Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Soul

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    43,618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Soul

  1. That sounds nightmarish. I can't imagine that too many people who can actually afford to live in a building like that in that location would be down with the frat party atmosphere and the skyrocketing crime rate. Just rent out the space if you don't like it there? I assume if you own one of those buildings and rent out the space, you either deal with the scum yourself, or hire a management firm to deal with it and pay a fee for the service. So if you don't like dealing with the residue of all the partying yourself, it's a matter of either charging more for rent or taking a slight hit on profit and getting out of that side of the business. Maybe that's not how it works out though. I doubt it's a real nightmare for the building owners either way. One way or another, they deal with it and it's part of what they signed up for. They either live there themselves and that's it, or they figure out some other way of handling what comes along with the neighborhood. Or they sell and get out. Or, they choose to be miserable.
  2. Ok, Ok. I get it man. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B_hBptFPE0Y/TnzEtOD_8GI/AAAAAAAAAhk/8SMyBm1VkXM/s1600/WhatMeWorry.png
  3. Hmm. I watched that video, and didn't come away with that feeling about Ricketts at all. I felt pretty good about it, actually. Like maybe our erstwhile owner is finally going to do something that will benefit us as fans. I'm not talking about the video. Within the last year, he's compared them to the neighbor stealing your HBO. While funny, it's uncalled for, given the contract they have. That rhetoric worked fine while in the process of negotiating the first deal, but it makes you look stupid when said while you currently have a contract specifically sanctioning that activity. Alright, I didn't catch him saying that and yeah it was probably the wrong thing to do.
  4. Doesn't matter anyway. Teams considered to be "better" lose in the NHL. If they play like they did last night, they're going to get beat regardless of potential. So, no more like last night. Thx.
  5. Hmm. I watched that video, and didn't come away with that feeling about Ricketts at all. I felt pretty good about it, actually. Like maybe our erstwhile owner is finally going to do something that will benefit us as fans.
  6. Noticed it with the Cubs and Hawks. I never notice what happens to the White Sox because I don't give a flying [expletive] about them.
  7. I don't know, man. It's not really a "vibe" coming from Ricketts. It's just the cold, hard reality of the situtation. The Cubs are the only reason the RTO's have a business.
  8. I'm sure you are right. But isn't the ultimate termination clause the fact that the agreement doesn't run forever? And you've got to think about that, well in advance of the actual end of the contract.
  9. 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 There won't be a renewal on that agreement, that's for sure. The point being, it's pretty short-sighted to fight the Cubs on this thing, either way. It can't end well for them.
  10. 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.
  11. I don't think that's true at all. Nice, patient guy who wanted to be fair? Maybe. I don't think he values or valued the rooftops or saving them at all. Certainly not now, after realizing that the rooftops will hang like a cloud over him wherever he goes. Maybe when he first acquired the team.
  12. 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. Maybe PTR really didn't have the money (and has investors lined up now) and this was a convenient excuse to push it back (like many here have speculated). Or maybe they really did want to, in some amount of good faith, compromise rather than let this go to court and all of the hassles involved with that. Either way, if they're gonna be pains in the asses anyway, might as well move forward with the original full scale plans rather than the trimmed down to help the rooftops version. I think it didn't happen sooner because PTR is actually a nice guy. He really wanted to resolve this and live as one big happy family. It didn't work -- and being "nice" isn't going to serve him well in the future either.
  13. It'll never be enough. Won't work.
  14. The Blues & Sharks don't count in these discussions, being playoff choke hounds
  15. We just got bitch slapped for the first time tonight. Glad you are all OK with that, but I think this is real trouble
  16. I don't know it's never good to lose home ice and the kings have a ton of confidence and are a very good team. Not panicking but would prefer to win this one for sure. Despite Kyle pleading to anyone who will listen this series isn't a cakewalk and was never going to be I'm panicking. Getting completely dominated now.
  17. This is a real piece of crap collapse
  18. 2 goal lead blown like a clock striking 12
  19. OK, I still want to win but nice to know
  20. Sigh Unfortunately, eventually you gotta use him and then? Checkmate
×
×
  • Create New...