Wrigley Deal "Fell Apart" Tuesday

[DewsSox79]

The rooftop owners are still under contract so Ricketts really isnt in the driver seat. What some forget is the rooftops actually bring revenue to the cubs as it is one of the trademarks for wrigley. So ricketts needs to either build a new stadium or stfu. I mean he wants to invest in jumbo trons and fixing up a building that is just not worth fixing up. you financed 80% of the purchase, im sure help would be given if he builds new. this ownership is amazingly dumb.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

The rooftop owners are still under contract so Ricketts really isnt in the driver seat. What some forget is the rooftops actually bring revenue to the cubs as it is one of the trademarks for wrigley. So ricketts needs to either build a new stadium or stfu. I mean he wants to invest in jumbo trons and fixing up a building that is just not worth fixing up. you financed 80% of the purchase, im sure help would be given if he builds new. this ownership is amazingly dumb.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

17%. Must not be that much if they are making more on a sign.

That deal was cut with the Trib. He has the right to be pissed off by some carpetbaggers turning a profit off of another business.

But I agree the best solution is to pull out to the burbs where a city would fund the project to bring in revenue to their city.

 

[KBIB]

If there seriously is some city in the burbs willing to offer Ricketts free land to build a stadium, he is stupid not to take that and run. Turn that hovel into section 8 housing and then the gooftop owners can watch them instead. This is the dumbest, most ridiculous situation ever. Rooftop owners have been banking for years off the Cubs and giving back 17%. They made enough money pilfering the tourists. Either Ricketts moves out or he deals with a bunch of stubborn bints who will take his product for pennies on the dollar. Wrigley is a dump, like somebody typed, it isn't worth renovating. Play hardball, Ricketts, its not like you have invested any money into the on the field product, why invest in an even bigger black hole?


13-3!!!

 

[TL1961]

As much as I dislike the fact that the rooftop owners stole from the Cubs for years, they are now buying the product, and are under a contract.

Ricketts can't just say "you negotiated that with the Trib". They negotiated that with the Cubs, while owner by the Trib. But obviously, the contracts are still valid.

All that being said, you only have to cowtow to the rooftop owners if you have no leverage. They are entitles to an unobstructed view of the ballpark, but they are not in control of whether the team is there.

If they know you'll never really leave, they own you.

If you tuly consider other options, they may give in a little.

But if all the Cubs do is bluff, forget it. It won't work.

I honestly would like to see them leave. And I say that as a fan of Wrigley for half its life.

But it's time. Move now.

 

[beckdawg]

They are entitles to an unobstructed view of the ballpark, but they are not in control of whether the team is there.

Based on what? The cubs alleged they didn't have any provisions in the deal about signs. And honestly, if they are even remotely competent why would they? If the cubs add signs is it breaking the spirit of the deal? Perhaps but they were essentially stealing from the cubs for years prior to the agreement. So frankly the cubs don't owe them anything. And to add to matters, the smart owners already realize they are screwed. One has decided to sell their property. I don't think it's even one of the ones blocked by the proposed deal but that guy can see the writing on the wall. Honestly think they should have stopped playing ball with the rooftop owners from the start.

Edit: supposedly the thing stopping the signage before was the historical landmark status that has since been changed.

 

[DewsSox79]

lets stop the non sense with some of you cubs backers...but the rooftops NEVER hurt the cubs. They are an element of the wrigley experience that now all of a sudden you want to blame the roof top owners? please. how many baseball teams have apartments and houses with their roof filled with seats? you want to get rid if that for jumbo trons? stop. they helped as much the cubs as the cubs helped them. lets not be foolish for all you young fans.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

lets stop the non sense with some of you cubs backers...but the rooftops NEVER hurt the cubs. They are an element of the wrigley experience that now all of a sudden you want to blame the roof top owners? please. how many baseball teams have apartments and houses with their roof filled with seats? you want to get rid if that for jumbo trons? stop. they helped as much the cubs as the cubs helped them. lets not be foolish for all you young fans.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

How did they help the cubs? Did they provide them with any money before they signed that deal? No. I don't blame the owners for taking their shot but it still amounts to them stealing. It'd be like you having a way to view a movie theater without paying for it. I've long said it was the cubs own poor management that caused the issue. They should have long ago figured out those rooftops were desirable and bought the buildings themselves. St. Louis is actually building something similar that is team owned. It's debatable how much they hurt the cubs. But they damn sure didn't help the cubs with anything as they saw no revenue from tickets and no revenue from concessions.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

The rooftop owners might not be in business much longer. In Telander's article he said a lot of them are struggling to pay their bills. Interest in the club is dwindling, attendance is historically low, and it's only getting worse. This summer will be the third straight year around 100-losses. What good is a contract if they aren't in business anymore?

