PDA

View Full Version : If Cubs renovate


Fenway
09-08-2009, 09:42 AM
If the new owners of the Cubs plan to renovate the perfect person is now available as the Red Sox have fired Janet Marie Smith who was in charge of the Fenway renovation. Ms. Smith also was a lead designer at Camden Yards and Petco Field.

http://bit.ly/b3VS3

sent via UberTwitter

tebman
09-08-2009, 10:52 AM
Interesting. Did the Red Sox have to deal with landmark-status restrictions when they remodeled the ballpark? The Cubs are going to be up against that, along with the cranky neighbors who don't want anything to change (except the ability to make more money on their own properties).

How about structural limitations? Did Fenway Park have to be re-girded to support the new seats above the grandstand? The Cubs have got a place now that's shedding concrete and would need serious rebuilding to make any real changes.

Lip Man 1
09-08-2009, 11:05 AM
"They can play in Milwaukee"....Sox front office executive.

LOL

Lip

Fenway
09-08-2009, 11:28 AM
Interesting. Did the Red Sox have to deal with landmark-status restrictions when they remodeled the ballpark? The Cubs are going to be up against that, along with the cranky neighbors who don't want anything to change (except the ability to make more money on their own properties).

How about structural limitations? Did Fenway Park have to be re-girded to support the new seats above the grandstand? The Cubs have got a place now that's shedding concrete and would need serious rebuilding to make any real changes.

Fenway is considered a 'National Landmark' and the City of Boston has a historical board that monitors landmarks. For example Paul Revere's House doesn't have air conditioning.

The Red Sox reinforced the roof in 2003 but the existing beams from 1934 remain.

Smith is a genius as everything she has done looks like they have been there since the park opened. There was a big furor over the Monster seats but now they are fully accepted.

I know for a fact she wants a crack at Wrigley and she certainly has the track record. I think they biggest hurdle the Cubs face is the reality the team will have to play elsewhere for at least one season and possibly two.

Where would the Cubs go? I suspect they would work a deal of weekdays games at The Cell and weekends at Miller Park. The White Sox wouldn't like it but City Hall would most likely insist.

It would be devastating for the Wrigleyville area but it would be impossible to do the work in the off-season.

twentywontowin
09-08-2009, 11:34 AM
"They can play in Milwaukee"....Sox front office executive.

LOL

Lip

You know, I bet the Cubs and Milwaukee could work out some sort of package deal to get fans up there for weekend charters. Cubs still pull a gate, Milwaukee gets increased tourism. Both sides win.

dickallen15
09-08-2009, 11:38 AM
If Bud wants them to play at USCF, they will play at USCF. While it may be funny the Sox say play in Milwaukee, it would be petty and juvenile if it actually happened. If USCF burned down tomorrow, I think most Sox fans would rather have the team play in Wrigley while a new stadium is built than Milwaukee or Detroit.

Fenway
09-08-2009, 11:43 AM
"They can play in Milwaukee"....Sox front office executive.

LOL

Lip

Too many tax dollars involved for the city for that to happen. Just rest assured that JR will get what he wants and everybody will be happy (except the fans but who cares about us?)

LoveYourSuit
09-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Smart thing to do is to work April, May, September games at Milwaukee (to use the dome) and the June, July, August games at the Cell.

Luke
09-08-2009, 11:54 AM
Interesting. Did the Red Sox have to deal with landmark-status restrictions when they remodeled the ballpark? The Cubs are going to be up against that, along with the cranky neighbors who don't want anything to change (except the ability to make more money on their own properties).

How about structural limitations? Did Fenway Park have to be re-girded to support the new seats above the grandstand? The Cubs have got a place now that's shedding concrete and would need serious rebuilding to make any real changes.

I don't believe the grandstands have landmark status, just the marquee. So they might have a reasonable chance at clearing that hurdle.

I think in the case of Wrigley, a complete demo and rebuild of the grandstand portion would be the least costly solution. There's nothing really significant there except for ugly textured precast concrete panels, and no matter what they did to save it, it's not going to give them what they want; a lot of modern luxury suites and actual concourses that can be walked.

Noir
09-08-2009, 01:11 PM
If i'm not mistaken, the Twins built Target Field on LESS land than what Wrigley sits on now. If that is the case, the Cubbies have no excuse to rebuild the whole thing.

Red Barchetta
09-08-2009, 01:24 PM
The already renovated the outfield bleachers and the playing field, so the "only" areas left are the grandstands, main concourse, luxery suits, pressbox, etc.

I think this is going to happen sooner than later. Definitely not in 2010 and probably not in 2011, however I would expect something official announced no later than 2012. They have to do something. Old concrete does not get any better all by itself.

I'm sure the Cubs would play most games at USCF. I really don't think JR and the rest of the SOX brass would have too much power to veto it considering the ballpark is owned by the ISA and not the SOX. JR would get the concessions and parking income however, so I'm sure he would like the extra income. I would just hope they provide additional security during those games to guard against the very "rare" drunken radical Cub fan. Not that they have any of those (ask the Dodgers' bullpen). :D:

ewokpelts
09-08-2009, 01:35 PM
Why was she fired? Hasnt she done a bang up job @ fenway?


ah...read the article..makes sense now.....


i say the white sox hire here. we're going to need a new stadium in the next 15 years.....

