Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

Do they realize exactly how valuable that property would be if they packed up wrigley brick by brick and moved to the suburbs?

 

They(neighborhood) need the Cubs and Wrigley Field, not the other way around. Time to work together and get a deal done before everyone's property value drops to below 0, not just rooftop owners.

 

The Cubs are not going to move. They know this. That is why they aren't negotiating from the standpoint of worrying about what would happen if the Cubs left.

 

Not that Ricketts wants to work with the rooftop owners, but I wonder if anyone suggests putting the jumbotron where the current scoreboard is thereby avoiding the whole rooftop view issue. Ricketts would get the added revenue from the jumbotron and still get a cut from the rooftops.

 

Welcome, Tom Tunney.

[USSoccer]

Do they realize exactly how valuable that property would be if they packed up wrigley brick by brick and moved to the suburbs?

 

They(neighborhood) need the Cubs and Wrigley Field, not the other way around. Time to work together and get a deal done before everyone's property value drops to below 0, not just rooftop owners.

 

The Cubs are not going to move. They know this. That is why they aren't negotiating from the standpoint of worrying about what would happen if the Cubs left.

 

Not that Ricketts wants to work with the rooftop owners, but I wonder if anyone suggests putting the jumbotron where the current scoreboard is thereby avoiding the whole rooftop view issue. Ricketts would get the added revenue from the jumbotron and still get a cut from the rooftops.

 

Welcome, Tom Tunney.

 

Exalt

[Guest]

Do they realize exactly how valuable that property would be if they packed up wrigley brick by brick and moved to the suburbs?

 

They(neighborhood) need the Cubs and Wrigley Field, not the other way around. Time to work together and get a deal done before everyone's property value drops to below 0, not just rooftop owners.

 

The Cubs are not going to move. They know this. That is why they aren't negotiating from the standpoint of worrying about what would happen if the Cubs left.

 

Not that Ricketts wants to work with the rooftop owners, but I wonder if anyone suggests putting the jumbotron where the current scoreboard is thereby avoiding the whole rooftop view issue. Ricketts would get the added revenue from the jumbotron and still get a cut from the rooftops.

 

You have got to be kidding me right now.

 

Did you miss this entirely and the ensuing backlash against Tunney?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/tom-tunney-wrigley-scoreb_n_2915503.html

[Banedon]

While I was driving to pick up lunch, Bernstein said he spoke to his Cubs source...

 

Going to try to remember everything, but I'll probably miss some.

 

- Said Emanuel still wanted to be disconnected from this, but essentially told Tunney to get it done.

- Said they're not worried about the rooftops, in large part because the rooftops would be up against both the city and the Cubs, and don't have the financial wherewithal to get into a long legal battle with both of those entities.

- Team doesn't expect there is any possibility that a rooftop lawsuit could force an injunction and stop work, and that if there were a rooftop lawsuit, it wouldn't be anything but an annoyance

- Emanuel told Tunney to get on the right side of this, and move away from the rooftops and toward the concerns of the neighborhood.

- Cubs winning PR battle. Neighborhood and public in general just views the rooftops as a mooch according to research by both the team and city.

 

Maybe Brandon was listening and might remember more (or better).

 

Nah, sorry. Missed it.

[UK1679666180]

Why should the Cubs want to work with the rooftop owners? I wouldn't concede on anything if I was the Cubs. Once the Cubs offered to pay for everything, any leverage the rooftop owners had left the building.

 

This battle is finally over, the Cubs have the city as a whole on their side and the blueprints benefit Wrigleyville as a whole and not just a select few by keeping it the same.

 

Let the rooftops sue, lose their money, and lose the case.

[neely crenshaw]

No one wants them to move. They probably will never move, I know they want to refurbish like the red sox did with Fenway.

However everyone reaches a breaking point. 11 more years of absolutely no concessions from the "rooftops" could push the envelope. The have a contract. Not sure exactly what it says they have to get for that contract but short term they have no reason to OK any changes. And it sounds like they are sticking to that line. I guess the point is long term it's better for everyone in the area to try to work together or I can pretty much assume in 11 years when the ball is completely in the Cubs court, they will have no chance of any future cubs revenue. Knowing that, there would be very little chance to even sell the property at any value (rooftops) or at least not close to the value it has as a rooftop venue.

