All Wrigley Field renovation thread

[KBisBack!]

Yes, Ricketts knew what he was getting into...how does that fact mean he's already turning a huge profit?

If you truly believe that the Cubs are not making a huge profit, there is nothing anyone can say to make you smarter.

Ricketts has been trying to get the City to pay for some/all of the renovation costs. Have you been completely oblivious to everything thats happened up to this point?

Nope.

A lot of the franchise value is based on facilities, property, etc. Right now, the Cubs are in stadium limbo....its the reason the Browns left Cleveland, why the Raiders left LA, its the reason why most teams relocate. The hagglng with the City would/will have a HUGE impact on the value of the franchise. If the City agreed to fund all the stadium improvements...thats $500M that Ricketts/new owner doesn't have to spend. How can you not understand this?

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

The Dodgers were in bankruptcy and sold for $2 billion dollars.

Again, if you think some minor haggling with the City of Chicago makes the Cubs less valuable than when the Ricketts bought the team, there is nothing anyone can say to make you smarter.

 

[KBisBack!]

No, thats not what I said at all.

Actually it is.

You said that the revenue generating "add-ons" would save cost.

 

[KBisBack!]

No, I said that doing all the renovations at once would save cost. Thanks, though.

And saving costs is different from paying for at least part of it how???

You are welcome, though.

 

[KBisBack!]

No, I never said the Cubs were less valuable than when Ricketts bought the team.

But thats not the point, and again, you have no understanding of the situation. And your point that the Cubs should spend more money on payroll because you perceive the "value" of the franchise is really high makes no sense, because the only way Ricketts could get the "cash value" of the franchise would be to sell the team. You are basically advising Ricketts to sell the team to get the money to sign the free agents. A truly ridiculous thought. Chuck Schwab would not approve.

I've never even come remotely close to saying that. But you are in too much of a hurry to whine and cry and argue about everything instead of taking time to understand what you are trying to argue against.

You said the purchase of the Cubs is a bad investment.

I pointed to the much higher value of the franchise to counter the stupidity of saying it is a bad investment.

I have said the Cubs should spend more money to make the team better because.....

A. The team on the field is really bad and desperately needs improving.
B. The team is profiting tens of millions of dollars a year.


Two entirely different points that I do not have the slightest idea how anyone could confuse.

You did say one accurate thing though, it is a truly ridiculous thought. However you are the only person to promote that thought though.

 

[Willrust]

And where did the money come from to buy the Cubs? Did they win the PowerBall or did they take the money from TDAmeritrade.

KB,

The Ricketts attained good enough credit to purchase the Cubs through their established business. The money actually used to pay for the franchise should come from the revenues from the franchise. Businesses typically don't pay for 1 business through the revenues of their other businesses. If the Ricketts had to use the revenues from other businesses to fund the Cubs franchise, shouldn't they just sell the Cubs?

I dont worship Forbes but I do recognize the fact they are one of the most reputable financial publications around.

Based upon your analysis of Forbes, Perez Hilton is a reputable journalist.

You made my point. Payroll was increased by the Tribune and dramatically decreased by the Ricketts.

You made my point. Payroll was increased by the Tribune, not revenue, and the bloated payroll was passed along to the next guy without the increase revenue to sustain that payroll.

What about the Marlins, in regards to profit? They were required to spend all of their revenue sharing money on the team last year (only reason their payroll went up), and then just traded away those players when they were no longer obligated to keep that payroll. They increased their ticket sales by nearly 700,000 between 2011 & 2012 without having to spend an additional cent on that stadium. According to http://fancostexperience.com/pages/fcx/fci_pdfs/8.pdf the average ticket price to the Marlins last year was nearly $30.00. That is an additional 21M in revenue in 2012. I would say they were fairly profitable.

 

[KBisBack!]

The Jumbotron will be the first thing built.

The other renovations will be spread over the next few years while the Cubs are collecting the extra revenue from the Jumbotron.

So therefore the "add-ons" will be helping to pay for the cost of the foundation repair.

 

[KBisBack!]