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2009, 01:36 PM
I'm sure the Cubs would play most games at USCF. I really don't think JR and the rest of the SOX brass would have too much power to veto it considering the ballpark is owned by the ISA and not the SOX. JR would get the concessions and parking income however, so I'm sure he would like the extra income. I would just hope they provide additional security during those games to guard against the very "rare" drunken radical Cub fan. Not that they have any of those (ask the Dodgers' bullpen). :D:
The Sox's contract with the ISA gives them absolute veto over any other use of the park. They have made it clear that they will not agree to the Cubs playing a season there. 162 games on the playing surface would not be good.

ewokpelts
09-08-2009, 01:53 PM
I have a feeling that if Bud presented Jerry with an irresistable offer,that he'll budge.

Hitmen77
09-08-2009, 01:55 PM
I don't think it's in the Sox best interest to let the Cubs play at the Cell for 2 years while they build their "dream" ballpark at Clark and Addision.....and then turn around and bury us even further in market share. But, I agree that I don't expect that JR or any other Sox ownership will have much say in the end.

Could the Cubs get by just rehabbing Wrigley to make it safe, but not let them have an easy out to play at our park while they completely rebuild Wrigley into everything on their wish list? Also, the Cubs could just build a new ballpark elsewhere in Chicago if they can't fix up Wrigley without help from the Sox.

They've used their "Wrigley is a shrine" myth to keep the Sox forever as 2nd class citizens in Chicago. I don't think the Sox should lift a finger to just further lock this status in for the next 50 years.


I think in the case of Wrigley, a complete demo and rebuild of the grandstand portion would be the least costly solution. There's nothing really significant there except for ugly textured precast concrete panels, and no matter what they did to save it, it's not going to give them what they want; a lot of modern luxury suites and actual concourses that can be walked.

Lies! Lies! All lies!!! Everything about Wrigley is beautiful and perfect! Only Sox fans would spread such lies!

tebman
09-08-2009, 01:56 PM
"They can play in Milwaukee"....Sox front office executive.

LOL

Too many tax dollars involved for the city for that to happen. Just rest assured that JR will get what he wants and everybody will be happy (except the fans but who cares about us?)

The Cubs would play at USCF. There's no realistic alternative. Sure, they could play in Milwaukee, but after the novelty wore off there would be a strain. Wrigley Field and its mythology is the attraction, not the team. The Sox would get the last laugh as they collected the concession revenue. :tongue:

RedHeadPaleHoser
09-08-2009, 02:07 PM
I don't think it's in the Sox best interest to let the Cubs play at the Cell for 2 years while they build their "dream" ballpark at Clark and Addision.....I don't think the Sox should lift a finger to just further lock this status in for the next 50 years.

While I agree emotionally, the Sox don't own the Cell. So, the governing body can work whatever deal is feasible to allow the Cubs to play there. As stupid as it sounds, I don't want the park used because those ****ers just breed ignorance and you can't powerwash that out of the seats.

However, don't give them the main scoreboard or the fireworks. **** them - those are ours.

ewokpelts
09-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Ithink the issue will be who's paying for the wrigley rennovation. If ricketss opts to pay for it himself, then I see no reason why the sox will be involved, as ricketts will probably go the fenway route.

if jim thompson gets his wish, and the state pays for it, then you will see a repeat of "yankees at shea". it'll be stupid for the state to pay for the wrigley rennovation while the cubs fans travel to milwaukee or st louis for cub home games while the other publicly financed ballpark is available. and i'm pretty sure soldier field is NOT an option.

ND_Sox_Fan
09-08-2009, 02:24 PM
If the Cubs were stripped of their main attraction for a year or two and had to move out of walking distance of their classy neighborhood establishments, the attendance would probably dip to the point where the Joliet Jackhammers' Silver Cross Field might make a nice home. Its 7,000+ capacity would be more than enough for the true fans.

Luke
09-08-2009, 02:24 PM
Ithink the issue will be who's paying for the wrigley rennovation. If ricketss opts to pay for it himself, then I see no reason why the sox will be involved, as ricketts will probably go the fenway route.

if jim thompson gets his wish, and the state pays for it, then you will see a repeat of "yankees at shea". it'll be stupid for the state to pay for the wrigley rennovation while the cubs fans travel to milwaukee or st louis for cub home games while the other publicly financed ballpark is available. and i'm pretty sure soldier field is NOT an option.

There always the chance they could go the same route as the Sox and sell the naming rights in one form or another and issue a construction bond. Despite what the Marlins got done, I'm guessing that the next few years are going to be a tough sell on public money for stadiums so I would expect most of this money is going to have to come from the team. Of course the problem there is local emergency rooms would be overwhlemed with cardiac arrests and hysteric fans. Afterall, we all know, the name Wrigley is sacred and no corporation has ever bore that name.