 

bottom line is they have short term power but that pales in comparison to the long term power of the cubs in this battle.

Edited April 15, 2013 by neely crenshaw

[Guest]

No one wants them to move. They probably will never move, I know they want to refurbish like the red sox did with Fenway.

However everyone reaches a breaking point. 11 more years of absolutely no concessions from the "rooftops" could push the envelope. The have a contract. Not sure exactly what it says they have to get for that contract but short term they have no reason to OK any changes. And it sounds like they are sticking to that line. I guess the point is long term it's better for everyone in the area to try to work together or I can pretty much assume in 11 years when the ball is completely in the Cubs court, they will have no chance of any future cubs revenue. Knowing that, there would be very little chance to even sell the property at any value or at least not close to the value it has as a rooftop venue.

 

bottom line is they have short term power but that pales in comparison to the long term power of the cubs in this battle.

 

Are you not following what is going on here at all?

 

The Cubs don't need an OK from the rooftops. They have the city on their side.

[neely crenshaw]

I do, but I also see where the rooftops are implying it won't happen without their OK because of that 20 year deal. I don't know what it says in the deal. It would make sense to have something in there about signage or new construction blocking the view. If so, it would be tied up in courts for a long time and depending on what the contract actually entails, they'll probably win. The courts have power over the city and the cubs on this and they have to follow the law, not any local interests. I'm sure the rooftops will go as far as necessary to fight this. This would end their business, kill their property values and cost them millions, they won't go quietly.

I can't believe they would put a deal together for 20 years that could be circumvented easily. Allowing signage or construction that blocks the view, ends the business for them. It would be pretty dumb to not protect that but maybe the trusted the Cubs. Most successful businesses don't trust anyone that much.

[Guest]

I do, but I also see where the rooftops are implying it won't happen without their OK because of that 20 year deal. I don't know what it says in the deal. It would make sense to have something in there about signage or new construction blocking the view. If so, it would be tied up in courts for a long time and depending on what the contract actually entails, they'll probably win. The courts have power over the city and the cubs on this and they have to follow the law, not any local interests. I'm sure the rooftops will go as far as necessary to fight this. This would end their business, kill their property values and cost them millions, they won't go quietly.

I can't believe they would put a deal together for 20 years that could be circumvented easily. Allowing signage or construction that blocks the view, ends the business for them. It would be pretty dumb to not protect that but maybe the trusted the Cubs. Most successful businesses don't trust anyone that much.

 

A -

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-03/business/ct-biz-0203-phil-cubs--20130203_1_rooftop-owners-rooftop-seats-joe-ricketts

 

But the contract allows that "any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation" of the deal, which means if Mayor Rahm Emanuel gets behind the Ricketts, look out.

 

B - The rooftops likely don't have the finances to fund the legal battle they'd be getting into with the Cubs, nor is it likely that it would be worth it, and, given the above, it also isn't likely that they'd win.

 

 

 

If the city is behind the Cubs, which they clearly are, there isn't going to be a problem.

 

I don't think Ricketts would have said a few of the things he said today if there wasn't a large amount of confidence that this was going forward, rooftops be damned.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm sure the rooftops can afford a good enough lawyer to come up with some sort of argument. Is a videoboard really an expansion or a new feature?

 

I'm not saying they'll win. It's a hail mary, but worth a shot for them and something the Cubs probably want to avoid.

[neely crenshaw]

"We are pleased the Chicago Cubs will participate in a community process to flesh out these details more in-depth. However, no community process, city ordinance, or agreement without our consent can or should dismiss contractual rights granted to us by the Chicago Cubs in 2004. Rooftop owners reserve the right to use any and all means necessary to enforce the remaining 11 years of our 20-year contract. We, as well as every interested party in the Lakeview neighborhood, will study the plans submitted to the City of Chicago and play a constructive role in moving forward." -Wrigleyville Rooftops Association

 

from your post David.

I don't take that as giving in very easily. I also saw your post about the language of the contract. That's the kicker. I just can't see them not protecting a very profitable investment from something so easily done. Hopefully it is that bad a deal and they can just go through with it. I would just be shocked by it.

