Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

Sure you are. If you don't, it crumbles around you and you have no revenue streams.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

Horsepoop.

 

If they want so badly to be just like all the other teams, cut ticket prices in half and quit scalping your own tickets. Until then, I don't feel too badly that you don't have quite as much signage as the Pirates.

[Wilson A2000]

What % of the new revenue that would come in after the renovation is held up by the rooftop owners?

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

Okay then that will work out great when it is determined your building is unsafe for occupancy and you can no longer conduct business there.

[Guest]

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.

 

I know there was talk of buying out the buildings themselves, but reading the articles about the rumored offer/counter it's buying out the contract, not buying the buildings from them, right? They'd still be free to do whatever they want with the real estate, and if the real estate only has value for this narrow purpose then it's probably not that valuable anyway.

[Guest]

Right. The mother [expletive] Cubs did make those buildings.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

 

Sure you are. If you don't, it crumbles around you and you have no revenue streams.

Yep, they'd have no ability to move anywhere else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

Sure you are. If you don't, it crumbles around you and you have no revenue streams.

Yep, they'd have no ability to move anywhere else.

 

It'd be pretty dumb to refuse to renovate Wrigley Field without new revenue and then spend a bunch of money to build a new park with even less revenue.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

 

Sure you are. If you don't, it crumbles around you and you have no revenue streams.

Yep, they'd have no ability to move anywhere else.

 

It'd be pretty dumb to refuse to renovate Wrigley Field without new revenue and then spend a bunch of money to build a new park with even less revenue.

If they weren't trying to generate new revenue, why wouldn't they just keep doing a patchwork job of making it sure it doesn't crumble?

[jersey cubs fan]

If they weren't trying to generate new revenue, why wouldn't they just keep doing a patchwork job of making it sure it doesn't crumble?

Because that is not a cost effective way of renovating the stadium, and there are other ways of increasing revenue from the renovations that have nothing to do with the signs in the outfield.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If they weren't trying to generate new revenue, why wouldn't they just keep doing a patchwork job of making it sure it doesn't crumble?

 

I imagine they'd have to sit down and do the math on whether the cost of the patchwork each year is more than the cost of a longer-term fix.

 

And of course, they can expand revenue in a bunch of different ways that have no impact on the rooftop views either, so that's not entirely off the table.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

Sure you are. If you don't, it crumbles around you and you have no revenue streams.

Yep, they'd have no ability to move anywhere else.

 

Moving elsewhere would cost more than 200M before we even get into the argument of whether they lose revenue by being in Arlington Heights

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

I know there was talk of buying out the buildings themselves, but reading the articles about the rumored offer/counter it's buying out the contract, not buying the buildings from them, right? They'd still be free to do whatever they want with the real estate, and if the real estate only has value for this narrow purpose then it's probably not that valuable anyway.

 

I think only a few if any still have people actually living in them, so I don't know what kind of infrastructure and zoning work would need to be done, but you could do a lot worse than owning a four-flat across the street from Wrigley Field.

[ConstableRabbit]

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.

 

I know there was talk of buying out the buildings themselves, but reading the articles about the rumored offer/counter it's buying out the contract, not buying the buildings from them, right? They'd still be free to do whatever they want with the real estate, and if the real estate only has value for this narrow purpose then it's probably not that valuable anyway.

 

I think only a few if any still have people actually living in them, so I don't know what kind of infrastructure and zoning work would need to be done, but you could do a lot worse than owning a four-flat across the street from Wrigley Field.

I think it's closer to 50/50, actually.

[Fro]

The outfield signage & jumbrotrons are relatively cheap to buy/install compared to the rest of the renovations, so you'd get nearly immediate positive revenues for those.

 

Stuff like the gift shop & hotel would take more years to pay off.

 

Basically if you didn't have the outfield signage the City of Chicago would have to kick in some money to make the whole thing feasible.

[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.