Another option is to renovate in phases, refurbish the parts of the structure that need it, and try to modernize as much as they can.

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2009, 02:29 PM
...the governing body can work whatever deal is feasible to allow the Cubs to play there.No, they can't. How many times do you have to be told that the Sox have it in their contract that they have to approve ANY non-Sox activities there?

The contract gives the Sox the right to say no. They've said they won't allow it. Yet posters here keep insisting, based on absolutely no evidence to the contrary, that the Cubs will play at USCF while Wrigley is being renovated.

dickallen15
09-08-2009, 02:50 PM
No, they can't. How many times do you have to be told that the Sox have it in their contract that they have to approve ANY non-Sox activities there?

The contract gives the Sox the right to say no. They've said they won't allow it. Yet posters here keep insisting, based on absolutely no evidence to the contrary, that the Cubs will play at USCF while Wrigley is being renovated.

I know the contract, and I am telling you Bud will tell JR the Cubs need to play there and he will approve.

areilly
09-08-2009, 02:58 PM
The contract gives the Sox the right to say no. They've said they won't allow it. Yet posters here keep insisting, based on absolutely no evidence to the contrary, that the Cubs will play at USCF while Wrigley is being renovated.

Haven't you heard? They're all, like, out to get us, man.

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2009, 03:00 PM
I know the contract, and I am telling you Bud will tell JR the Cubs need to play there and he will approve.Based on what? Ignoring the actual contract and prior statements of Sox officials and substituting your belief? I prefer to believe the evidence until evidence to the contrary is introduced.

dickallen15
09-08-2009, 03:04 PM
Based on what? Ignoring the actual contract and prior statements of Sox officials and substituting your belief? I prefer to believe the evidence until evidence to the contrary is introduced.
What does JR have to gain by not allowing the Cubs to play there? His and the White Sox, "they can go to Milwaukee" routine is obviously a negotiating ploy. Whoever said JR will get the Cubs concessions is high. But he will want something, and will get it if the Cubs have to leave Wrigley for a season or 2. They aren't at war with the Cubs. Its not like your typical Sox fan vs. Cubs fan.

areilly
09-08-2009, 03:13 PM
What does JR have to gain by not allowing the Cubs to play there? His and the White Sox, "they can go to Milwaukee" routine is obviously a negotiating ploy. Whoever said JR will get the Cubs concessions is high. But he will want something, and will get it if the Cubs have to leave Wrigley for a season or 2. They aren't at war with the Cubs. Its not like your typical Sox fan vs. Cubs fan.

There is, however, a huge opportunity for the Sox to gain significant market share among casual baseball fans while the Cubs play elsewhere. HUGE. Franchise-altering, even. Reinsdorf has to know this, as does Ricketts, and while I'm sure JR wouldn't mind the year or two of extra dollars, something tells me he'd have an eye set more firmly towards the more longer-term income stream.

tebman
09-08-2009, 03:17 PM
The contract gives the Sox the right to say no. They've said they won't allow it. Yet posters here keep insisting, based on absolutely no evidence to the contrary, that the Cubs will play at USCF while Wrigley is being renovated.

I should've put my post in semi-teal. The Sox have a lease deal that anybody who's ever been a renter can only dream about and they've said "no" before. But money talks and I would be amazed if something wasn't worked out.

Maybe as was suggested earlier in the thread, the Cubs would play weekdays in Chicago and weekends in Milwaukee, or some other scheme. The strain on the playing surfaces wouldn't be so great if it were spread around

All of this is wild speculation, of course. Ricketts might decide that the ballpark is just fine and not want to renovate. Or he could build an entirely new park and have a year-long farewell season on Addison Street and then turn it into a museum/park after the Cubs move out. Or if he hires the Red Sox's architect she might pull it off and renovate without interrupting the season.

All that time the Cubs are still stuck with Soriano's contract. :redneck

FielderJones
09-08-2009, 03:27 PM
Ricketts might decide that the ballpark is just fine and not want to renovate.

Then he's going to have to deal with the estate of the Trixie who gets crushed by a piece of falling concrete, as the new owner of the park.

ewokpelts
09-08-2009, 03:37 PM
There always the chance they could go the same route as the Sox and sell the naming rights in one form or another and issue a construction bond. Despite what the Marlins got done, I'm guessing that the next few years are going to be a tough sell on public money for stadiums so I would expect most of this money is going to have to come from the team. Of course the problem there is local emergency rooms would be overwhlemed with cardiac arrests and hysteric fans. Afterall, we all know, the name Wrigley is sacred and no corporation has ever bore that name.

Another option is to renovate in phases, refurbish the parts of the structure that need it, and try to modernize as much as they can.fenway had rolling rennovations. i think some of it was inseason work too.

Lip Man 1
09-08-2009, 03:44 PM
Nellie:

Well said. I'd say if this situation came up the odds of JR saying 'yes' is less than 25%.

