Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

Yea I mean, how long does this court case last? Longer than it took to change course on the plans why they patiently waited? And you're still going to court and possibly facing an injunction.

 

Sounds like it should have been clear very early on that the non litigation route was never realistic and pursuing it was blind hope and not a smart business move.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Well, it sounds like it was one dissenter. Seemed like they'd keep coming close to an agreement...then this guy would [expletive] everything up. Most reasonable people would think that if it's 8 or 10 or whatever against 1, eventually that one guy would back down. Appears they are dealing with a complete imbecile. I think we've all known enough stupid and stubborn people to know that this is possible.

[WrigleyField 22]

Yea but most people that stubborn are easily identified early on in my experience.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

Yea I mean, how long does this court case last? Longer than it took to change course on the plans why they patiently waited? And you're still going to court and possibly facing an injunction.

 

Sounds like it should have been clear very early on that the non litigation route was never realistic and pursuing it was blind hope and not a smart business move.

 

 

exactamundo

[WrigleyField 22]

I am a little surprised that one owner is enough to stop an otherwise unanimous opinion though. What kind of agreement did these guys sign? Taking other ownership agreements for instance, it doesn't take all 30 MLB owners to vote yes to a new media deal.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davell]

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.

 

There are very few teams that laugh at our current revenue.

 

While true, the vast majority don't have hundreds of millions worth of work to do on their stadium either. The last list I looked at, the Cubs WERE 3rd or 4th, which I remembered surprised me a bit. But there were a decent amount of teams bunched in within a decent range there too.

[Soul]

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.

 

Just rent out the space if you don't like it there?

 

I assume if you own one of those buildings and rent out the space, you either deal with the scum yourself, or hire a management firm to deal with it and pay a fee for the service. So if you don't like dealing with the residue of all the partying yourself, it's a matter of either charging more for rent or taking a slight hit on profit and getting out of that side of the business.

 

Maybe that's not how it works out though. I doubt it's a real nightmare for the building owners either way. One way or another, they deal with it and it's part of what they signed up for. They either live there themselves and that's it, or they figure out some other way of handling what comes along with the neighborhood. Or they sell and get out. Or, they choose to be miserable.

[Guest]

I am a little surprised that one owner is enough to stop an otherwise unanimous opinion though. What kind of agreement did these guys sign? Taking other ownership agreements for instance, it doesn't take all 30 MLB owners to vote yes to a new media deal.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I thought about this...but if they are looking for an agreement from them all not to sue, how can they stop the one guy from doing so?

[Soul]

I am a little surprised that one owner is enough to stop an otherwise unanimous opinion though. What kind of agreement did these guys sign? Taking other ownership agreements for instance, it doesn't take all 30 MLB owners to vote yes to a new media deal.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't know.

 

Maybe it's just that there hasn't been an incentive to break ranks yet. After all, the Cubs have been doing a lot of talking and not a lot of action.

 

Or, maybe this owner has a lot of goodwill built up in the neighborhood for other things.

[WrigleyField 22]

I am a little surprised that one owner is enough to stop an otherwise unanimous opinion though. What kind of agreement did these guys sign? Taking other ownership agreements for instance, it doesn't take all 30 MLB owners to vote yes to a new media deal.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I thought about this...but if they are looking for an agreement from them all not to sue, how can they stop the one guy from doing so?

I guess I'm just not really sure about the ownership structure here. If the association as an entity would agree to not sue, hypothetically on a 10-1 vote, any dissenters would only have a claim against the association and not the cubs. But I guess that's why the association wouldn't want to override any dissenters and agree?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

There are very few teams that laugh at our current revenue.

 

While true, the vast majority don't have hundreds of millions worth of work to do on their stadium either. The last list I looked at, the Cubs WERE 3rd or 4th, which I remembered surprised me a bit. But there were a decent amount of teams bunched in within a decent range there too.

 

How much of that hundreds of millions are going towards needed infrastructure vs constructing money-making ventures like jumbotrons, gift shops, parking lots, and hotels?

[crazycooter]

Yea I mean, how long does this court case last? Longer than it took to change course on the plans why they patiently waited? And you're still going to court and possibly facing an injunction.

 

Sounds like it should have been clear very early on that the non litigation route was never realistic and pursuing it was blind hope and not a smart business move.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It appears that Tunney has been pro-RTO's, and certainly anti-Cubs, throughout this process. Given that, it would have been a bad idea to go to the nuclear option with the RTO's prior to getting everything through the City Council, at least. That happened last Summer (and even that hasn't stopped Tunney from dicking it up, remember). So, pursuing the non-litigation route up through last Summer was justifiable.

 

I think it is reasonable to argue that this "[expletive] you, we're doing it anyway" to the RTO's should have come last fall. However, we've since heard that the whole thing is being held up by 1 or 2 RTO's while the rest are onboard with the Cubs. So, as of last fall there probably was some legitimate hope that things could actually be resolved through negotiation.

