Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Ryne Ween]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

It's not whether you would win or lose in litigation. It's whether the rooftop owners could get an injunction while litigation is pending.

 

 

By not starting the construction you have already effectively given them an injunction. Many many large commercial projects (often with budgets that dwarf the cubs proposed projects) start with threats or even imminent litigation or during litigation.

[MWV]

My guess it it was a short-sighted cash grab

Given the interests of ownership at the time, that wouldn't shock me at all. Avoid confrontation + a little profit. As I recall, the rooftops were viewed a bit more sympathetically by many fans in the past, as well. I could be misremembering though.

[Guest]

Wasn't the guarantee basically a way to keep them from suing when they expanded the bleachers? I always get the timeline mixed up on that.

[jersey cubs fan]

It was signed at a time when sell-outs were the norm and seen as an extra source of revenue not available to them otherwise.

[KingCubsFan]

I truly believe there is a huge element of smoke and mirrors here. There has to be more to the story than the RTOs being unreasonable. On the face of it they don't have much leverage they have 9 years on the contract right? Just wait them out of you have to. Find a way to do some of the things you want to do without breaching your contract. Find some ways make the contract unenforceable.

 

And I'm calling total [expletive] on the litigation excuse. There is zero PR risk that's a lame ass excuse. And financial cost? Every major law firm would slash their billables to go in there and break this impasse. That's goodwill for the firm and a huge firm would happily put a top litigation team on it.

 

If you are the cubs and you are confident you'd prevail in litigation then break ground immediately and tell them to bring it on.

It's not whether you would win or lose in litigation. It's whether the rooftop owners could get an injunction while litigation is pending.

 

 

By not starting the construction you have already effectively given them an injunction. Many many large commercial projects (often with budgets that dwarf the cubs proposed projects) start with threats or even imminent litigation or during litigation.

No, you really haven't. A negotiating impasse is much different than a court-ordered injunction that will last for the duration of the litigation (i.e. years).

[Ryne Ween]

Or until a settlement is reached. Which they are saying they need anyway.

[UK1679666180]

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at?

 

Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is.

 

Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it.

 

FWIW, Boers was on your side. He couldn't fathom that the fanbase wouldn't follow the Cubs. He thought there would be a business model that would work for them in another location, it just may not be the one that currently works in the Wrigleyville area.

 

Since you put it that way....

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oane0JkxwJA/T-p85ckx_dI/AAAAAAAAABc/MFBYyxhL-4U/s1600/surrender_flag.gif

 

I guess it would depend on how much of the new mock Wrigley Field would be financed via taxpayer, the more that has to come out directly of the Ricketts, the less likely. I'm just afraid they're realizing what they've done so far is not a sunk cost and the price they're paying for is not b/c of poor planning. Also, they're inclined to be doubling down on the fact something will get worked out between them and the rooftops and it could be completed in 4 years instead of 5. They've played nice with them for too long and it has cost them.

 

I think several here are underestimating the new streams of revenue from a new stadium within a city willing to bend over backwards to get them and overstating the impact Wrigley has (especially with a declining interest/people in seats). If they're bad for the next two years and remain uncompetitive, Wrigley as a draw becomes minimized.

[Guest]

I don't think moving is an option. It's fun to discuss and dream, but the Cubs aren't going to move. The previous owners tied the current owners to a terrible contract that they seem unwilling to extricate themselves from. They should not be beholden to what amounts to a bunch of thieves.

[Ryne Ween]

Leaving wrigley would be an absolute disaster for the team and the owner. It's not an option the idea of it is absurd. Just being "near wrigley" is a big enough deal that these rooftops are a corporate entity capable of intimidating a massive pro sports franchise. The location the stadium, the fact that the owner literally just purchased the stadium and surrounding land. And while the people posting here are intentionally eschewing the sentimental draw of wrigley, the general populace will meet a relocation with deafening rage. Bartman had to go into hiding for potentially affecting a play. Ricketts would be harassed for the rest of his life it's not happening.

 

And have any of you guys actually been to rosemont?

[SouthSideRyan]

Since you put it that way....

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oane0JkxwJA/T-p85ckx_dI/AAAAAAAAABc/MFBYyxhL-4U/s1600/surrender_flag.gif

 

I guess it would depend on how much of the new mock Wrigley Field would be financed via taxpayer, the more that has to come out directly of the Ricketts, the less likely. I'm just afraid they're realizing what they've done so far is not a sunk cost and the price they're paying for is not b/c of poor planning. Also, they're inclined to be doubling down on the fact something will get worked out between them and the rooftops and it could be completed in 4 years instead of 5. They've played nice with them for too long and it has cost them.

 

I think several here are underestimating the new streams of revenue from a new stadium within a city willing to bend over backwards to get them and overstating the impact Wrigley has (especially with a declining interest/people in seats). If they're bad for the next two years and remain uncompetitive, Wrigley as a draw becomes minimized.

 

Check out the bloomberg link i posted up thread, these revenue streams aren't there for any other team to dwarf us and were certainly not getting them in rosemont or Naperville or anywhere else that nobody has any desire to set foot in let alone spend a night.

 

And the city of chicago will give us nothing, the state of illinois will give us nothing. How much money do you think these suburbs have to pay a billionaire to move the cubs out there. All that's been blustered by these places desperate for attention was some land in rosemont

Edited January 24, 2014 by SouthSideRyan

[treebird]

Leaving wrigley would be an absolute disaster for the team and the owner. It's not an option the idea of it is absurd. Just being "near wrigley" is a big enough deal that these rooftops are a corporate entity capable of intimidating a massive pro sports franchise. The location the stadium, the fact that the owner literally just purchased the stadium and surrounding land. And while the people posting here are intentionally eschewing the sentimental draw of wrigley, the general populace will meet a relocation with deafening rage. Bartman had to go into hiding for potentially affecting a play. Ricketts would be harassed for the rest of his life it's not happening.

