SouthSideRyan
-
Posts
48,510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by SouthSideRyan
-
There are very few teams that laugh at our current revenue.
-
I know there was talk of buying out the buildings themselves, but reading the articles about the rumored offer/counter it's buying out the contract, not buying the buildings from them, right? They'd still be free to do whatever they want with the real estate, and if the real estate only has value for this narrow purpose then it's probably not that valuable anyway. I think only a few if any still have people actually living in them, so I don't know what kind of infrastructure and zoning work would need to be done, but you could do a lot worse than owning a four-flat across the street from Wrigley Field.
-
Sure you are. If you don't, it crumbles around you and you have no revenue streams. Yep, they'd have no ability to move anywhere else. Moving elsewhere would cost more than 200M before we even get into the argument of whether they lose revenue by being in Arlington Heights
-
Really? Are you an architect, Kyle? You can modernize Wrigley Field, give it the revenue streams to make it comparable to other large market parks, and unequivocally not disturb the rooftops...... I don't think he said anything about revenue streams.
-
Which is why you wonder if Tom didn't have the money for the renovations and now does. The only thing that has changed financially between then and now is the plan calls for more signage and advertising in the outfield.
-
Yes, they really destroyed the lives of those 14 people that brought up a folding chair to watch the game. That's not what my point was. They saw a way to make a [expletive] of money with little or no investment on their part. They didn't create any entertainment for their patrons - they let someone else do it for them and had minimal expenses(liability insurance, if even that) for years and years. Good for them, but their time has run out. Again, that's how business works. That is no different from sports owners that bought $50m franchises and saw their value skyrocket through the growth of spectator sports in general. They bought the property and refurbished dingy old pieces of crap buildings. They invested in an opportunity. Or an owner who bought a 650M franchise and saw its value clear 1B while doing literally nothing to improve it.
-
If there were termination clauses, they would've been exercised by now
-
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140522/BLOGS02/140529926?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1 Yeah. I mean, at some point (which appears to be NOW), they just tie this up in court -- if necessary, all the way until the agreement runs out. Pretty sure the court case won't be going for 8 years
-
loss of SRO sections? Yeah, after I read more stuff that looks to be right. Trib piece had 300 SRO being added as well. Maybe taking away some Terrace seats to make way for the concourse.
-
Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats. Wasn't the language that any expansion project approved by the landmarks commission could not be fought even if it disrupts their views? I get what you're saying, but that seems pretty cut and dried to me. I can't recall exactly, but wasn't the "expansion" portion tied to increasing capacity. If I'm working for the rooftops, I'm asking why any of the signage is considered part of an expansion project to increase capacity. And if the language is open-ended enough that the Cubs could expand the dugout boxes by 5 seats and then add 80 foot high signs pole-to-pole in the OF(with city approval) then whoever worked on the contract from the RTO side is an idiot
-
Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats. Wasn't the language that any expansion project approved by the landmarks commission could not be fought even if it disrupts their views? I get what you're saying, but that seems pretty cut and dried to me. I can't recall exactly, but wasn't the "expansion" portion tied to increasing capacity. If I'm working for the rooftops, I'm asking why any of the signage is considered part of an expansion project to increase capacity.
-
I don't want to come off like I think the rooftops are anything but pain in the ass parasites, but why are we calling Ricketts a nice guy who was just trying to do the right thing? Is this just because he's an oafish dork?
-
Until the new owner gets things moving.
-
Eh, we don't know how the "expansion" portion of that contract would be interpreted. I am not a contract lawyer, but it seems at least a reasonable argument to try that a jumbotron and 7 signs isn't necessary for expanding capacity by 600 seats.
-
1. Not optimistic. 10%? 2. No idea until the various court cases/appeals are resolved. 3. Would be shocked if the new/old plan goes through in full.
-
If that's the case, I definitely side with Ricketts. But if they're THAT unreasonable, the decision to move forward should have happened long ago. Ideally there's somebody with experience in the field who could answer, but how far off is the 50M number from real estate/property value alone?
-
If I had to guess, beyond the 10 years of profits + real estate value, I'd bet future earnings/value beyond 2023 is baked into that 250M number, as well as an early termination "fee"
-
I didn't even look at the value of the real estate. Do the rooftops host events that aren't game related? I know nothing of what they do. Are the Cubs entitled to 17% of that money, if they do have other events? I believe some will do private events whenever you want them (Come experience your wedding on a concrete slab overlooking an empty ballpark), and they do general sales for the concerts.
-
20K has to be too high. The biggest ones might exceed that on marquee games, but that's about all I can see.
-
I'm just going to assume they were getting too close to approal forcing their hand to actually start Reno so they had to add all this [expletive] to hold it up further
-
Tell him Steve-Dave! -
Blueheart
-
Could we at least ground out to Jeter so he gets one last chance to field at Wrigley?
-
Is there any way Jeter could do it?
-
imb's gonna put you on blast.
