Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

Just ditch the bullpen stuff if it meets significant resistance. Who cares?

Can't move forward with any more renovations until we get some of the revenue from the extra couple dozen seats down there.

 

I know you're making a joke, but while that may have been in mind at some point in the future, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the plans yet about any seating expansion there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Just ditch the bullpen stuff if it meets significant resistance. Who cares?

Can't move forward with any more renovations until we get some of the revenue from the extra couple dozen seats down there.

 

I know you're making a joke, but while that may have been in mind at some point in the future, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the plans yet about any seating expansion there.

 

Really? That must be an oversight. That's prime seating area.

[Andy]

Just ditch the bullpen stuff if it meets significant resistance. Who cares?

Can't move forward with any more renovations until we get some of the revenue from the extra couple dozen seats down there.

 

I know you're making a joke, but while that may have been in mind at some point in the future, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the plans yet about any seating expansion there.

I honestly thought that was part of the plan. Shows how much I know.

[Guest]

Dan Bernstein ‏@dan_bernstein 9m

Source: Mayor's #Cubs comments today are "political cover," and any issues are minor. Team and city still anticipate approval of plans.

 

Dan Bernstein ‏@dan_bernstein 7m

Rahm needs to provide the appearance that #Cubs plans' approval is not a rubber-stamping (which it pretty much is).

[Irrelevant Dude]

The appeal for a corporate event goes down when you can only see the right half of the infield and half of home plate because a giant scoreboard is blocking the rest.

That is true to some degree, but it can also be offset by the increased demand brought by a good team. If all the games are sold out, there will be more people on the rooftops regardless of whether they have an obstruction-free view.

[WrigleyField 22]

A slightly obstructed view is one thing, but it looks like about two of those buildings are set to get a view of the back of an electronic scoreboard. At that point you're just a rooftop bar.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammy Sofa]

A bunch of them are all done up inside on all levels for parties. They'd still find plenty of suckers.

[jumbo]

A slightly obstructed view is one thing, but it looks like about two of those buildings are set to get a view of the back of an electronic scoreboard. At that point you're just a rooftop bar.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was at a game for a corporate event, and it pretty much is a rooftop bar as is. There are about 35-40 seats/places to stand where you can actually see the game, and the rest of the crowd gets to watch on tv and listen to the crowd in the actual ballpark.

 

I realize all the rooftops are not uniform in seats with views, but my experience is more bar than ball game.

[WrigleyField 22]

A slightly obstructed view is one thing, but it looks like about two of those buildings are set to get a view of the back of an electronic scoreboard. At that point you're just a rooftop bar.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was at a game for a corporate event, and it pretty much is a rooftop bar as is. There are about 35-40 seats/places to stand where you can actually see the game, and the rest of the crowd gets to watch on tv and listen to the crowd in the actual ballpark.

 

I realize all the rooftops are not uniform in seats with views, but my experience is more bar than ball game.

That was my experience when I went for a bachelor party, but it also snowed that day, so everyone was inside. With better weather the views were good at this one. If the team gets good, the rooftops want the lure of a some view to get fans outside the corp events and bachelor parties. If you knew going in there would be zero view, you'd be hesitant to book your event there, at least at the price you do now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crector]

Who cares about fixing up Wrigley given the fact that Ricketts will spend the profits from it on himself and his investments.

 

Face it, if he was serious about winning, then the Cubs would be a much better team than what they are now.

[jersey cubs fan]

A slightly obstructed view is one thing, but it looks like about two of those buildings are set to get a view of the back of an electronic scoreboard. At that point you're just a rooftop bar.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was at a game for a corporate event, and it pretty much is a rooftop bar as is. There are about 35-40 seats/places to stand where you can actually see the game, and the rest of the crowd gets to watch on tv and listen to the crowd in the actual ballpark.

 

I realize all the rooftops are not uniform in seats with views, but my experience is more bar than ball game.

That was my experience when I went for a bachelor party, but it also snowed that day, so everyone was inside. With better weather the views were good at this one. If the team gets good, the rooftops want the lure of a some view to get fans outside the corp events and bachelor parties. If you knew going in there would be zero view, you'd be hesitant to book your event there, at least at the price you do now.

 

 

Maybe you, specifically would. But I've been 2-3 times, all in good weather, and nobody paid a lick of attention to the game across the street. This would be even more true if it actually is a large group. And it is one of few options for a large group if that is the type of thing you want to do.

[Old Style]

people would pay to stand on waveland and sheffield and stare at the wall if the team is good enough

This made me LOL.

