Wrigley Renovation Thread

[USSoccer]

I'm glad Kenney is on the Cubs side in this debate.

 

Yep. It seems that the mayor's office is as well; Rahm is also not the sort of guy who would tolerate this kind of crap.

[jersey cubs fan]

ETA: All venting aside, if it means a short term hit to revenue to build a stadium for the team to be better off in the long run from a revenue standpoint, I think that outweighs any hesitancy to ditch Wrigley. The goal is to win games, not be a tourist attraction in a run down dump that you're handcuffed on with respect to attempts at renovations and revenue streams.

 

In the end this is all just negotiations. The Cubs have numbers in mind and the rooftop people have numbers in mind, and the powers that be appear to be on the Cubs' side. They will come to an agreement that in the end is going to involve a substantial increase in revenue for the Cubs with contained costs that would be dwarfed by the costs of building a new stadium. Ballparks cost $1B now. The Cubs do not want to spend $1B, they aren't getting money from Illinois, and no suburb is going to be able to kick in a big enough number to make it work.

 

It won't be a rundown dump when they are done.

[USSoccer]

ETA: All venting aside, if it means a short term hit to revenue to build a stadium for the team to be better off in the long run from a revenue standpoint, I think that outweighs any hesitancy to ditch Wrigley. The goal is to win games, not be a tourist attraction in a run down dump that you're handcuffed on with respect to attempts at renovations and revenue streams.

 

In the end this is all just negotiations. The Cubs have numbers in mind and the rooftop people have numbers in mind, and the powers that be appear to be on the Cubs' side. They will come to an agreement that in the end is going to involve a substantial increase in revenue for the Cubs with contained costs that would be dwarfed by the costs of building a new stadium. Ballparks cost $1B now. The Cubs do not want to spend $1B, they aren't getting money from Illinois, and no suburb is going to be able to kick in a big enough number to make it work.

 

It won't be a rundown dump when they are done.

 

The threat of moving is real leverage in these negotiations; I agree that at some point there will be an agreement; the city is on their side and the Cubs don't want to move. Each side will make a couple concessions. But if it gets silly, and the rooftop owners are as deluded as these statements say they are, then I'm using every bit of leverage necessary if I'm Kenney & Co.

[jersey cubs fan]

The threat of moving is real leverage in these negotiations; I agree that at some point there will be an agreement; the city is on their side and the Cubs don't want to move. Each side will make a couple concessions. But if it gets silly, and the rooftop owners are as deluded as these statements say they are, then I'm using every bit of leverage necessary if I'm Kenney & Co.

 

I think that threat has to remain implied right now and not part of the message that gets disseminated by the media.

[Banedon]

The threat of moving is real leverage in these negotiations; I agree that at some point there will be an agreement; the city is on their side and the Cubs don't want to move. Each side will make a couple concessions. But if it gets silly, and the rooftop owners are as deluded as these statements say they are, then I'm using every bit of leverage necessary if I'm Kenney & Co.

 

I think that threat has to remain implied right now and not part of the message that gets disseminated by the media.

 

Maybe a "leak" that the Cubs are investigating some suburban location?

[Guest]

Levine:

 

Roof top owners say Cubs will get $3.5million a year for 20 years. Sounds low.

 

Rooftop owner believes Cubs would like to run down rooftop revenue to buy buildings for the themselves.

 

LOL at all of that

[Banedon]

@PWSullivan Cubs to Roofies: Drop Dead

[Cubswin11]

$3.5mm a year for 20 years is nearly as ridiculous of an offer as the Red Sox asking for Castro/Garza for Theo.

[Sammys Boombox]

Hard to see where the common ground will be when all is said and done. A lot of players involved:

 

Cubs

Rahm

Tunney

Rooftop owners

Actual Wrigleyville residents

 

I don't think any of them come into the negotiations with a position that completely agrees with any other group. Tunney receives lots of donations from the rooftops (according to something I read today), but he represents a lot more residents who only benefit from the Cubs because their propert values are higher and others who probably get zero benefit from the Cubs. I'm not sure how big his ward is, so I'm just guessing on that part.

[Guest]

Hard to see where the common ground will be when all is said and done. A lot of players involved:

 

Cubs

Rahm

Tunney

Rooftop owners

Actual Wrigleyville residents

 

I don't think any of them come into the negotiations with a position that completely agrees with any other group. Tunney receives lots of donations from the rooftops (according to something I read today), but he represents a lot more residents who only benefit from the Cubs because their propert values are higher and others who probably get zero benefit from the Cubs. I'm not sure how big his ward is, so I'm just guessing on that part.

 

at this point i think the Cubs and Rahm are pretty much in lockstep if it comes to that. The, by far (and I feel like that's understating it) most important player, outside of the Cubs, is on the Cubs side. I'm not worried at all about whether it gets done.

 

It's just going to be annoying to listen to all this until we get there.

[Guest]

$3.5mm a year for 20 years is nearly as ridiculous of an offer as the Red Sox asking for Castro/Garza for Theo.

 

Pretty much.

[davell]

I thought I was seeing tweets mentioning 10-20 mill a year?

[dfnowak]

it better be a [expletive] of night games if we're stuck with the outcome for 10 years.

As for additional night games, I think they only really need to add Friday night games to be similar to the rest of the league. The first two games of a three game series are usually night games anyways. And, like most teams, getaway days, Saturdays (due to FOX) and Sundays are day games.

 

And I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding the selfishness of Wrigleyville residents. If it weren't for the Cubs, their inflated property values wouldn't be so high.

 

You really think the actual residents or "Wrigleyville" or Lakeview have any say about this? Get a [expletive] clue.

The residents are the reason night games are limited and I'm sure the ones with money will have some say in this (through Tunney). And I used to live in the neighborhood, so yes, I do have a [expletive] clue, [expletive].