 

[brett05]

Laura Ricketts is trying to make the team so bad that attendance dwindles enough for us to relocate to Miami :yep:

Lou Brown for Manager!

 

[brett05]

It's debatable how much they hurt the cubs. But they damn sure didn't help the cubs with anything as they saw no revenue from tickets and no revenue from concessions.

Sure they helped the Cubs. It added to the baseball experience as has been pointed out. Heck going to a roof top game is more costly than a ticket inside the park and the view is what like 700 feet away? The roftops helped add fans which helped in the commercalization of sports, in this case Chicago Cubs baseball.

 

[nwfisch]

Lou Brown for Manager!

"Hold on Jed, Jiffy Lube's on line 1 with some whitewalls."

 

[KBIB]

lets stop the non sense with some of you cubs backers...but the rooftops NEVER hurt the cubs.

How did they help them? They used to get plenty of advertisement when Harry Carry was alive every time he would blather out "Heeey Arnie, we should do a remote from those rooftops". They didn't pay for years. Now all of a sudden they feel like they have some sort of entitlement because Ricketts wants to install a jumbotron that, from the looks of it, wont bother their view if only maybe a touch? They hammered out a contract, and that's good for them, but to impede the progress of trying to redo a hovel that should be condemned makes them look like whiny, self entitled brats. You can try and sell me their telescoping view and endless bowls of Aldi potato chips are part of the experience, but the fact remains they took and took for many, many years and the Cubs, while Tribune owned, didn't even have to go to those lengths to pacify a bunch of thieves barking the benefits of their stadium seats made in their garage with the help of a "This old house" VHS tape. The Cubs thru them a bone, its time for them to bow down and kiss Ricketts ring and ass at the same time.

The Trib should have put tarps up years before this shit ever got to the point of mediation. Those idiots when the Cubs were goo....er, when the Cubs were a playoff team were making money hand over both fists on top of the 17% they were giving back. I have no sympathy for either side, but if Ricketts moved I would be all for it. The burbs could use the business.


13-3!!!

 

[beckdawg]

"Hold on Jed, Jiffy Lube's on line 1 with some whitewalls."

The irony of this reference is there's a delete alternate ending with Lou and the owner where he goes in to resign after the season because of how shady she's been and she informs him that she was basically moneyballing them.

[video=youtube;KFoMRUzloTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFoMRUzloTY[/video]

 

[TL1961]

Based on what? The cubs alleged they didn't have any provisions in the deal about signs. And honestly, if they are even remotely competent why would they? If the cubs add signs is it breaking the spirit of the deal? Perhaps but they were essentially stealing from the cubs for years prior to the agreement. So frankly the cubs don't owe them anything. And to add to matters, the smart owners already realize they are screwed. One has decided to sell their property. I don't think it's even one of the ones blocked by the proposed deal but that guy can see the writing on the wall. Honestly think they should have stopped playing ball with the rooftop owners from the start.

Edit: supposedly the thing stopping the signage before was the historical landmark status that has since been changed.

Well, I haven't read the contract, but if the rooftop owners agreed to pay the Cubs 17% of their revenue, didn't the Cubs have to agree to something? Wouldn't that "something" be to not block the view? If not, what did the rooftop owners buy?

I'd love to learn otherwise, but clearly that's not the case or there would be no need for negotiations now.

If the contract said nothing about signs or unobstructed views, the current legal wrangling would not exist.

 

[beckdawg]

Well, I haven't read the contract, but if the rooftop owners agreed to pay the Cubs 17% of their revenue, didn't the Cubs have to agree to something? Wouldn't that "something" be to not block the view? If not, what did the rooftop owners buy?

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/22/5335034/wrigley-field-renovations-cubs-rooftops

"Just to be very, very clear on this point, the contract does not prevent signage in the outfield. At all. Full stop," Kenney told ESPN. "What prevented signs in the outfield was the old landmark ordinance, which has been changed ... The rooftops say all the time, 'Our contract doesn't allow signage,' but that's not true."