The Ricketts attained good enough credit to purchase the Cubs through their established business. The money actually used to pay for the franchise should come from the revenues from the franchise. Businesses typically don't pay for 1 business through the revenues of their other businesses. If the Ricketts had to use the revenues from other businesses to fund the Cubs franchise, shouldn't they just sell the Cubs?

But where did the downpayment for the purchase come from??

They did not get 100% financing.

I dont worship Forbes but I do recognize the fact they are one of the most reputable financial publications around.

Based upon your analysis of Forbes, Perez Hilton is a reputable journalist.

One of the dumbest analogies in history.

You made my point. Payroll was increased by the Tribune, not revenue, and the bloated payroll was passed along to the next guy without the increase revenue to sustain that payroll.

Wrong.

The Tribune also increased the revenues and even after the Tribune increased the revenues the Cubs remained profitable. The ONLY reason the Cubs were sold is because the rest of the Tribune corporation was failing miserably and went bankrupt.

The Cubs were probably the only profitable part of the corporation.

What about the Marlins, in regards to profit? They were required to spend all of their revenue sharing money on the team last year (only reason their payroll went up), and then just traded away those players when they were no longer obligated to keep that payroll. They increased their ticket sales by nearly 700,000 between 2011 & 2012 without having to spend an additional cent on that stadium. According to http://fancostexperience.com/pages/fcx/fci_pdfs/8.pdf the average ticket price to the Marlins last year was nearly $30.00. That is an additional 21M in revenue in 2012. I would say they were fairly profitable.

I am not a fan of the Marlins so I could care less what they do with their profits.

 

[KBisBack!]

No, I didn't. You are immediately wrong.

Yeah you did. You are too busy arguing you haven't a clue what you have said. This is EXACTLY what you said.

Due to the problems he inherited, the Cubs franchise at this point is a bad investment for Ricketts.

OK, but its still just conjecture (i.e. not an actual sale cost) and regardless it doesn't put cash in Ricketts' hands. Its money that could possibly be gained in the future when he sells the team.

Again it is only conjecture if you are dumb enough to think the value of sports franchises are going down.

But its not really "profit" at this point. If I buy a Taco Bell franchise for $300K, and I make $25k in net sales my first year, do I immediately reinvest that $25K back into my store because its "profit"? What about the $300K I paid just to have the franchise in the first place?

So you are just going to take that $25k and not invest any of it giving raises to employees or hiring better managers??

That is a terrible way to run a business.

You are basically saying the Cubs should spend against the perceived value of the franchise....thats a terrible way to run a business, IMO.

Clearly I did not explain this simply enough for you last time.

I am saying the Cubs should spend more because of the current profits they are making.

 

[KBisBack!]

No its not. What is Ricketts' Return on Investment at this point? Its in the negative (obviously), and now he is facing spending a huge amount of money on renovations and improvements.

Again, the huge amount of money on renovations and improvements was known when he decided to buy the team.

And let's actually be realistic for a moment, MOST of the money is going to add-ons to increase profits and not on the structural improvement of the stadium.

Does the team REALLY need a hotel across the street to be competitive?? That is a huge cost of the renovations and improvements.

I will ask again since you ignored it the first time because you don't like the answer you will have to give, but how was it the Red Sox were able to renovate Fenway Park under a brand new owner and still manage to find money to field a competitive ball club?

Why is it a terrible way to run a business?

This is a baseball forum. I am not going in depth on why not rewarding your employees and having better managers is essential to a successful business.

You just wish to strawman and split hairs far away from the original point.

 

[KBisBack!]

But did Ricketts foresee himself footing the entire $500M? I highly doubt it. There's no way he could have known. And maybe part of his plan for having to spend his own money for the $500M renovations would be to not go crazy with the payroll this year. Who knows.

Maybe he gambled on the fact that he could get the city to pay for it all?

Either way, he should not have counted on the city paying for all of it and it wasn't until the last month or so he said the team would pay for it but payroll has gone down for three years.