[Guest]

FWIW:

 

This is the plan, by the way, that will be submitted to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on June 5 for approval. Chicago Cubs VP of Communication and Community Affairs Julian Green tells me that this revised plan will not need to be approved by any other commission or the full City Council. Those approvals have already been secured as part of the process last year, and the Landmarks Commission is, essentially, running the show at this point.

 

That would be Rahm's hand picked Landmarks Commission...

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/05/22/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-the-revised-expansion-plan-details/

 

Brett's take is worth a read.

[davell]

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.

 

There are very few teams that laugh at our current revenue.

 

While true, the vast majority don't have hundreds of millions worth of work to do on their stadium either. The last list I looked at, the Cubs WERE 3rd or 4th, which I remembered surprised me a bit. But there were a decent amount of teams bunched in within a decent range there too.

 

How much of that hundreds of millions are going towards needed infrastructure vs constructing money-making ventures like jumbotrons, gift shops, parking lots, and hotels?

 

Good question. Did I see 300 mill towards keeping the ballpark afloat at one point? I'm asking, I thought I did, but this has gone on so long, I'm not sure at all.

[Guest]

300 was for the ballpark work and the rest was for the hotel + plaza...I THINK.

 

Those figures have since changed.

Edited May 23, 2014 by David

[Guest]

Hinz thinks work (and litigation) could start pretty soon:

 

A lot of different pieces are moving today in the wake of Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts' decision to call off any further negotiations with Wrigley Field's rooftop owners and go full speed ahead with a $300 million plan to rebuild the century-old ballpark. And, if I'm reading the tea leaves right, there's a decent chance that some construction work actually will begin fairly soon, depending on what happens in court.

 

As I reported this morning, it's over because Mr. Ricketts has gotten tired of waiting for chunks of concrete to fall from the upper deck. And it's over because Mayor Rahm Enanuel is tired of waiting, too, as an election nears in which he'd like to brag about how he finally ended the Wrigley wars.

 

That means that the team's latest plan — which includes a slightly reduced Jumbotron-style display in right field, and four new video boards around the ballpark — is likely to zip through pretty much as proposed, either at the June 5 meeting of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, or shortly thereafter.

 

With Team Ricketts now moving ahead, the rooftops are going to have to actually play the legal card soon or they will lose all credibility and any chance of returning to the bargaining table a the last second.

 

In a sign that's actually coming, I've confirmed that the the rooftops have retained three attorneys at Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd. The lead is Peter John, a veteran corporate litigator who probably is best known politically for having once been the partner of former Cook County Board President Dick Phelan.

 

The Cubs have loaded up, too. They've retained Kirkland & Ellis LLP, specifically corporate litigator Andrew Kassof, who recently has represented National Basketball Players Assn. President Derek Fisher in a nasty breach of contract fight with the group's former executive director, Billy Hunter.

 

What I don't know is whether the rooftops will try to spread out their opposition into a variety of legal actions, or whether everything will be combined in one assault.

 

What I do know is this: When the mayor's office flexes its muscle, and highly paid attorneys go on the payroll, something is going to happen. And probably sooner rather than later.

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140522/BLOGS02/140529898/ricketts-drops-the-big-one-what-happens-now-in-the-wrigley-war

[Guest]

Good grief. Let's move this forward Tommy Boy. It's about time. I never want to go to a Cubs game again when it is half filled with the other team's fans. Blech!

 

I'm so pleased that they've decided enough is enough. Either the Ricketts have a lot patience or they really didn't want to get started, whatever. Let the work begin.

 

----------

 

Sort of related, but I wonder how much this prolonged losing with no end in sight has affected this decision. I hope a lot.

[A New Era]

Yeah it's about time. I want to see the jumbotron and most of the signage next year, so they can stop using the revenue excuse when they sign absolutely nobody of signifigance.

[jersey cubs fan]

Sort of related, but I wonder how much this prolonged losing with no end in sight has affected this decision. I hope a lot.

 

I doubt any

[Guest]

Sort of related, but I wonder how much this prolonged losing with no end in sight has affected this decision. I hope a lot.

 

I doubt any

me too

[RynoRules]

I dunno. My guess is that Ricketts realizes the goodwill is spent and something g has to change soon.

[Guest]

The revised clubhouse size is the same size as the new Yankee Stadium (30,000 sq. ft.).

[mhuber92211]

Why not give the rooftops 17% of the Sign that specifically blocks each of their view. ANd for the partial blockages, give partial revenue shares?

[Banedon]

Why not give the rooftops 17% of the Sign that specifically blocks each of their view. ANd for the partial blockages, give partial revenue shares?

 

Because [expletive] them, that's why.

[Sammy Sofa]

Rahm wants to be able to brag about a situation he helped prolong and basically did nothing to help move along. He is the [expletive] worst.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why not give the rooftops 17% of the Sign that specifically blocks each of their view. ANd for the partial blockages, give partial revenue shares?

 

Because that would be silly.