[davell]

http://thegamechicago.com/2014/05/29/cubs-crane-kenney-its-up-to-us-to-make-sure-landmarks-commission-is-ok-with-what-were-doing/

 

Podcast of Kenney today on Kap and Haugh

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/unveiled-see-complete-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Complete contract with rooftops(thought this had been out there previously)

[Guest]

i'm not gonna worry about this "setback" until it leads to any more real substantive delays. if the meeting is two weeks later and they still start in july, no big deal.

 

the posturing is silly but whatever. it's expanding a damn door by a few feet most likely and replacing it with a see-through fence or something. who the hell cares?

[davell]

It's stupid. But once again, in a time where more negative Cubs press sucks.....All these idiots needed to do was run things by a few people prior to getting their little "rah rah" moment. It just brings into question a bit more just how capable they are at negotiating and completing TV deals and such.

[jersey cubs fan]

i'm not gonna worry about this "setback" until it leads to any more real substantive delays. if the meeting is two weeks later and they still start in july, no big deal.

 

the posturing is silly but whatever. it's expanding a damn door by a few feet most likely and replacing it with a see-through fence or something. who the hell cares?

 

The type of idiots that care about things like landmark commissions care.

[ConstableRabbit]

http://thegamechicago.com/2014/05/29/cubs-crane-kenney-its-up-to-us-to-make-sure-landmarks-commission-is-ok-with-what-were-doing/

 

Podcast of Kenney today on Kap and Haugh

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/unveiled-see-complete-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Complete contract with rooftops(thought this had been out there previously)

"Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section."

[WrigleyField 22]

A slightly obstructed view is one thing, but it looks like about two of those buildings are set to get a view of the back of an electronic scoreboard. At that point you're just a rooftop bar.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was at a game for a corporate event, and it pretty much is a rooftop bar as is. There are about 35-40 seats/places to stand where you can actually see the game, and the rest of the crowd gets to watch on tv and listen to the crowd in the actual ballpark.

 

I realize all the rooftops are not uniform in seats with views, but my experience is more bar than ball game.

That was my experience when I went for a bachelor party, but it also snowed that day, so everyone was inside. With better weather the views were good at this one. If the team gets good, the rooftops want the lure of a some view to get fans outside the corp events and bachelor parties. If you knew going in there would be zero view, you'd be hesitant to book your event there, at least at the price you do now.

 

 

Maybe you, specifically would. But I've been 2-3 times, all in good weather, and nobody paid a lick of attention to the game across the street. This would be even more true if it actually is a large group. And it is one of few options for a large group if that is the type of thing you want to do.

It doesn't matter what you actually do when there but everyone is booking those group gatherings under the guise of being able to watch the game. It looks stupid if you were to invite your clients, co-workers, or friends to some overpriced rooftop bar serving hotdogs and your choice of three whole beers, just because it happens to be across from Wrigley. There's like a dozen other bars across from Wrigley that also can't see onto the field. Everyone is going to at least glance at the view and you'd look dumb to drag them to Wrigleyville when you could bring them somewhere more convenient with better food and drink that also can't see inside Wrigley field. It's all the idea behind the event. Hardly anyone watches a game in the luxury box either in a corporate setting, but you wouldn't pay the same for that box if the view was suddenly downgraded.

 

Right now the rooftops with better views generally charge more, so of course there would be an adjustment. The first plan you were talking about a sign with gaps, so a minor downgrade. Now you're talking about a big black board with zero gaps, so a more significant price adjustment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RynoRules]

http://thegamechicago.com/2014/05/29/cubs-crane-kenney-its-up-to-us-to-make-sure-landmarks-commission-is-ok-with-what-were-doing/

 

Podcast of Kenney today on Kap and Haugh

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/unveiled-see-complete-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Complete contract with rooftops(thought this had been out there previously)

"Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section."

 

Hammer clause. If accurate, Ricketts could have just gotten city approval and told the rooftop association to [expletive] itself. Nice of him to at least try to bargain with them first.

[WrigleyField 22]

http://thegamechicago.com/2014/05/29/cubs-crane-kenney-its-up-to-us-to-make-sure-landmarks-commission-is-ok-with-what-were-doing/

 

Podcast of Kenney today on Kap and Haugh

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/unveiled-see-complete-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Complete contract with rooftops(thought this had been out there previously)

"Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section."

 

Hammer clause. If accurate, Ricketts could have just gotten city approval and told the rooftop association to [expletive] itself. Nice of him to at least try to bargain with them first.