From what I've been told, there's some things going on with the Sox response that involve some other things.

Lip

ewokpelts
09-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Nellie:

Well said. I'd say if this situation came up the odds of JR saying 'yes' is less than 25%.

From what I've been told, there's some things going on with the Sox response that involve some other things.

Lipaside from rogger bossard blowing a gasket?

Pear-Zin-Ski
09-08-2009, 04:02 PM
Why is Wrigley Immune to the elements of time? I have no idea why it is not a pile of rubble yet.

DumpJerry
09-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Some factors to keep in mind:
1. A renovation is not possible because once they touch the Grandstand structure, they have to bring everything up to code because the electrical and plumbing will no longer be grandfathered. The bathrooms are way out of code.

2. Since "beautiful Wrigley Field" is the main selling point for Cub ticket sales (as opposed to the actual team or sport played there), they can play at Thillen's Field on Devon to cater to the 2,000 fans who actually want to see the Cubs play baseball.

cws05champ
09-09-2009, 08:02 AM
There is, however, a huge opportunity for the Sox to gain significant market share among casual baseball fans while the Cubs play elsewhere. HUGE. Franchise-altering, even. Reinsdorf has to know this, as does Ricketts, and while I'm sure JR wouldn't mind the year or two of extra dollars, something tells me he'd have an eye set more firmly towards the more longer-term income stream.

Agree. While I would not be happy with sharing the stadium and having the "Classy" Cubs fans trash our park/statues and the like. It is a big opportunity for 1) Increased Revenues 2) Get people to a beautiful ballpark where their preconceived notions perpetuated by the media and fans can be de-bunked. Don't you don't think a Cub family that goes to the Cell, sees the park and has a great time would help the Sox long term?

DumpJerry
09-09-2009, 09:09 AM
Agree. While I would not be happy with sharing the stadium and having the "Classy" Cubs fans trash our park/statues and the like. It is a big opportunity for 1) Increased Revenues 2) Get people to a beautiful ballpark where their preconceived notions perpetuated by the media and fans can be de-bunked. Don't you don't think a Cub family that goes to the Cell, sees the park and has a great time would help the Sox long term?
After the new Urinal opens, they will say their park is much nicer than our old, decrepit, ancient ballpark.

Nellie_Fox
09-09-2009, 10:24 AM
Agree. While I would not be happy with sharing the stadium and having the "Classy" Cubs fans trash our park/statues and the like. It is a big opportunity for 1) Increased Revenues 2) Get people to a beautiful ballpark where their preconceived notions perpetuated by the media and fans can be de-bunked. Don't you don't think a Cub family that goes to the Cell, sees the park and has a great time would help the Sox long term?
That wasn't areilly's point. His point was that if the Cubs are out of town for a year or two, the casual fan would have to come to the Sox for their baseball. Some of them would become permanent Sox fans. His point was that the Sox have a lot to gain by NOT letting the Cubs use USCF, and he makes an excellent point.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 10:54 AM
That wasn't areilly's point. His point was that if the Cubs are out of town for a year or two, the casual fan would have to come to the Sox for their baseball. Some of them would become permanent Sox fans. His point was that the Sox have a lot to gain by NOT letting the Cubs use USCF, and he makes an excellent point.

And after one season, they would never want to return to a new and improved Wrigley Field. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.. The Sox have little to gain saying no other than looking like whiney babies.

Nellie_Fox
09-09-2009, 01:29 PM
And after one season, they would never want to return to a new and improved Wrigley Field. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.. The Sox have little to gain saying no other than looking like whiney babies.You're arguing with things that weren't said. Nobody said CUBS fans would change sides. I said that the casual fan will have to come to the south side for baseball, and might discover that they like it.

The Sox are in DIRECT financial competition with the Cubs. That's a fact. You're an idiot if you help your competitor in business. They have a lot to gain by forcing the Cubs to find other accommodations, and little to gain by letting them play in USCF.

Marqhead
09-09-2009, 01:47 PM
You're arguing with things that weren't said. Nobody said CUBS fans would change sides. I said that the casual fan will have to come to the south side for baseball, and might discover that they like it.

The Sox are in DIRECT financial competition with the Cubs. That's a fact. You're an idiot if you help your competitor in business. They have a lot to gain by forcing the Cubs to find other accommodations, and little to gain by letting them play in USCF.

I agree that not having the Cubs play in Chicago would help draw in the casual fan for 1-2 seasons. However, the media (Chicago and national) would DESTROY the Sox if they refused to let the Cubs play at the cell. I don't necessarily know what kind of impact this would have on the already anti-Sox bias, but it certainly is something to consider.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 01:52 PM
You're arguing with things that weren't said. Nobody said CUBS fans would change sides. I said that the casual fan will have to come to the south side for baseball, and might discover that they like it.

The Sox are in DIRECT financial competition with the Cubs. That's a fact. You're an idiot if you help your competitor in business. They have a lot to gain by forcing the Cubs to find other accommodations, and little to gain by letting them play in USCF.