I don't know what percentage of the renovations are "add-ons" but, much like your beloved "franchise value", these add-ons aren't going to give Ricketts immediate cash-in-hand.

Really?

So all the advertising on the JumboTron they are just going to sell and say, "pay us for the space at some unspecified time in the future"? Or you think they will ask to be paid up front.

I know what my answer to that question is.

Because they spent their payroll money wisely? They didn't have Soriano's contract? The renovations weren't as expensive? The new owner had more cash?

Oh god. The Soriano contract is crippling the franchise stupidity again.

OK, baseball forum question...would increasing the Cubs payroll for this year make the team more profitable?

I don't have stock in the Cubs.

I am more concerned with how many wins the team has.

You seem more concerned with the owner making more money.

We have drastically different goals for what we want out of the teams we root for.

 

[mountsalami]

In context...

The Tribune (which went bankrupt prior to selling the team btw) was negligent in the upkeep of Wrigley Field which is why we're in the situation we're in now. Also, many of those contracts towards the end of the Tribune years were designed to artificially drive up the value of the franchise, and the largest contracts (including Soriano's) were backloaded to ensure that the bulk of the money would be paid by the new owners.

It's actually not too unreasonable that the Ricketts cannot sustain such heavy spending given the revenue generating mechanisms (or lack thereof) and debts/liabilities they inherited from the Tribune.

Ricketts knew exactly what he was buying. You make it seem like Ricketts was blind-sided by what you are claiming are the big problems now.

The Tribune took a hit just like most news companies and newspapers after the internet explosion.

The Trib's bankruptcy issues were not because they owned the Cubs or having a high payroll.

In fact, the Cubs made money while the news side of the Trib was plummeting, which sent them into bankruptcy.

The contracts were not designed to drive up the value. That is pure speculation and garbage. I've been through this with other posters that somehow got this information also. It is not true at all.

Who's to say he didn't talk the original price down, whatever that would have been ?

 

[Rice Cube]

Ricketts may have known what he was buying, but are you really going to fault him for trying to make the product better? :shrug: Especially when revenues from the product will ensure that the stuff you guys actually care about (the MLB club) can get better? :shrug:

I see we're going in circles again.

 

[mountsalami]

Ricketts may have known what he was buying, but are you really going to fault him for trying to make the product better? :shrug: Especially when revenues from the product will ensure that the stuff you guys actually care about (the MLB club) can get better? :shrug:

I see we're going in circles again.

Well let's go into circles some more. I suppose Ricketts is now trying to drive down the value of the team because he has most players on one and two year deals that suck balls.

Somehow the value of the team and profits have risen AT THE SAME TIME.

 

[Rice Cube]

Just some thoughts given recent developments with the Cubs and the rooftops (grain of salt applies):

http://worldseriesdreaming.com/2013...-rooftops-make-like-the-french-and-surrender/

Wonder if other outlets have the same basic news that Sully reported.

 

[Willrust]

The Jumbotron will be the first thing built.

The other renovations will be spread over the next few years while the Cubs are collecting the extra revenue from the Jumbotron.

So therefore the "add-ons" will be helping to pay for the cost of the foundation repair.

Actually, the clubhouse is expected to be the first thing that is renovated. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/22172164/cubs-release-mock-ups-of-proposed-renovations-to-wrigley-field
"The cost for the proposed renovation is approximately $500 million and will be privately funded. The home clubhouse will be renovated following the season, but the entire renovation will take five years."

5 year renovation, with the home clubhouse being the 1st thing renovated this upcoming offseason.

 

[KBisBack!]

I don't think Ricketts has gotten any money for JumboTron advertising yet...I'll just leave it at that.

I don't think Ricketts has spent any money fixing up the infrastructure of the ballpark or the clubhouses yet...I'll just leave it at that.

Yet your whole point is that Ricketts should make the Cubs competitive by spending more money in payroll...which we know from the Hendry era isn't exactly a 1:1 ratio.

And we know from the beginning of the Epstein era that not spending money gives you a 100 loss season.