They bought the ability not to get sued for essentially stealing the product of the cubs. It would be one thing if it was people who lived in an apartment being able to watch the game. It's entirely another thing when you attempt to make money off of it. As for the legal wrangling not existing, the rooftop owners have no other choice but then to try and go to court to stop it. Whether or not they have the right is difficult to say as I'm neither a lawyer nor am I privy to the actual contract. However, that quote right there is as near as any of us are going to get to that contract. So, either he's lying or it's the truth.

Now, whether or not there's legal precedent for honoring the spirit of the deal they signed for 17% is another matter and likely what the rooftop owners will argue. But, the cubs would have had to be insanely stupid to allow that sort of provision to go into the deal because it's leverage they didn't have to give up.

 

[daddies3angels]

Yes Cubs have contract and i get that BUT if Ricketts is smart he would go by some big ass land in subburb and threaten to move team there. Rooftops would be worthless if Cubs moved. So after you buy the land tell Rooftops either accept our deal or we moving and your property and surounding area will become a ghost town. Cubs is what makes Wrigleyville matter. If they move then that area turns into slums after 1 or 2 yrs. Lets see how much those rooftops worth then

 

[marines1]

if they move to the burbs attendance will drop drastically

 

[nickofypres]

I feel bad for Ricketts.

This may be the beginning of the end of Wrigley.

 

[nickofypres]

Time to move.

Move west.

Move the team to a suburb that will offer tax incentives.

Build a replica of Wrigley, but with clean restrooms and no obstructed views. All modern amenities, luxury boxes, room to roam, etc.

Then build replicas of the buildings with rooftop views - they don't even need to be buildings. Just fronts with safe seating on top.

No more hassling with Wrigleyville. People attending the games won't all be drunken 20-30 year olds who throw their beer cups on the field every time there's a call they don't like, which embarrasses us true long-time fans.

The club will own the park, and the "rooftops".

Let the present rooftop owners stare at the vacant old park all day, unobstructed !

To heck with the people who purchased a home near the ballpark, and then bitch incessantly about the ballpark.

Time to move. Now!

agreed.

Wrigley is nice, I've been there twice, but its starting to do more harm than good.

 

[CSF77]

CHICAGO -- The Cubs are taking steps to install an advertising sign in right field at Wrigley Field this year despite opposition from rooftop owners.

According to a story Wednesday, the Cubs will apply for a city permit to install a 650-square-foot see-through sign in right field at the 100-year-old ballpark. The Chicago City Council had authorized such a sign last year.

The Cubs made the decision to seek the permit after a negotiating session with rooftop owners on Tuesday ended without a resolution, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

"We have worked hard to reach a resolution with our rooftop partners which would have helped preserve their views, including reducing the number, size and location of signs," said Julian Green, vice president, communications and community affairs, in a statement on Wednesday. "Unfortunately, they opted [Tuesday] to reject the proposal and file this lawsuit.

"Since our approvals last year, we have been anxious to get the Wrigley Field renovation started," Green said. "[Tuesday's] action will certainly force additional delays to our project."

The rooftop owners have filed a defamation lawsuit against stadium financing consultant Marc Ganis, who once advised the Cubs' prior owner, the Tribune Co. In the suit, rooftop owners accused Ganis of making false and defamatory statements, including urging Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to remove the rooftop roadblock and side with the Cubs.

The Cubs were named in the lawsuit as "respondents in discovery." According to the Sun-Times, Cubs officials felt the suit signaled the rooftop owners' intention to take further legal action to block two outfield signs proposed for the ballpark. The Cubs' $500 million renovation plans also included a video scoreboard in left field. The team has not filed a permit for that signage.

The City Council authorized the renovation plan last summer, but last weekend at the Cubs Convention, president of business operations Crane Kenney said the team would not begin the project until rooftop owners agreed not to sue to block the signage.

The rooftop owners share 17 percent of their revenues with the Cubs, who are trying to increase their revenues by installing the signs. The Cubs met with the rooftop owners last week and reportedly explored the option of reducing the team's share of the rooftop revenues or buying them out.

Carrie Muskat is a reporter for MLB.com. She writes a blog, Muskat Ramblings, and you can follow her on Twitter @CarrieMuskat. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.