The Ricketts Ownership

[jersey cubs fan]

I really think the Joe Ricketts stuff was ultimately just an out for Rahm to make a big stink and make it easier for him to refuse the Cubs on any public funding requests. With the current economic status of the city there was basically no way they could sell giving the Cubs a ton of money without too many people getting pissed off.

 

This is what I think as well. I don't think the ad cost the Cubs any money, but if it did I'm not upset with the Cubs. I'd be upset with Rahm.

 

It cost them room for negotiation plus time. Which in the end, costs money.

[Sammy Sofa]

I really think the Joe Ricketts stuff was ultimately just an out for Rahm to make a big stink and make it easier for him to refuse the Cubs on any public funding requests. With the current economic status of the city there was basically no way they could sell giving the Cubs a ton of money without too many people getting pissed off.

 

This is what I think as well. I don't think the ad cost the Cubs any money, but if it did I'm not upset with the Cubs. I'd be upset with Rahm.

 

The ad sure didn't help, but I just don't see a scenario where Rahm could have effectively given the Cubs $150 million dollars (regardless of the exact details, that's how it would have been spun) and it wouldn't have blown up in his face. The timing just wasn't right.

[Guest]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/04/01/wow-gordon-wittenmyer-just-took-a-financial-dump-on-the-ricketts-familys-ownership-of-the-cubs/

 

 

Here's my main issue with the idea that they're hugely concerned with "paying down the debt" or w/e at this point

 

And, if Wittenmyer were going to rely on Forbes, I would have thought he would have pointed out that, shortly after the Ricketts Family purchased the Cubs, Forbes reported that the debt they took on had an interest rate of less than 3%. At less than inflation, the Ricketts Family would be crazy to pay off any of that debt a day sooner than they absolutely had to. And, at that rate, rather than a crushing burden, the debt would actually be considered a good thing to have on your books.

[Tracer Bullet]

Your main issue is the interest rate which you're just bringing up now?

[Guest]

Your main issue is the interest rate which you're just bringing up now?

 

Huh?

 

I've said before that I didn't think or understand why the debt was a concern.

 

And yes, an interest rate at or around the rate of inflation is a major reason for that.

Edited April 1, 2013 by David

[Sammy Sofa]

Pops and buzzes, baby.

 

Somebody explain this to me because I'm, like, angry at numbers and stuff.

[Tracer Bullet]

Your main issue is the interest rate which you're just bringing up now?

 

Huh?

 

I've said before that I didn't think or understand why the debt was a concern.

 

And yes, an interest rate at or around the rate of inflation is a major reason for that.

 

Seems weird that this discussion would be going on a week and you wouldn't previously mention your biggest reason that you don't think the owners are concerned about paying off their debt before now. Just struck me as odd.

[jersey cubs fan]

Your main issue is the interest rate which you're just bringing up now?

 

Huh?

 

I've said before that I didn't think or understand why the debt was a concern.

 

And yes, an interest rate at or around the rate of inflation is a major reason for that.

 

Seems weird that this discussion would be going on a week and you wouldn't previously mention your biggest reason that you don't think the owners are concerned about paying off their debt before now. Just struck me as odd.

 

The discussion has not centered around whether or not the owners should be in a hurry to pay down their debt though.

[Guest]

You don't believe that the Cubs are trying to build an organizational structure to strongly compete for the WS? I don't care about timeline for the purposes of this question - think of it as near or far in the future as you like.

 

Anybody can build a great team eventually if they tank multiple seasons and suffer no repercussions for losing as often as the Cubs have lost. It's the easy way out. The timeline matters.

I think you can give Dave Littlefield (as an example) forever under those circumstances and he won't win.

[jersey cubs fan]

You don't believe that the Cubs are trying to build an organizational structure to strongly compete for the WS? I don't care about timeline for the purposes of this question - think of it as near or far in the future as you like.

 

Anybody can build a great team eventually if they tank multiple seasons and suffer no repercussions for losing as often as the Cubs have lost. It's the easy way out. The timeline matters.

I think you can give Dave Littlefield (as an example) forever under those circumstances and he won't win.

 

he suffered repercussions for losing. They had 15 fans at their games.

[davell]

With Wittenmyers' article today and Mooney referencing some stuff in different articles for about a week, it really does appear as if we're capped payroll-wise until the renovations are done. Theos' comments today made it sound like they needed to get their [expletive] straight to coincide with when they'll need money.

[Guest]

With Wittenmyers' article today and Mooney referencing some stuff in different articles for about a week, it really does appear as if we're capped payroll-wise until the renovations are done. Theos' comments today made it sound like they needed to get their [expletive] straight to coincide with when they'll need money.

We have more than one Theo? ;)

[SouthSideRyan]

With Wittenmyers' article today and Mooney referencing some stuff in different articles for about a week, it really does appear as if we're capped payroll-wise until the renovations are done. Theos' comments today made it sound like they needed to get their [expletive] straight to coincide with when they'll need money.

