Wrigley Deal "Fell Apart" Tuesday

[Fenway]

I think the clock is really ticking now.

Ricketts needs those revenue streams because if the enormous debt on the sale, He overpaid by probably 250M and Tribune got 5 more years of cheap rights fees. Sam Zell played him like a rube from Iowa.

Another thing to consider is the age of the park. Fenway is 'older' but the reality is the park John Henry bought was built in 1934. ( Fenway had a major fire in 1933 and Yawkey rebuilt the park in a little over 3 month. Plus Fenway did not have a crumbling upper deck to worry about and what is on the roof now was built in stages from 1988 to 2009.

They won't move to the burbs however as Rahm won't let the amusement tax money get away. Just for argument sake say the city lets the Cubs build at Northerly Island, the ballpark views would be spectacular. The city would get the Wrigley land in return and Beth Murphy and the rooftops lose everything.

Tigers fans forgot about Tiger stadium in a hurry. Same would happen with the Cubs.

 

[beckdawg]

I think the clock is really ticking now.

Ricketts needs those revenue streams because if the enormous debt on the sale, He overpaid by probably 250M and Tribune got 5 more years of cheap rights fees. Sam Zell played him like a rube from Iowa.

Cubs are making around $40 mil in profit supposedly yearly. The issue with debt is they can't pay it down until the leveraged partnership with Zell finishes in 2 years. They have more than enough money to pay it down but can't because if they did he would have to pay taxes and that would violate their agreement.

 

[Fenway]

Cubs are making around $40 mil in profit supposedly yearly. The issue with debt is they can't pay it down until the leveraged partnership with Zell finishes in 2 years. They have more than enough money to pay it down but can't because if they did he would have to pay taxes and that would violate their agreement.

The elephant in the room is the debt on either renovating Wrigley or building a new park.

Janet Marie Smith is the expert on renovating ballparks and Theo had her check out Wrigley. She told Rickett's you would have to relocate for one season and maybe two to to the renovation right. Rickett's didn't want to hear that and didn't hire her so she went to work for the Dodgers.

Lower bowl of Wrigley is fine, but the upper deck needs to be rebuilt.

Why the Tribune made a deal with the rooftops is a huge head scratcher to begin with. The rooftops did have the alderman in their pocket and the phantom landmark rules kicked in but to guarantee the rooftops unblocked access in return for 17% was idiotic.

 

[Parade_Rain]

if they move to the burbs attendance will drop drastically

I have never seen any proof of that. More night games and a retractable roof for cold weather will bring out a ton of fans. A replica of Wrigley with the ability to keep out the elements helps the club in April, early May and September, too.

 

[Boobaby1]

I have never seen any proof of that. More night games and a retractable roof for cold weather will bring out a ton of fans. A replica of Wrigley with the ability to keep out the elements helps the club in April, early May and September, too.

I haven't seen too many stadiums that go from the inner city to the burbs. Everything is better in the burbs as far as parking, night games help players, and their is convenience and space. However, the inner city is a huge part of the draw.

Big difference being minutes from downtown rather than minutes from Woodfield Mall?

If they ever rebuild, build it as close to the existing location as possible, wherever that may be.

 

[chibears55]

Why the Tribune made a deal with the rooftops is a huge head scratcher to begin with. The rooftops did have the alderman in their pocket and the phantom landmark rules kicked in but to guarantee the rooftops unblocked access in return for 17% was idiotic.

because the Tribs never cared about upgrading anything, and just did the deal to net the 17% profit..

Quote Originally Posted by marines1 View Post

if they move to the burbs attendance will drop drastically

doubt it.. again, the majority of their fans are from the west burbs who would frequent more to a new stadium, easy access, parking, etc..

WF is more for the memory of the older generation, the bleacher bums, people like me who remember saving pop bottles as a kid for money to jump on the Addison bus during the day, buy a bleacher ticket, and watch a game that was usually over by 4:00 and then get home before dinner was ready..

most of today generation don't care for WF as is, don't care for day baseball, and want to see a better/winning product on the field.. with the way salaries are rising via FA, you need your home park to be able to generate extra revenue for you and if your not able to do that ( rooftop people/alderman), then its time to think about relocating so you can generate extra income and compete with teams like the Yankees, dodgers, angels for top FAs.

 

[chibears55]

If they ever rebuild, build it as close to the existing location as possible, wherever that may be.

that why Rosemont would be perfect.. near toll roads and 90, easy access to wherever you want to go..

 

[brett05]

Arlington

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Lakeview-resident and 33-years long Cubs fan here. I pray the Rickets move to the burbs. It'll be great watching Ald. Tunney and the rooftop owners suffer - but more importantly we'd have top-of-the-line facilities for our players. We need every edge we could get to win a World Series.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I haven't seen too many stadiums that go from the inner city to the burbs. Everything is better in the burbs as far as parking, night games help players, and their is convenience and space. However, the inner city is a huge part of the draw.