Well, wouldn't the Cubs playing at USCF expose more people to the park and enhance the chance they might like it? Acting like an ******* doesn't help you. The Yankees played a couple of seasons in Shea. How did that hurt the Mets? What if a day came when the White Sox had to use an alternative park? Would you want them to play the season in Milwaukee? They don't have anything to gain by forcing the Cubs to find another place to play other than looking ridiculous. If it needs to happen, MLB will force JR to give his OK. I think he will give it before it comes to that, he's just going to want something for it.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 01:56 PM
push comes to shove, jerry will let it happen. even for a limited schedule.

DumpJerry
09-09-2009, 02:20 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how MLB can force the Sox to allow the Cubs play at Comiskey as some have posted. Some people are saying MLB will force the Sox to accept the Cubs, but nobody is explaining how they will be able to force the Sox to accept the Cubs. I am not aware of anything in the MLB Franchise Agreement (not that I've read it) that gives MLB leverage for such a move. I'm sure the 28 MLB owners of non-Chicago teams would not want to set a precedent for the League being able to pressure a franchise in this manner.

MLB does not own the stadiums and cannot make decisions which effect stadiums other than the rules of the game (e.g., 90 foot long base paths, foul pole locations, etc.).

So, what is MLB's leverage to force the Sox to do this?

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 02:27 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how MLB can force the Sox to allow the Cubs play at Comiskey as some have posted. Some people are saying MLB will force the Sox to accept the Cubs, but nobody is explaining how they will be able to force the Sox to accept the Cubs. I am not aware of anything in the MLB Franchise Agreement (not that I've read it) that gives MLB leverage for such a move. I'm sure the 28 MLB owners of non-Chicago teams would not want to set a precedent for the League being able to pressure a franchise in this manner.

MLB does not own the stadiums and cannot make decisions which effect stadiums other than the rules of the game (e.g., 90 foot long base paths, foul pole locations, etc.).

So, what is MLB's leverage to force the Sox to do this?I dont think the league will FORCE the sox' hand. I think Jerry will ask "what's in it for me"?

roylestillman
09-09-2009, 02:37 PM
Getting back to the original topic, Janet Marie Smith may go down as being responsible for the turning point in Ballpark design. She took the original plans for Camden Yards, which looked exactly like HOK's plans for the original Comiskey II and reworked them into what became the first of the retro ballparks - Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

The Cubs would be nuts not to hire her.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 02:41 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how MLB can force the Sox to allow the Cubs play at Comiskey as some have posted. Some people are saying MLB will force the Sox to accept the Cubs, but nobody is explaining how they will be able to force the Sox to accept the Cubs. I am not aware of anything in the MLB Franchise Agreement (not that I've read it) that gives MLB leverage for such a move. I'm sure the 28 MLB owners of non-Chicago teams would not want to set a precedent for the League being able to pressure a franchise in this manner.

MLB does not own the stadiums and cannot make decisions which effect stadiums other than the rules of the game (e.g., 90 foot long base paths, foul pole locations, etc.).

So, what is MLB's leverage to force the Sox to do this?

Best interest of the game maybe, and even if they can't technically force the White Sox to allow it, they could twist their arms enough to make it happen. As I stated before, whatever Bud wants, JR usually abliges. Just like the draft. The Sox stay at slot as well as anyone. Really, in the long run, making the Cubs play a season in Milwaukee or Detroit, helps the Sox how? Even if there is a slight gain somewhere, the bad PR, and it would most likely be vicious, would far outweigh it. I'm sure JR would be compensated someway for an OK, and that's why I think right now he's saying no. He hasn't been offered anything to say yes. JR had no problem opening the gates for the Marlins a couple of years ago.

Nellie_Fox
09-09-2009, 03:10 PM
What if a day came when the White Sox had to use an alternative park? Would you want them to play the season in Milwaukee?No, I wouldn't have wanted them to play in Milwaukee. I'm sure Cubs fans don't want them to play in Milwaukee. I don't care what Cubs fans want any more than the Cubs fans (and management) care about what I want.

The Cubs made it clear that the Sox would not be allowed to use Wrigley if they decided to renovate old Comiskey. That was one of the reasons that renovation was completely off the table. The Mets did not have the right to refuse the Yankees the use of publicly-owned Shea. We don't know what they would have done if they did.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 03:19 PM
USCF is publicly owned, and I know JR has the final say, but if he decided to do something that wasn't in taxpayers interests only some sort of personal vendetta which he has stated time after time he doesn't have against the Cubs, it would be lousy. You're obviously a guy who likes to see people get screwed. Good for you. I think you're in the minority and am positive if the time ever came where the Cubs had to abandon Wrigley for a season, they will be at USCF if that is their preferred destination. JR is a business man and will want something for his OK. He's not going to play his cards now.

I've never heard anything about the Sox not being able to use Wrigley. Do you have any other information about that?