Combination of nice and wishful thinking that a lawsuit could be avoided. So PTR apparently valued less revenue without a lawsuit, maybe thinking over the short term of the contract the legal costs outweighed the revenue and then after the contract they could expand to the original plan.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ConstableRabbit]

http://thegamechicago.com/2014/05/29/cubs-crane-kenney-its-up-to-us-to-make-sure-landmarks-commission-is-ok-with-what-were-doing/

 

Podcast of Kenney today on Kap and Haugh

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/unveiled-see-complete-wrigley-field-rooftop-contract

 

Complete contract with rooftops(thought this had been out there previously)

"Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section."

 

Hammer clause. If accurate, Ricketts could have just gotten city approval and told the rooftop association to [expletive] itself. Nice of him to at least try to bargain with them first.

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be pretty rock-solid. Were they just afraid of burning bridges with neighboring businesses and a strong(ish) alderman?

[Guest]

“We’re happy to work with Landmarks, if they want to take another look at the doors, to see if that’s consistent with our wonderful ballpark, and having engaged with them even this morning on that topic, and hope to put it to bed soon,” Kenney told David Kaplan during an interview on “The Game” 87.7 FM. “If ultimately the city believes they should be in the condition they are today, we’ll move forward on that basis.”

 

Kenney also conceded that his organization may have erred in not being clear enough earlier with city officials about plans to move the bullpens from spots in outfield foul territory to new, larger digs beneath the bleachers. “We need to do a better job” of communicating our plans, Kenney said.

 

The remarks came a day after Emanuel said the team would not get the June 5 hearing before the Landmarks Commission it had sought. Emanuel said the plans needed more review because the Cubs had not previously briefed city officials on the full plans.

 

“This recent submission is not ready for next week,” Emanuel said. “They have work to do.”

“There are things like the bullpen that nobody had ever seen before,” the mayor added.

 

It was another in a series of communication missteps the Ricketts family, led by Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts, has made in recent years while trying to win approval of various plans to renovate the ballpark.

 

After years of fits and starts, and months of intense negotiations, the team last year won approval for a $500 million upgrade of the ballpark and surrounding neighborhood, complete with a new hotel, plaza and retail-office complex.

 

But owners of nearby rooftop clubs that have lucrative views into the ballpark and revenue sharing agreements with the Cubs threatened to sue over views that would be partly blocked by the left-field video board and right-field beer advertising sign the city had approved.

 

Last week, Tom Ricketts announced that since a lawsuit from the rooftop owners was inevitable, the Cubs had decided to move forward with much more extensive plans the team had first proposed before last year’s negotiations.

 

Instead of one video board and one sign in the outfield, the Cubs now seek approval for two video boards and five ad signs. They also want to move the bullpens, add seats and expand the home clubhouse to 30,000 feet.

 

Kenney said the Cubs would like to start work on the clubhouse, which will require digging a hole on the triangular parcel where the cubs plan to build the plaza, in mid-July. He also said they also need to start ordering steel for the bleacher expansion.

 

Although the Landmarks Commission doesn’t plan to meet again until July, it could call a special meeting.

 

“We don’t want to have a moment of delay, and that’s why we reached out yesterday to Landmarks, to say, ‘Hey, if you want to take a relook at the outfield doors, we’ll go so far as to take them off the table,’ Kenney said in today’s interview. “If making a double door into a triple door is difficult, we’ll go to the double door, because we want to get started. We don’t want a single moment of delay. And while we think giving our players a greater view of the game would be advantageous, it’s not required, and let’s get started.”

 

City Hall issued a statement this evening.

 

“We will look at their proposal thoroughly and work with them to ensure it is complete and they will be able to present it to the Landmarks Commission,” said Sarah Hamilton, the mayor’s spokeswoman. Hamilton, however, added that won’t happen on June 5.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-cubs-go-into-damage-control-mode-on-latest-renovation-plan-20140529,0,6761409.story

[RynoRules]

Load of political bull manure. They don't want to appear as though they aren't giving it a thorough look.

[Felix Leiter]

Kenney will be on CSN Sportstalk Live with the Kapman today. Two knuckleheads with room temperature IQs. Gosh Kap, please goofy socks for us.

 

First question should be: 'Crane-you're the guy who negotiated and signed this agreement..why are you still with the organization?"

[Guest]

Kenney will be on CSN Sportstalk Live with the Kapman today. Two knuckleheads with room temperature IQs. Gosh Kap, please goofy socks for us.

 

First question should be: 'Crane-you're the guy who negotiated and signed this agreement..why are you still with the organization?"

 

This agreement that provided the Cubs with a solid amount of revenue over the last 10 years or so and which seems to pretty clearly allow them to do the things they want to do to the park now? Yeah, [expletive] terrible. What an incompetent boob.