Big difference being minutes from downtown rather than minutes from Woodfield Mall?

If they ever rebuild, build it as close to the existing location as possible, wherever that may be.

The Cubs are a destination, not a Chicago-only team. WGN made them a national team. Quite a few of the people filling the stands at every game are not from the city. Those fans couldn't care less where the Cubs are located. Just get some easy access from main traffic arteries...I'd move another other than north burbs of Chicago, if I was going to do a Burb thing. Otherwise, I would not be opposed to staying in Chicago either and building a new stadium there. Wrigley just needs to go away, imho.

 

[KBIB]

If the Cubs moved to Rosemont with its close proximity to O'Hare, you are looking at a huge gold mine in tourists stopping by to watch a game without the traffic congestion the north side brings. Throw in ample parking and its such a win for the org I don't understand why Ricketts even plays ball with the rooftop owners.

Seriously, who was the moron who proposed putting the score board on the rooftops? That in itself tells you just how delusional the rooftop owners are, thinking they are as much a part of the team instead of bystanders with privy to location within the community. Lord knows the deep thought it took drawing out the blue print of this novel idea from on the back of a drink napkin while in a meeting sitting at the end of the bar at the Cubby Bear.


13-3!!!

 

[chibears55]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/...-renovation-watch-cubs-apply-for-sign-permit/

Taking the step that they intimated last week when discussions with the rooftops broke down, the Chicago Cubs have filed for a permit to install the right field advertising sign, according to Greg Hinz. As you may recall, the City has approved the 650-foot, see-through sign in right field, and the Cubs have secured a sponsorship relationship with Budweiser for that sign. So, in that sense, the Cubs are simply doing what was expected.

 

[nwfisch]

Pretty remarkable alleged billionaires have such a difficult time financing renovations, so much as put a decent product on the field. Theo Baseball, wake up. Tell Tommy Nickels enough is enough.

 

[beckdawg]

Pretty remarkable alleged billionaires have such a difficult time financing renovations, so much as put a decent product on the field. Theo Baseball, wake up. Tell Tommy Nickels enough is enough.

I doubt it's an issue of them not being able to afford the renovations. I'd suggest they see it as a situation where if they aren't going to get that signage then they aren't going to stay in wrigley. Why dump your own money into something when you can't maximize your revenue because of pesky rooftop owners? If they instead go build a stadium they spend maybe $300-400 mil more and have no headaches with the owners and then can even sell naming rights to the new stadium. Staying in wrigley is interesting because of the historic aspect of it but at the end of the day it is a business and it's about making money.

 

[nwfisch]

I doubt it's an issue of them not being able to afford the renovations. I'd suggest they see it as a situation where if they aren't going to get that signage then they aren't going to stay in wrigley. Why dump your own money into something when you can't maximize your revenue because of pesky rooftop owners? If they instead go build a stadium they spend maybe $300-400 mil more and have no headaches with the owners and then can even sell naming rights to the new stadium. Staying in wrigley is interesting because of the historic aspect of it but at the end of the day it is a business and it's about making money.

The Ricketts knew the contract when they bought the team. I'd suggest a buyout Tommy or else quit complaining.

 

[beckdawg]

The Ricketts knew the contract when they bought the team. I'd suggest a buyout Tommy or else quit complaining.

Who says the rooftop owners would agree to a buyout? Soon as they allow any sort of signs to go up they are done because that's a stepping stone to them not having a view and thus their business is worthless.

 

[nwfisch]

Who says the rooftop owners would agree to a buyout? Soon as they allow any sort of signs to go up they are done because that's a stepping stone to them not having a view and thus their business is worthless.

But why should the city allow the team to put up signage and eliminate the revenue stream from the rooftops?

The Cubs agreed to a contract, I suggest they live up to it or else buy it out.

 

[Icculus]

The Ricketts knew the contract when they bought the team. I'd suggest a buyout Tommy or else quit complaining.

Or cut a deal with a suburb and make plans to move in order to get some leverage back.

 

[TL1961]

Put up the signs 81 days a year, and take them down and allow an unobstructed view on the other 284 days.

 

[beckdawg]

But why should the city allow the team to put up signage and eliminate the revenue stream from the rooftops?

The Cubs agreed to a contract, I suggest they live up to it or else buy it out.

City has nothing to do with the rooftops. No agreement would hold up a permit. I think you mean the courts. And if that's the case the cubs obviously believe they can win in court or at least move the rooftop owners to the negotiating table or else they wouldn't be doing this.