 

David, Just saw the quote there. I hope that is the case but that is a report not the actual contract. I'm sure the rooftops don't have the resources of the cubs/ricketts. But those buildings weren't cheap and that probably isn't their only venture. I'm sure we're talking multi-millionaires, who are facing losing a large revenue stream, and property values(things millionaires don't like) they'll fight and they'll have some resources.

Again, I have to believe they have some legal leg to stand on, if not you would think they would have been working with the cubs on something to try to save their ventures. Playing the hard line with a contract that has something that easy for the club to do, seems pretty stupid for them. I'm sure they couldn't feel the city would back them over the cubs.

Edited April 15, 2013 by neely crenshaw

[UK1679666180]

I do, but I also see where the rooftops are implying it won't happen without their OK because of that 20 year deal. I don't know what it says in the deal. It would make sense to have something in there about signage or new construction blocking the view. If so, it would be tied up in courts for a long time and depending on what the contract actually entails, they'll probably win. The courts have power over the city and the cubs on this and they have to follow the law, not any local interests. I'm sure the rooftops will go as far as necessary to fight this. This would end their business, kill their property values and cost them millions, they won't go quietly.

I can't believe they would put a deal together for 20 years that could be circumvented easily. Allowing signage or construction that blocks the view, ends the business for them. It would be pretty dumb to not protect that but maybe the trusted the Cubs. Most successful businesses don't trust anyone that much.

 

I'd trust the resources and attorney capabilities of the Ricketts' to ensure that they've looked at every angle possible for them to move forward and if they thought the rooftops' had a binding agreement that would halt construction, they would've uncovered it.

 

The rooftop owners had a chance to come to some sort of an agreement where both sides could've benefited but they decided not to and will hopefully pay the price for trying to strong-arm the Cubs.

 

I'm glad they've come out looking poorly, they've deserved that reputation long before this, just they just had the advantage of Daley as well as the fact the Cubs wanted public financing, now they have neither at their disposal.

[Guest]

"We are pleased the Chicago Cubs will participate in a community process to flesh out these details more in-depth. However, no community process, city ordinance, or agreement without our consent can or should dismiss contractual rights granted to us by the Chicago Cubs in 2004. Rooftop owners reserve the right to use any and all means necessary to enforce the remaining 11 years of our 20-year contract. We, as well as every interested party in the Lakeview neighborhood, will study the plans submitted to the City of Chicago and play a constructive role in moving forward." -Wrigleyville Rooftops Association

 

from your post David.

I don't take that as giving in very easily. I also saw your post about the language of the contract. That's the kicker. I just can't see them not protecting a very profitable investment from something so easily done. Hopefully it is that bad a deal and they can just go through with it. I would just be shocked by it.

 

They don't have to give up to be rendered powerless.

[Guest]

I'm sure the rooftops can afford a good enough lawyer to come up with some sort of argument. Is a videoboard really an expansion or a new feature?

 

I'm not saying they'll win. It's a hail mary, but worth a shot for them and something the Cubs probably want to avoid.

 

Talk out of your ass some more.

[UK1679666180]

I'm sure the rooftops can afford a good enough lawyer to come up with some sort of argument. Is a videoboard really an expansion or a new feature?

 

I'm not saying they'll win. It's a hail mary, but worth a shot for them and something the Cubs probably want to avoid.

 

That money they have is so back-loaded in mortgage refinancing, they can't sustain any long-term dispute and now with the city involved, they'll have to sue the city of Chicago.

 

The landmark status of Wrigley has always been a greater hurdle than the rooftop owners, best case scenario for the rooftop owner is settling out of court for a fraction of what they want.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Talk out of your ass some more.

 

You get cranky when I'm right.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd like to see some sort of assurance from Ricketts that the initial outlay for this won't effect the baseball budget in the immediately upcoming seasons. It's possible that he did say that today, I just haven't seen it yet.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd like to see some sort of assurance from Ricketts that the initial outlay for this won't effect the baseball budget in the immediately upcoming seasons. It's possible that he did say that today, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

Can it go lower?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd like to see some sort of assurance from Ricketts that the initial outlay for this won't effect the baseball budget in the immediately upcoming seasons. It's possible that he did say that today, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

Can it go lower?

 

Garza, Marmol and Edwin Jackson's frontloading is $25m clearing up, besides the normal small contracts expiring. Plenty of room to add one Jackson-sized piece, fill out the roster, and shave another $15-20m.

