SouthSideRyan
-
Posts
48,493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by SouthSideRyan
-
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.
-
Hope you spit on it beforehand. And kept an eye on his wandering left hand
-
Or somebody who has played against the Cubs more than 10 times.
-
4/10 did not needlessly dive into the stands afterward
-
Brett's probably cheering for him. He was the one raving about what a great experience the 100th anniversary game was, nevermind that it was a soul crushing loss
-
Every Cub fan should be booing right now. Disgraceful