Nellie_Fox
09-09-2009, 03:21 PM
I've never heard anything about the Sox not being able to use Wrigley. Do you have any other information about that?Just remembering very clear statements when people asked why they couldn't renovate Comiskey. The answer was they would have no place to play, and that Cubs management had told them no when that was explored. Do I have links? No. It was a long time ago. Maybe I can find one if I try hard enough. I'll bet Lip can bear me out on this.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 03:34 PM
Just remembering very clear statements when people asked why they couldn't renovate Comiskey. The answer was they would have no place to play, and that Cubs management had told them no when that was explored. Do I have links? No. It was a long time ago. Maybe I can find one if I try hard enough. I'll bet Lip can bear me out on this.


It makes no sense because JR was on record saying Comiskey Park could not be renovated. He wanted the team to move to Addison, not Clark and Addison.

TommyJohn
09-09-2009, 03:35 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how MLB can force the Sox to allow the Cubs play at Comiskey as some have posted. Some people are saying MLB will force the Sox to accept the Cubs, but nobody is explaining how they will be able to force the Sox to accept the Cubs. I am not aware of anything in the MLB Franchise Agreement (not that I've read it) that gives MLB leverage for such a move. I'm sure the 28 MLB owners of non-Chicago teams would not want to set a precedent for the League being able to pressure a franchise in this manner.

MLB does not own the stadiums and cannot make decisions which effect stadiums other than the rules of the game (e.g., 90 foot long base paths, foul pole locations, etc.).

So, what is MLB's leverage to force the Sox to do this?
Good question, but if you recall back in the 1980s, Peter Ueberroth forced the lights at Wrigley issue by telling the Cubs "get lights, or play future postseason games in St. Louis." So it has happened in the past. I'm not saying it would happen now, but MLB has done it.

Luke
09-09-2009, 04:06 PM
The "best interests of the game clause" was updated at some point in the 1990s limiting the powers of the commissioner from what they once were. I don't know to what extent, but I'll see what I can find.

While it's still a very powerful tool, the clause may very well have its limits in what a commissioner can and can't do.

Of course that doesn't mean MLB couldn't put a lot of pressure on the Sox, but the ability to force them to allow the Cubs to play at the Cell may not exist anymore.

Noneck
09-09-2009, 04:23 PM
If the cubs decide to renovate it makes sense for them to play at Sox park. Keep the tax revenue here in the city, not up in the land of cheese. It doesn't matter to the ones posting here that don't live in the city but if you do live in the city, it should matter.

Lip Man 1
09-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Nellie is correct. The Cubs made it very clear when the possibility of renovating Comiskey Park was being discussed that the Sox would not be welcomed.

Remember the Comiskey Park issue came to a head in 1987-1988 but the Sox actually began looking into the possibility of a complete renovation almost as soon as Reinsdorf and Einhorn took over.

After the 81 season for example they did extensive renovation work on the lower deck and added the new scoreboard, this laid some of the groundwork for if they were to decide to begin work on the upper decks and exteriors.

Lip

mrfourni
09-09-2009, 04:30 PM
The "best interests of the game clause" was updated at some point in the 1990s limiting the powers of the commissioner from what they once were. I don't know to what extent, but I'll see what I can find.

While it's still a very powerful tool, the clause may very well have its limits in what a commissioner can and can't do.

Of course that doesn't mean MLB couldn't put a lot of pressure on the Sox, but the ability to force them to allow the Cubs to play at the Cell may not exist anymore.

Not saying they would, but there are other tactics MLB can use to force the White Sox to do something. They can threaten to screw around with the schedule; i.e. playing the Cubs/Sox series during the week, scheduling NYY/BOS back to back dates in first week of April, sending them out to the coasts for 3 game trips and then flying them across country. They could threaten to limit the number of nationally televised games the team receives, the amount of coverage they get on the MLB network, etc.

Just because there are no rules stating the MLB can officially force the White Sox to allow the Cubs into their park doesn't mean there aren't other ways of forcing someones hand.

DumpJerry
09-09-2009, 04:34 PM
USCF is publicly owned, and I know JR has the final say, but if he decided to do something that wasn't in taxpayers interests only some sort of personal vendetta which he has stated time after time he doesn't have against the Cubs, it would be lousy. You're obviously a guy who likes to see people get screwed. Good for you. I think you're in the minority and am positive if the time ever came where the Cubs had to abandon Wrigley for a season, they will be at USCF if that is their preferred destination. JR is a business man and will want something for his OK. He's not going to play his cards now.

I've never heard anything about the Sox not being able to use Wrigley. Do you have any other information about that?
I know a lawyer who actually read the lease the White Sox have with the Illinois Sports Facility Authority. The lease gives total control, as in 100%, of the facility and parking lots to the Chicago White Sox. The State of Illinois has no say whatsoever in the management of Comiskey. The State has no leverage to force the White Sox to make decisions one way or another regarding the use of the facility or its parking lots. The only thing the State can do with respect to Comiskey is cash the rent checks the White Sox send them.