[davell]

All I saw was he said he didn't know when the baseball budget would be able to go back up. Once again making it appear as if Theo hasn't been able to make major moves to this point. We have some money coming off though, some cheap guys that are reasonably productive, so we should be able to make a high profile move or two and keep the budget in the same vicinity it is now. Edited April 15, 2013 by davell

[neely crenshaw]

Before we get any to name calling let's just get back to the situation.

First, how many million dollar construction projects are stopped by an injunction. Happens all the time and they have lawyers too. Sometimes powerful people push the envelope because they want something not because they think they have the contractual rights. Usually it's because they know that they can pay them off, or force a deal because they are more powerful not more in the right.

 

I want this to happen, it is for the betterment of the cubs long term. I also think it's better for the rooftop and neighborhood people to get something now to try to have some relevance in the future rather than fight to keep those 11 years and be out in the cold at that time. The sooner the cubs get this done, the better it is for us. Hey, I hope they win with no fight at all. less money spent on this, more money spent on the club hopefully.

 

I am trying to argue any points here, I simply don't know what the actual contract says and I pretty sure other than a snippet from the paper, no one here knows exactly what the thing says either. I'm sure it's many,many pages of legal jumbo and while that small part from the paper sounds good, we have no idea the entire context it comes in.

My thought on this is I can't imagine business entities of this size and value would be so careless to not protect their businesses for the length of that contract. That would be beyond bad judgement. I also said that it would be stupid to play the hard line role on this, if it was so simple for the cubs and the city to do this. That is almost as bad.

To me it seems that the rooftops certainly feel they have something to stand on over this.

[bukie]

Talk out of your ass some more.

 

You get cranky when I'm right.

I wouldn't say that David is never cranky.

[neely crenshaw]

I'm sure the rooftops can afford a good enough lawyer to come up with some sort of argument. Is a videoboard really an expansion or a new feature?

 

I'm not saying they'll win. It's a hail mary, but worth a shot for them and something the Cubs probably want to avoid.

 

That money they have is so back-loaded in mortgage refinancing, they can't sustain any long-term dispute and now with the city involved, they'll have to sue the city of Chicago.

 

The landmark status of Wrigley has always been a greater hurdle than the rooftop owners, best case scenario for the rooftop owner is settling out of court for a fraction of what they want.

 

Not sure how you know what the mortgage situation is for these businesses but it seems to me that would be all the more reason to fight this. If they lose the rooftop venues, they'll probably lose the property at the back end because it won't be profitable and it won't be sellable at that price.

[neely crenshaw]

While I was driving to pick up lunch, Bernstein said he spoke to his Cubs source...

 

Going to try to remember everything, but I'll probably miss some.

 

- Said Emanuel still wanted to be disconnected from this, but essentially told Tunney to get it done.

- Said they're not worried about the rooftops, in large part because the rooftops would be up against both the city and the Cubs, and don't have the financial wherewithal to get into a long legal battle with both of those entities.

- Team doesn't expect there is any possibility that a rooftop lawsuit could force an injunction and stop work, and that if there were a rooftop lawsuit, it wouldn't be anything but an annoyance

- Emanuel told Tunney to get on the right side of this, and move away from the rooftops and toward the concerns of the neighborhood.

- Cubs winning PR battle. Neighborhood and public in general just views the rooftops as a mooch according to research by both the team and city.

 

Maybe Brandon was listening and might remember more (or better).

 

Nah, sorry. Missed it.

 

I have no doubt the Cubs are winning the PR on this. Can't see why anyone other than the business owners don't want to see this done, especially when it would/should help the team.

Also I expect them to put this revenue into the team, I really don't need them to "assure" us because that means nothing anyway. Since they are going at this with their own money for a large part, rather than pulling a J.Loria and holding the city/state hostage for funds (which we know they could have gotten) I trust they are doing this to better the team. I just hope it's as easy as it sounds.

[SouthSideRyan]

All I saw was he said he didn't know when the baseball budget would be able to go back up. Once again making it appear as if Theo hasn't been able to make major moved to this point. We have some money coming off though, some chesp guys that are reasonably productive, so we should be able to make a high profile move or two and keep the budget in the same vicinity it is now.

 

Well this is [expletive] pathetic.