That's nonsense. They've invested in real estate speculating the value of it will rise do to the other big asset they own. If they move they are compounding mistakes. A sunk cost only works for assets that depreciate or have little chance to increase in value. It's not nonsense. If they make out better by moving, whether they bought those properties or not, then they make out better by moving. You realize that the possibility of making more money despite those other assets not appreciating (or depreciating) exists as well, right? Saying otherwise is pure nonsense. They might "make out better" eventually, but they would start out with the huge debt they would take on all of the real estate investments they made around Wrigley. Not necessarily, for [expletive]'s sake. If the Cubs moved out of Wrigley, property values would plummet. Do you really think all of those buildings in Wrigleyville are worth what they're selling for? Yes, the many newly-renovated homes in the wealthy, developed, clean, safe neighborhood near the lake and ample transportation wouldn't be worth anything if the Cubs left tomorrow.