The interests of the taxpayers (whatever that is) is not a factor when decisions are made for how Comiskey is used because the only "interest" the taxpayers have is that the White Sox pay the rent as set forth in the lease. If the Cubs want to play there outside of the Crosstown Classic, they are at the total complete and 100% mercy of the White Sox' consent. There has never been any public indication from the White Sox that they would allow it given the wear and tear on the field 162 games would present.

There is also the nightmare of rescheduling rainouts since there will be virtually no off days at the park.

Luke
09-09-2009, 04:47 PM
Not saying they would, but there are other tactics MLB can use to force the White Sox to do something. They can threaten to screw around with the schedule; i.e. playing the Cubs/Sox series during the week, scheduling NYY/BOS back to back dates in first week of April, sending them out to the coasts for 3 game trips and then flying them across country. They could threaten to limit the number of nationally televised games the team receives, the amount of coverage they get on the MLB network, etc.

Just because there are no rules stating the MLB can officially force the White Sox to allow the Cubs into their park doesn't mean there aren't other ways of forcing someones hand.

I know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure they could employ any of those methods. I don't think the CBA permits that kind of travel schedule, and I believe ESPN and Fox generally have their pick of nationally televised games.

slavko
09-09-2009, 04:51 PM
Just because the name came up.....How is Eddie Einhorn's health?

Whappeh
09-09-2009, 05:05 PM
They should just use Ho Ho Kam Park.

chisoxfanatic
09-09-2009, 05:14 PM
There has never been any public indication from the White Sox that they would allow it given the wear and tear on the field 162 games would present.
Yea, I doubt the Sodfather would be too happy with it.
They should just use Ho Ho Kam Park.
My eyes!!!
:tealpolice:

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 05:18 PM
Nellie is correct. The Cubs made it very clear when the possibility of renovating Comiskey Park was being discussed that the Sox would not be welcomed.

Remember the Comiskey Park issue came to a head in 1987-1988 but the Sox actually began looking into the possibility of a complete renovation almost as soon as Reinsdorf and Einhorn took over.

After the 81 season for example they did extensive renovation work on the lower deck and added the new scoreboard, this laid some of the groundwork for if they were to decide to begin work on the upper decks and exteriors.

Lip


Lip,
You guys are wrong about the renovation. JR never let it get to that. He didn't want to renovate. It would be too expensive and he wouldn't get what he wanted. He had already thrown in a ton of cash into the structure, like you mentioned. There's nothing more he would have wanted than an excuse like the Cubs as to why he refused to renovate.

Here's a question for all the people who say baseball can't do anything about it if the Sox decide they don't want the Cubs to play at USCF. What if every team has the Sox attitude. Does baseball then force the Cubs to play in a perhaps dangerous structure and never rehab their park? Must the Cubs disband until their stadium is ready?

Lip Man 1
09-09-2009, 06:25 PM
Dick:

To answer your question they can play at the Metrodome (which will actually still be around) for one possibility.

And to clarify, I'm not saying JR WAS going to renovate the park. His mind was set on a new stadium, however like the smart business guy he is, he didn't want to close off options. That's why he dropped a ton of money immediately to begin renovations...he needed to do it (he didn't want to do it) and he kept all options alive.

Look at it this way, if Tampa Bay wasn't interested, what was he going to do? To throw your question right back to you where would he have moved the Sox to? Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Indianapolis?

Please.

He wasn't 100% eliminating the possibility if there were no other options, of renovating the original Comiskey Park.

Lip

Big D
09-09-2009, 06:39 PM
I know a lawyer who actually read the lease the White Sox have with the Illinois Sports Facility Authority. The lease gives total control, as in 100%, of the facility and parking lots to the Chicago White Sox. The State of Illinois has no say whatsoever in the management of Comiskey. The State has no leverage to force the White Sox to make decisions one way or another regarding the use of the facility or its parking lots. The only thing the State can do with respect to Comiskey is cash the rent checks the White Sox send them.

The interests of the taxpayers (whatever that is) is not a factor when decisions are made for how Comiskey is used because the only "interest" the taxpayers have is that the White Sox pay the rent as set forth in the lease. If the Cubs want to play there outside of the Crosstown Classic, they are at the total complete and 100% mercy of the White Sox' consent. There has never been any public indication from the White Sox that they would allow it given the wear and tear on the field 162 games would present.

There is also the nightmare of rescheduling rainouts since there will be virtually no off days at the park.

If it ever comes to that, I'm sure the state will get together with the Cubs and MLB and make it worth Reinsdorf's while. It's one thing to answer a hypothetical question in an interview, it's quite another thing when you're being offered a nice chunk of cash.

Gavin
09-09-2009, 06:55 PM
I'd be mad as hell if all the kooky suburban Cubs fans spent their kooky suburban dollars anywhere other than in the city of Chicago. The liquor tax is high enough.

jabrch
09-09-2009, 11:10 PM
If it ever comes to that, I'm sure the state will get together with the Cubs and MLB and make it worth Reinsdorf's while. It's one thing to answer a hypothetical question in an interview, it's quite another thing when you're being offered a nice chunk of cash.