 

We're gonna be a juggernaut in 2021

[Guest]

Commissioner Bud Selig responded to yesterday’s Sun-Times story about the Cubs/Ricketts financial situation with a pretty clear rebuke of there being any concerns on baseball’s side, from the Sun-Times: “The Ricketts family worked closely with our office to develop certain financial structures designed to [ensure] the stability of the franchise at these debt levels. The structures have worked; the club is healthy; and the Cubs have been very up front and clear with us since Day 1.” In other words, the heavy debt load is not a real issue (likely because it is at such a low rate, and is partly borrowed from the Ricketts Family, itself), and MLB has no concerns about the Cubs being a cheaply-run franchise.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/04/02/carlos-marmol-is-still-the-closer-and-other-bullets/

[SouthSideRyan]

Bud Selig being happy with a team's ownership tells me nothing. It's his goal for MLB teams to not spend money.

[Guest]

Bud Selig being happy with a team's ownership tells me nothing. It's his goal for MLB teams to not spend money.

 

I made the same comment on the blog.

 

I posted the qoute because of the bolded information about the debt load.

[Guest]

Apparently, it's the terms of the debt load, a structure that Zell required for the sale of the team, that has put them in the spot they're in spending wise. I don't entirely understand it, but maybe someone else here knows something about this type of thing.

 

Epstein left out the part about new ownership creating its own baseball-spending limits by agreeing to Sam Zell’s debt-loaded purchase terms, and compounding that issue by structuring it through a family trust — which dictates strict income-to-spending relationships and requires bank “covenants” periodically be met.

 

The trust keeps family assets protected from team-related liabilities. But it also prohibits overspending operating revenues.

 

And that, in turn, has turned the big-market Cubs into a mid-market operation — with no end in sight, if you ask Ricketts.

 

“We obviously anticipate increasing baseball spending through the revenue that’s generated by this proposal,” Ricketts said Wednesday. “I think it’s going to come down to when we know what we can do and when we can do it. And then we can start making those plans more specific.”

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/19843533-419/ricketts-talks-up-wrigley-field-renovation-but-what-about-cubs.html

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ick. There's been a lot of talk lately about the restrictive terms that Zell insisted on for tax purposes (and how Ricketts were the only buyers not to balk at them), but that's even worse. If that can be taken to mean what it seems to mean to this layman, that's a huge bombshell.

 

Because revenue ain't exactly going up next year. I wonder if we're not in for even more payroll cuts.

[davell]

They better be pretty far along on a new TV deal, in my opinion. If I'm betting, the red tape will keep the renovations from starting this offseason. Plus, the first year of tge renovations aren't revenue builders anywsy, unless I'm missing something. To me, its starting to look like our payroll could be stagnant until 2016. I hope I'm wrong.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They better be pretty far along on a new TV deal, in my opinion. If I'm betting, the red tape will keep the renovations from starting this offseason. Plus, the first year of tge renovations aren't revenue builders anywsy, unless I'm missing something. To me, its starting to look like our payroll could be stagnant until 2016. I hope I'm wrong.

 

I'm beginning to think we might see it drop even further in 2014.

[davell]

They better be pretty far along on a new TV deal, in my opinion. If I'm betting, the red tape will keep the renovations from starting this offseason. Plus, the first year of tge renovations aren't revenue builders anywsy, unless I'm missing something. To me, its starting to look like our payroll could be stagnant until 2016. I hope I'm wrong.

 

I'm beginning to think we might see it drop even further in 2014.

If it does, I figure it'd be very incremental. How much less will our revenue be from last year to this one? I doubt it changes much personally. And if it did, I think we'd see Theo backload a few deals to where we weren't missing out on whoever we were targeting anyway.

[Guest]

They better be pretty far along on a new TV deal, in my opinion. If I'm betting, the red tape will keep the renovations from starting this offseason. Plus, the first year of tge renovations aren't revenue builders anywsy, unless I'm missing something. To me, its starting to look like our payroll could be stagnant until 2016. I hope I'm wrong.

 

A- Why wouldn't the first year of renovations be a revenue builder?

 

B - I could swear that either Theo or Ricketts said, within the last few days, that once the renovation deal was done they'd be able to increase the baseball budget.

[davell]

Isn't the first year just upgrading player facilities? If so, I don't see how that makes the Cubs more money. And yeah, I know they said that, I'm basing the 2016 thing off the latest thing you posted, which made it sound(I coukd be misinterpreting) that the debt structure crap would keep us from spending until revenue was actually coming in, not that it WOULD be coming in.

[Guest]

Isn't the first year just upgrading player facilities? If so, I don't see how that makes the Cubs more money. And yeah, I know they said that, I'm basing the 2016 thing off the latest thing you posted, which made it sound(I coukd be misinterpreting) that the debt structure crap would keep us from spending until revenue was actually coming in, not that it WOULD be coming in.

 

 

I don't think that's the only thing they'll be doing. I don't see why they can't get at least some signage up, if not the whole Jumbotron. I thought I had heard that the goal was next season for the jumbotron, too, but would seemingly have to change if they're also moving the OF walls back for the rooftops now.

[mookie]

OK. Now I am pissed. [expletive] Zell. Who has the branding iron? I got the rope.