts buy out just the affected rooftops and just pay double to end this?

[Sammys Boombox]

So, what are the current thoughts on:

 

1. Chances renovations start this offseason?

2. Chances renovations start next offseason?

3. Chances the rooftops win a law suit that causes a delay in construction or causes the deconstruction of certain parts of the plan?

[Sammys Boombox]

If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"

 

If that's the case, I definitely side with Ricketts. But if they're THAT unreasonable, the decision to move forward should have happened long ago.

 

Maybe it was, but the timing of the announcement was important for political support.

[Guest]

By the way, I can't find it anywhere, but I'd love to know the approximate revenue the rooftops generate. I have no idea, so it's not worth me guessing on. I'm just trying to figure where they're coming in at 250 from. Is that 10 years of revenue, minus the 17% they pay the Cubs possibly? Or is it way higher than that?

 

When I've been approached at selling a business or when I've attempted to buy one, the general starting point is 3 years of profit. Obviously, things can complicate that very simplistic view,(10 years left on contract in this case). But I'd like to try and truly figure out which side is truly the unreasonable one here.

 

But I have absolutely no idea what position the rooftops are coming from here. Rightly or wrongly though, they DO have their contract and unfortunately, as leechy and unlikable as they are, if they're coming at it from 10 years minus 17% as their starting point, I at least understand their opening position.

 

There's 16 of them, right? Do they average profiting around 1.6 mill a year after paying the Cubs? Does that seem likely?

 

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.

[Connor McConnor]

Moot point. It's too late. Ricketts invested in a Tulip farm. He might have been able to revive some interest in the team by building a modern stadium somewhere….but battling to save that dump was a colossal blunder. I don't know all the details (cause I don't care anymore….like millions of other people) but if he still has the option to move….it's his only hope.

[Guest]

If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"

 

If that's the case, I definitely side with Ricketts. But if they're THAT unreasonable, the decision to move forward should have happened long ago.

 

Maybe PTR really didn't have the money (and has investors lined up now) and this was a convenient excuse to push it back (like many here have speculated).

 

Or maybe they really did want to, in some amount of good faith, compromise rather than let this go to court and all of the hassles involved with that.

 

Either way, if they're gonna be pains in the asses anyway, might as well move forward with the original full scale plans rather than the trimmed down to help the rooftops version.

[Guest]

Moot point. It's too late. Ricketts invested in a Tulip farm. He might have been able to revive some interest in the team by building a modern stadium somewhere….but battling to save that dump was a colossal blunder. I don't know all the details (cause I don't care anymore….like millions of other people) but if he still has the option to move….it's his only hope.

 

Yeah...no.

[Soul]

Just pay the rooftop owners already. Give them $100 million if that is a fair deal. Between litigation costs, losing all of this extra revenue that could have been made, and the possibility that Tom loses in court, it would just be so much easier.

 

It'll never be enough. Won't work.

[ConstableRabbit]

I *did* tell PTR that we needed to spend and get some FAs yesterday. Coincidence?

 

 

... Probably.

[Soul]

If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"

 

If that's the case, I definitely side with Ricketts. But if they're THAT unreasonable, the decision to move forward should have happened long ago.

 

Maybe PTR really didn't have the money (and has investors lined up now) and this was a convenient excuse to push it back (like many here have speculated).

 

Or maybe they really did want to, in some amount of good faith, compromise rather than let this go to court and all of the hassles involved with that.

 

Either way, if they're gonna be pains in the asses anyway, might as well move forward with the original full scale plans rather than the trimmed down to help the rooftops version.

 

I think it didn't happen sooner because PTR is actually a nice guy. He really wanted to resolve this and live as one big happy family. It didn't work -- and being "nice" isn't going to serve him well in the future either.

[Wilson A2000]

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

[Guest]

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.

[KingCubsFan]

So, what are the current thoughts on:

 

1. Chances renovations start this offseason?

2. Chances renovations start next offseason?

3. Chances the rooftops win a law suit that causes a delay in construction or causes the deconstruction of certain parts of the plan?

It's not about whether the rooftops will win the lawsuit, it's whether they can successfully get an injunction that blocks the construction. If they can't get that, than long, drawn-out litigation is the Cubs' best friend.

[SouthSideRyan]

If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"

 

If that's the case, I definitely side with Ricketts. But if they're THAT unreasonable, the decision to move forward should have happened long ago.

 

Ideally there's somebody with experience in the field who could answer, but how far off is the 50M number from real estate/property value alone?

[Wilson A2000]

If Tom really had the legal right to block the rooftops, just seemed really late in the game to let everyone know he did. Wouldn't that have been something you alert the media and Cub fans to right away? Just seems shady. Wasn't it just this past winter that some details surfaced over the contract? Edited May 22, 2014 by Wilson A2000

[SouthSideRyan]

So, what are the current thoughts on:

 

1. Chances renovations start this offseason?

2. Chances renovations start next offseason?

3. Chances the rooftops win a law suit that causes a delay in construction or causes the deconstruction of certain parts of the plan?

 

1. Not optimistic. 10%?

2. No idea until the various court cases/appeals are resolved.

3. Would be shocked if the new/old plan goes through in full.