 

And have any of you guys actually been to rosemont?

 

what is an absolute disaster? losing 90-100 games every year with dwindling attendance and a bottom-10 payroll and no ability to improve your own ballpark with your own money tells me we already have an absolute disaster.

 

i know that it's not particularly likely the cubs move out of their current location any time soon, but things are pretty terrible at wrigley right now. everything should be on the table.

[SouthSideRyan]

Leaving wrigley would be an absolute disaster for the team and the owner. It's not an option the idea of it is absurd. Just being "near wrigley" is a big enough deal that these rooftops are a corporate entity capable of intimidating a massive pro sports franchise. The location the stadium, the fact that the owner literally just purchased the stadium and surrounding land. And while the people posting here are intentionally eschewing the sentimental draw of wrigley, the general populace will meet a relocation with deafening rage. Bartman had to go into hiding for potentially affecting a play. Ricketts would be harassed for the rest of his life it's not happening.

 

And have any of you guys actually been to rosemont?

 

what is an absolute disaster? losing 90-100 games every year with dwindling attendance and a bottom-10 payroll and no ability to improve your own ballpark with your own money tells me we already have an absolute disaster.

 

i know that it's not particularly likely the cubs move out of their current location any time soon, but things are pretty terrible at wrigley right now. everything should be on the table.

 

Tom ricketts has no money, so the solution is for the cubs to spend 800 million On a new ballpark in a shitty location

 

Wrigley is not what's making the cubs so painfully bad

[Ryne Ween]

And one other thing. This leveraged partnership that is allegedly creating issues, likely outright prevents them from moving.

[jersey cubs fan]

The cubs sold half a million more seats than the madoff mets despite a worse record and 3 straight 90 loss seasons. You think that happens in groupon park at Allstate field?

[SouthSideRyan]

The cubs sold half a million more seats than the madoff mets despite a worse record and 3 straight 90 loss seasons. You think that happens in groupon park at Allstate field?

 

But you'd probably make like 500m a year on advertising and you'd pack em in at tom rickettscorn in Batavia

[davell]

“Any of the stories you hear about the financial side, we understand that cold,” Ricketts said. “We know where we are and we know it’s not limiting the team. And we know over time it’s going to get stronger. I think one of the things we also have to deal with is we have a lot of kind of extraordinary expenses other teams don’t have.

 

“We’re the highest-taxed team in baseball. We have to deal with the fact that we have people across the street that sell our product and fight against us for ticket sales. We also have fairly old television contracts.

 

“Anyone that follows the business of the game knows that the teams that are spending the most are all the teams that have just gotten brand-new TV contracts. So we still have a very, very strong baseball budget. It’s not limiting us.”

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/tanaka-fallout-cubs-facing-long-term-questions-about-future

[treebird]

“Any of the stories you hear about the financial side, we understand that cold,” Ricketts said. “We know where we are and we know it’s not limiting the team. And we know over time it’s going to get stronger. I think one of the things we also have to deal with is we have a lot of kind of extraordinary expenses other teams don’t have.

 

“We’re the highest-taxed team in baseball. We have to deal with the fact that we have people across the street that sell our product and fight against us for ticket sales. We also have fairly old television contracts.

 

“Anyone that follows the business of the game knows that the teams that are spending the most are all the teams that have just gotten brand-new TV contracts. So we still have a very, very strong baseball budget. It’s not limiting us.”

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/tanaka-fallout-cubs-facing-long-term-questions-about-future

 

it's not limiting us except instead of ellsbury we got justin ruggiano and instead of tanaka we got a bag of dandelions

[davell]

I swear Tom's pitch to Papa was "It doesn't matter how bad we suck, the people always show up! Even I can't [expletive] that up."

[SouthSideRyan]

“Anyone that follows the business of the game knows that the teams that are spending the most are all the teams that have just gotten brand-new TV contracts. So we still have a very, very strong baseball budget. It’s not limiting us.”

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/tanaka-fallout-cubs-facing-long-term-questions-about-future

 

Top of my head is that even true for anyone but the dodgers(who of course has yet to have their contract take effect)?

[SouthSideRyan]

And in that same article they mention cubs management confirmed they're #5 in mlb revenues and were #1 in profit. But yeah well never be able to compete until we've thrown Beth Murphy into a pit and we get 500m/year for tv and can put a Budweiser sign every 15 feet in the of

[Clem Fandango]

“Anyone that follows the business of the game knows that the teams that are spending the most are all the teams that have just gotten brand-new TV contracts. So we still have a very, very strong baseball budget. It’s not limiting us.”

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/tanaka-fallout-cubs-facing-long-term-questions-about-future

 

Top of my head is that even true for anyone but the dodgers(who of course has yet to have their contract take effect)?

 

Didn't the Angels get one like a year or two ago when they splurged on Wilson, Pujols, and Hamilton?

[davell]

And in that same article they mention cubs management confirmed they're #5 in mlb revenues and were #1 in profit. But yeah well never be able to compete until we've thrown Beth Murphy into a pit and we get 500m/year for tv and can put a Budweiser sign every 15 feet in the of

 

BUT THERE ARE EXPENSES TO RUN A BALLCLUB THAT COST MONEY

[rocket]

can't we just take up a collection and hire wekse to bulldoze the buildings

[SouthSideRyan]

can't we just take up a collection and hire wekse to bulldoze the buildings

 

Does he even know where all the Ricketts live?

[Guest]

can't we just take up a collection and hire wekse to bulldoze the buildings

 

Does he even know where all the Ricketts live?

 

http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090819003839/muppet/images/c/c3/Oscar-can2.jpg