[Guest]

I thought I was seeing tweets mentioning 10-20 mill a year?

 

That was floated around, and then 3.5 million was the number given in the presentation.

[Guest]

This is a good point that I overlooked earlier.

 

Sources close to the Ricketts family say more signs could generate an additional $10 million to $20 million a year in revenue.

 

The rooftop owners have their own ideas about signs and plan to hold a news conference Friday to introduce a plan for the team to place signs on the buildings that house the rooftop businesses.

 

But Cubs spokesman Julian Green said, "We believe there is a significant reduction in value with signs being placed on rooftops, given the limited television exposure those signs would bring."

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-wrigley-field-rehab-0125-20130125,0,3128450,full.story

[jersey cubs fan]

This is a good point that I overlooked earlier.

 

Sources close to the Ricketts family say more signs could generate an additional $10 million to $20 million a year in revenue.

 

The rooftop owners have their own ideas about signs and plan to hold a news conference Friday to introduce a plan for the team to place signs on the buildings that house the rooftop businesses.

 

But Cubs spokesman Julian Green said, "We believe there is a significant reduction in value with signs being placed on rooftops, given the limited television exposure those signs would bring."

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-wrigley-field-rehab-0125-20130125,0,3128450,full.story

 

You will probably see a combination of inside the park and rooftop ads. Most inside park ones won't actually obstruct views.

[Old Style]

With Cub pitching giving up tons of HR's I figured the outfield signs would be worth billions to advertisers.

[USSoccer]

What gives these assholes the right to make proposals on behalf of the team, or proposals on adverts that the team wants to put up? Did I miss the thing where the North Side Ivy League Club or whatever those clowns call themselves became minority owners?

[BeerHere]

A representative of the team, Cubs marketing specialist Kevin Saghy, tried to attend the press conference but was asked to leave the room during the video presentation of the rooftop plan. Saghy brought a tape recorder but did not wear any credentials to indicate he was a Cubs representative.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-ads-on-wrigley-rooftop-20130125,0,6430722.story

 

I've said it before, most of the buildings around Wrigley aren't owned by families or even citizens of the city. Most buildings are owned by businesses. They were given a meal ticket for years and they took full advantage. It's time for that crap to end.

 

(...and move to the burbs)

Edited January 25, 2013 by BeerHere

[BeerHere]

it better be a [expletive] of night games if we're stuck with the outcome for 10 years.

As for additional night games, I think they only really need to add Friday night games to be similar to the rest of the league. The first two games of a three game series are usually night games anyways. And, like most teams, getaway days, Saturdays (due to FOX) and Sundays are day games.

 

And I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding the selfishness of Wrigleyville residents. If it weren't for the Cubs, their inflated property values wouldn't be so high.

 

You really think the actual residents or "Wrigleyville" or Lakeview have any say about this? Get a [expletive] clue.

The residents are the reason night games are limited and I'm sure the ones with money will have some say in this (through Tunney). And I used to live in the neighborhood, so yes, I do have a [expletive] clue, [expletive].

I used to live in the neighborhood as well. The residents do have Tunney's ear but the businesses and rooftop owners have his pocketbook. If given the choice Tunney will side with the rooftop owners every time.

 

Rooftop owners are not residents. Most are owned by out of town corporations and LLC's that were started when the night games were first introduced in 1988.

[BeerHere]

@PWSullivan Cubs to Roofies: Drop Dead

Sullivan is a major tool, but I love that response from the Cubs. Nothing like having a press conference to unveil your counter proposal before talking it over with the other major stakeholder(s). I suppose the same could be said of the Cubs and the unveil at the convention, but the team is their product, the Cubs shouldn't have to run their ideas by the city, the business owners, the rooftops or anyone else for that matter.

[Guest]

@PWSullivan Cubs to Roofies: Drop Dead

Sullivan is a major tool, but I love that response from the Cubs. Nothing like having a press conference to unveil your counter proposal before talking it over with the other major stakeholder(s). I suppose the same could be said of the Cubs and the unveil at the convention, but the team is their product, the Cubs shouldn't have to run their ideas by the city, the business owners, the rooftops or anyone else for that matter.

 

And the Cubs had already unveiled their renovation plans to the neighborhood by the time the convention rolled around.

[dfnowak]

it better be a [expletive] of night games if we're stuck with the outcome for 10 years.

As for additional night games, I think they only really need to add Friday night games to be similar to the rest of the league. The first two games of a three game series are usually night games anyways. And, like most teams, getaway days, Saturdays (due to FOX) and Sundays are day games.

 

And I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding the selfishness of Wrigleyville residents. If it weren't for the Cubs, their inflated property values wouldn't be so high.

 

You really think the actual residents or "Wrigleyville" or Lakeview have any say about this? Get a [expletive] clue.

The residents are the reason night games are limited and I'm sure the ones with money will have some say in this (through Tunney). And I used to live in the neighborhood, so yes, I do have a [expletive] clue, [expletive].

I used to live in the neighborhood as well. The residents do have Tunney's ear but the businesses and rooftop owners have his pocketbook. If given the choice Tunney will side with the rooftop owners every time.

 

Rooftop owners are not residents. Most are owned by out of town corporations and LLC's that were started when the night games were first introduced in 1988.

But the night game limitations are due to the residents, not the rooftop owners. I would think the rooftop owners would want more night games as it provides access to more customers and more money in their pockets.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How feasible is it for the Cubs to break out the screens and flip off the rooftop owners again? Don't we have some kind of contract with them now?

[Guest]

How feasible is it for the Cubs to break out the screens and flip off the rooftop owners again? Don't we have some kind of contract with them now?

 

Yes, as has been mentioned like a bajillion times in this thread.