Yes, if they feel that will lead to a greater revenue stream in the long run. If they feel that it'll be more profitable by some math I don't understand, then no. Owning the stadium gives the owner flexibilty to control the revenue. If some third party owns the stadium, then there will have to be a predetermined lease that the Cub owner has to honor, because nobody is buying Wrigley without it. Also, think about it- if there is a third agent who makes a profit from the operation from Wrigley, then that's profit that doesn't go to the Cubs ballclub. If there is no profit to be made from the Stadium, they why own it? Having the right situation with a stadium can be very profitable, and having the wrong situation with a lease can be a money drain. Look at all those teams that have been in bad financial shape and have blamed their lease situation. Forget it. I don't want a Cub owner who doesn't own the stadium. Period. I agree and just to add, I wouldn't want an owner who is stupid enough to not want Wrigley in the deal.