Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

That would be pretty [expletive] awesome if they pull that off.

[Splendid Splinter]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/25/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-is-the-ricketts-family-just-trying-to-put-the-rooftops-out-of-business/

But, however unsavory it might seem, we have to at least discuss the possibility that the Cubs are considering a plan that would (1) erect signs that block the rooftop views, (2) involve a lengthy legal dispute, (3) drive the rooftops out of business in the meantime, (4) allow the Ricketts Family to purchase the rooftop buildings at a reduced rate, and (5) allow the Ricketts Family to repurpose those buildings to drive additional personal revenue or additional Cubs revenue.

 

Well, that's just good [expletive] business. When you own a product and have parasites trying to latch on for free and/or getting in the way of increasing revenue that's rightfully yours, you cut off their lifeblood.

 

 

It would be funny if this actually happens and after they buy the rooftop buildings, they move the signs from Wrigley to the facade of the buildings and reuse the rooftop bleachers again.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey, look: anti-CLOWN KENNEY comments.

[Brett]

Yeah, why is that "unsavory" at all? Oh no, a bunch of LLC's have to sell off their parasitic businesses to the organization they're leeching off of...HOW UNSEEMLY.

 

Intentionally breaching the contract - if blocking the views does that - is the potentially unsavory part. I'm making no judgment either way - it's a frequent business practice. I just wanted to make sure and note that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Sammy Sofa]

Fair enough.

[Banedon]

Yeah, why is that "unsavory" at all? Oh no, a bunch of LLC's have to sell off their parasitic businesses to the organization they're leeching off of...HOW UNSEEMLY.

 

Intentionally breaching the contract - if blocking the views does that - is the potentially unsavory part. I'm making no judgment either way - it's a frequent business practice. I just wanted to make sure and note that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

 

I get what you're saying, but it's a contract that the previous ownership signed. I think that makes it a bit more palatable. But I'm not unbiased.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/26/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-the-rooftops-just-launched-a-hail-mary/

[Guest]

It's pretty funny that the "non- Wrigley" option keeps popping up.

 

The Ricketts are more likely to move the Cubs to Charlotte or Vegas or wherever than they would to one the suburbs. Either option is out of the question.

[cbbryan]

It's pretty funny that the "non- Wrigley" option keeps popping up.

 

The Ricketts are more likely to move the Cubs to Charlotte or Vegas or wherever than they would to one the suburbs. Either option is out of the question.

 

It's not necessarily the fact that they would move, only that they entertain the notion enough to get city officials moving.

[Guest]

It's pretty funny that the "non- Wrigley" option keeps popping up.

 

The Ricketts are more likely to move the Cubs to Charlotte or Vegas or wherever than they would to one the suburbs. Either option is out of the question.

 

It's not necessarily the fact that they would move, only that they entertain the notion enough to get city officials moving.

No one would seriously believe it so it wouldn't be hard to call a bluff.

[BeerHere]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/26/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-the-rooftops-just-launched-a-hail-mary/

That press release doesn't sound good at all. Lots of finger pointing by the rooftop owners toward the Ricketts family. The only reason that I can think of to make statements like that is where negotiations have stalled and the rooftop owners are using PR as a last ditch effort to bring the Cubs back to the table. Or maybe to save some face. Regardless, my position hasn't changed. Leave Wrigleyville. Fine new land whether that be in Rosemont or somewhere else.

[cbbryan]

It's pretty funny that the "non- Wrigley" option keeps popping up.

 

The Ricketts are more likely to move the Cubs to Charlotte or Vegas or wherever than they would to one the suburbs. Either option is out of the question.

 

It's not necessarily the fact that they would move, only that they entertain the notion enough to get city officials moving.

No one would seriously believe it so it wouldn't be hard to call a bluff.

 

If it's taken far enough by the Cubs, the city would have no choice but to break. It's not a risk, I believe, they would take.

[Guest]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/26/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-the-rooftops-just-launched-a-hail-mary/

That press release doesn't sound good at all. Lots of finger pointing by the rooftop owners toward the Ricketts family. The only reason that I can think of to make statements like that is where negotiations have stalled and the rooftop owners are using PR as a last ditch effort to bring the Cubs back to the table. Or maybe to save some face. Regardless, my position hasn't changed. Leave Wrigleyville. Fine new land whether that be in Rosemont or somewhere else.

 

 

The rooftops being desperate is a great sign. It means they're probably fucked.

[Sammys Boombox]

If I were Ricketts I would have some sort of April Fools press release prepared, like the Cubs are moving to Carbondale or something.

[Guest]

In this link, Tom Tunney still being an enormous jackass

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/03/27/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-a-deal-virtually-impossible-by-april-1-deadline-what-happens-then/

[Old Style]

Is anyone else expecting to read the news any day now of Tunney's body being found in a ditch somewhere?

[Sammy Sofa]

No.

[Guest]

George Offman:

 

No 6000 square ft jumbotron for Cubs. Told city will allow only 3,000. Current centerfield scoreboard is about 6,000.

 

A bit of amending. Current Cubs scoreboard between 4 & 5,000 sq ft. Jumbotron won't be more than 3,000.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait, what? They wanted a JumboTron bigger than the scoreboard? That seems...excessive. Is this like negotiating for a new salary, where you ask for a number higher than what you'd really be fine with?

[Old Style]

That's plenty big, no?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If they are quibbling on that level of detail, a deal is getting done.

[Cubswin11]

Wait, what? They wanted a JumboTron bigger than the scoreboard? That seems...excessive. Is this like negotiating for a new salary, where you ask for a number higher than what you'd really be fine with?

Anything less than 6,000 sq. ft. would distort the giant middle finger of theo and the Ricketts family mooning the rooftop owners on the outward facing part of the scoreboard.

[Guest]

Soooo maybe the reason the rooftop owners are so pissed is that they want to put in this giant JumboTron that we've heard nothing about (which I'm fine with...and I'm fine with blocking the rooftop views and telling them to go [expletive] themselves)?

 

And maybe they are being forced out of the talks?

[Guest]

Wait, what? They wanted a JumboTron bigger than the scoreboard? That seems...excessive. Is this like negotiating for a new salary, where you ask for a number higher than what you'd really be fine with?

 

Maybe they wanted it that big because it would be on a rooftop and further back?

 

I'd love to see what other plans/renderings they have besides what made it out there publicly.

[UMFan83]

Royals have the largest jumbotron in baseball which is I believe over 8000 sq ft. Diamondbacks have one around 8,000 as well.

 

Edit: Cowboys is 11,500 sq ft