 

Okay then that will work out great when it is determined your building is unsafe for occupancy and you can no longer conduct business there.

 

Of course you're going to do the other stuff. My point is I totally get why an owner refuses to start anything until he makes a decision on the revenue streams.

 

In no way am I applauding him here-the decision to go this direction should have happened a long time ago, in my mind.

 

But in no way am I going to sink a couple hundred mill into a place when my future revenue generators are in limbo.

[Guest]

Danny Ecker is gonna be on with Mac and Spiegs on the Score at 11:40 for anyone interested.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

Okay then that will work out great when it is determined your building is unsafe for occupancy and you can no longer conduct business there.

 

Of course you're going to do the other stuff. My point is I totally get why an owner refuses to start anything until he makes a decision on the revenue streams.

 

You're statements are diametrically opposed.

[davell]

Off the top of my head, potential money makers involving a stadium would be luxury suites, naming rights, advertising rights, taxes on concessions, parking, and surely some tax breaks in the deal structure.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Off the top of my head, potential money makers involving a stadium would be luxury suites, naming rights, advertising rights, taxes on concessions, parking, and surely some tax breaks in the deal structure.

 

Now take out being able to charge 15 times the MLB average for a ticket and having 2 million a year in season tickets guaranteed.

[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.

 

Okay then that will work out great when it is determined your building is unsafe for occupancy and you can no longer conduct business there.

 

Of course you're going to do the other stuff. My point is I totally get why an owner refuses to start anything until he makes a decision on the revenue streams.

 

You're statements are diametrically opposed.

 

Do you mind explaining it?

 

What I'm saying is this should have been the path taken a while back. But, in response to those saying we could do the other stuff sooner....I wouldn't do those things until I at least know that I'll have the other revenue streams and they're not in limbo.

 

 

All this being said-while I think I saw it a long time ago, I have no clue what order all these things are supposed to happen in.

[WrigleyField 22]

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.

 

Okay then that will work out great when it is determined your building is unsafe for occupancy and you can no longer conduct business there.

 

Of course you're going to do the other stuff. My point is I totally get why an owner refuses to start anything until he makes a decision on the revenue streams.

 

In no way am I applauding him here-the decision to go this direction should have happened a long time ago, in my mind.

 

But in no way am I going to sink a couple hundred mill into a place when my future revenue generators are in limbo.

The future revenue streams aren't in that much limbo. If the contract ends in 8 years or whatever the Cubs will be able to do whatever they want with OF signage really. It's the near term that it's limbo, but taking the long view the future doesn't appear that uncertain.

 

But if they need the immediate revenue to fund the 300m reno then they can't really just wait out the contract for 8 more years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davell]

Off the top of my head, potential money makers involving a stadium would be luxury suites, naming rights, advertising rights, taxes on concessions, parking, and surely some tax breaks in the deal structure.

 

Now take out being able to charge 15 times the MLB average for a ticket and having 2 million a year in season tickets guaranteed.

 

It's a total short term outlook. You've capped yourself (we were at our payroll max when we had everything working on the field)and you're not going to be a top tier payroll team for long at all, when every other team is out there taking advantage of the things you now can't.

 

There are plenty of teams out there that laugh at 2 mill in attendance. Plenty that have more seating capacity and plenty that have relatively to high ticket prices themselves.

[Guest]

Off the top of my head, potential money makers involving a stadium would be luxury suites, naming rights, advertising rights, taxes on concessions, parking, and surely some tax breaks in the deal structure.

 

Now take out being able to charge 15 times the MLB average for a ticket and having 2 million a year in season tickets guaranteed.

 

And replace it with?

 

It's not like it's going to fall to average lol

[Sammy Sofa]

but you could do a lot worse than owning a four-flat across the street from Wrigley Field.

 

That sounds nightmarish. I can't imagine that too many people who can actually afford to live in a building like that in that location would be down with the frat party atmosphere and the skyrocketing crime rate.