Its not "my" goals. I am saying they are different issues...Ricketts' money, the team's record, payroll. You want to lump all of them together. I guess my point is that if ever there was a time when a team owner would not be spending a ton of money in payroll, it would be the 2013 Cubs.

You want a guarantee that spending money gives you an equal amount of production for every dollar spent.

That will never happen in any sport.

But what you will see in baseball is that far more times than not, teams that spend money have better records.

The Cubs have the revenue and resources that there should never be a time where they don't spend every dollar possible trying to put the very best possible team on the field.

No one, well everyone smarter than willrust at least, would say that has been done the last two seasons.

 

[KBisBack!]

Ricketts may have known what he was buying, but are you really going to fault him for trying to make the product better? :shrug:

The product we are all interested in is the team that takes the field everyday.

You can't possible say with a straight face that the team on the field is better than when he took over ownership can you??

THAT is what making the product better would result in. Not higher revenue or profit. More wins on the field.

Especially when revenues from the product will ensure that the stuff you guys actually care about (the MLB club) can get better? :shrug:

Really??

Been drinking the kool aid again I see.

Revenues from the product will ensure the team can get better??

The Cubs had $239M in revenue for the 2009 season. For the 2012 season the revenue was $266M.

In 2009 the Cubs won 83 games. In 2012 the Cubs won 61 games.

How come that nearly $30M increase in revenue didn't ensure the team got better?

Maybe cause the payroll went from $135M down to $109M???

You really don't think another $25M would make this club better??

Really??

 

[KBisBack!]

Actually, the clubhouse is expected to be the first thing that is renovated. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/22172164/cubs-release-mock-ups-of-proposed-renovations-to-wrigley-field
"The cost for the proposed renovation is approximately $500 million and will be privately funded. The home clubhouse will be renovated following the season, but the entire renovation will take five years."

5 year renovation, with the home clubhouse being the 1st thing renovated this upcoming offseason.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that article that says the clubhouse will be the FIRST thing renovated, but that fits your agenda.

It said it would be done this offseason, but I would also guarantee you that if that plan is approved you can be damn sure that Jumbotron is going up this offseason also and the revenues just in the first season will pay for the clubhouse renovations 20 times over at least.

 

[dabynsky]

Really??

Been drinking the kool aid again I see.

Revenues from the product will ensure the team can get better??

The Cubs had $239M in revenue for the 2009 season. For the 2012 season the revenue was $266M.

In 2009 the Cubs won 83 games. In 2012 the Cubs won 61 games.

How come that nearly $30M increase in revenue didn't ensure the team got better?

Maybe cause the payroll went from $135M down to $109M???

You really don't think another $25M would make this club better??

Really??

You seem to want it both ways here on the argument. On the one hand you say revenue is meaningless and on the other you want the club to spend more. If the Cubs significantly increase revenue through a new TV deal and stadium improvements and the payroll remains flat than I will join you with my own pitchfork and torch. However, if payroll is going to make this team better as you clearly are implying than I think you would want anything that would increase the payroll.

I know #RickettsCheap and should spend money now, but I fail to see what is the problem with anything that has been proposed to increase revenue provided that it makes it way back to baseball opeartions going forward.

 

[KBisBack!]

You seem to want it both ways here on the argument. On the one hand you say revenue is meaningless and on the other you want the club to spend more. If the Cubs significantly increase revenue through a new TV deal and stadium improvements and the payroll remains flat than I will join you with my own pitchfork and torch. However, if payroll is going to make this team better as you clearly are implying than I think you would want anything that would increase the payroll.

I know #RickettsCheap and should spend money now, but I fail to see what is the problem with anything that has been proposed to increase revenue provided that it makes it way back to baseball opeartions going forward.

I don't want it both ways on the argument.

I just don't believe that an increase in revenue will lead to anything but more profit for the Ricketts based on what has already been proven the last three years.

Revenue has increased by nearly $30M and payroll has decreased by $25M.

Why should I believe more revenue will lead to more payroll when we have seen the exact opposite the last three years?

I bought into the Ricketts was a fan thing when he bought the team.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.