At the end of the day, if it improves his club, I'm sure he'd do it...

Woofer
09-09-2009, 11:48 PM
I have a question about the prospect of the Cubs playing at USCF. I would imagine, and someone here might know the answer to this, but where would the Cubs put all of their "stuff"? I don't know if the Sox clubhouse is constructed to accomodate another team and all of their belongings. I would imagine that the White Sox have alot of personal property in their "home" clubhouse, things that are left in place during a roadtrip. Would the team be forced to pack up everything everytime they leave town? If so, it would sort of force our team into being a team of nomads. I would think that at least some of the "home field" advantage is that when you play there, it feels like home. I don't like the idea of the Sox having to bend over backwards to service the Cubs.

I would guess that the team could have the clubhouse employees take care of clearing out lockers and restocking them prior to a homestand, though it all seems to be a big inconvenience to me.

Nellie_Fox
09-10-2009, 12:10 AM
Lip,
You guys are wrong about the renovation. JR never let it get to that. He didn't want to renovate. We are not wrong. They may have never meant to use it, and it may have been only public relations to assuage the fans that wanted old Comiskey saved, but they did, in fact, check out the possibility of using Wrigley. They announced that the Cubs said no, and the Cubs never denied it.

CLR01
09-10-2009, 12:34 AM
Man this thread has brought back memories of those annoying Fire fans that spent a year telling us how their team would be playing @ Comiskey while Soldier field was renovated. If you were in that group please raise your hand.

Nellie_Fox
09-10-2009, 12:44 AM
Man this thread has brought back memories of those annoying Fire fans that spent a year telling us how their team would be playing @ Comiskey while Soldier field was renovated. If you were in that group please raise your hand.Good memory. I'd forgotten all about that. Maybe the Cubs can play at North Central College.

RedHeadPaleHoser
09-10-2009, 07:23 AM
Let them play here.

http://www.littlecubsfield.com/announce8_2005.php

DumpJerry
09-10-2009, 07:25 AM
If it ever comes to that, I'm sure the state will get together with the Cubs and MLB and make it worth Reinsdorf's while. It's one thing to answer a hypothetical question in an interview, it's quite another thing when you're being offered a nice chunk of cash.
That would be Manna from Heaven for the White Sox. The state telling the White Sox they want to negotiate a new contract to accommodate the Cubs...wow! How do you say no rent for the White Sox for five years? How do you say no state sales tax for sales inside the park (including all ticket sales)? So, 50% of the rent the Cubs pay will go to the Sox and not the State? Higher concession prices for Cub home games with the difference going to the Sox? How desperate are you, State of Illinois, to get the Cubs in here?

If the State approached the White Sox to change the terms of their contract with the team, that means a new contract is negotiated. Given who the desperate party is in that situation, the Sox would be in the catbird seat. They are under no obligation whatsoever to agree to negotiate away their current contract rights. No judge can force the Sox to give up their contract rights under these circumstances.

Big D
09-10-2009, 09:42 AM
That would be Manna from Heaven for the White Sox. The state telling the White Sox they want to negotiate a new contract to accommodate the Cubs...wow! How do you say no rent for the White Sox for five years? How do you say no state sales tax for sales inside the park (including all ticket sales)? So, 50% of the rent the Cubs pay will go to the Sox and not the State? Higher concession prices for Cub home games with the difference going to the Sox? How desperate are you, State of Illinois, to get the Cubs in here?

If the State approached the White Sox to change the terms of their contract with the team, that means a new contract is negotiated. Given who the desperate party is in that situation, the Sox would be in the catbird seat. They are under no obligation whatsoever to agree to negotiate away their current contract rights. No judge can force the Sox to give up their contract rights under these circumstances.

The Sox would be very well taken care of, it's safe to say that. Not to get into politics, but there would be a lot of powerful people wanting a deal to get done. No one wants all that tax revenue going out of state. Reinsdorf was smart enough to negotiate total control of the ballpark, so he will have them over a barrel.:smile: I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had this exact situation in mind when he negotiated that contract.

Luke
09-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Here's a question for all the people who say baseball can't do anything about it if the Sox decide they don't want the Cubs to play at USCF. What if every team has the Sox attitude. Does baseball then force the Cubs to play in a perhaps dangerous structure and never rehab their park? Must the Cubs disband until their stadium is ready?

Hopefully the relocation committee approaches them about the potential for a MLB franchise in Moscow.

I don't know that any other team that has used public money for a stadium has the veto power that the Sox do. If the Cubs find themselves in a situation like you mentioned, they do one of the following;

Build a new stadium on a new site, like most other teams have to do.

Do needed renovations in phases, over a series of off seasons like the Red Sox. It doesn't leave you wityh a shining new park and lots of luxury boxes, but it's an improvement.

Hitmen77
09-10-2009, 10:17 AM
After the new Urinal opens, they will say their park is much nicer than our old, decrepit, ancient ballpark.


The Sox are in DIRECT financial competition with the Cubs. That's a fact. You're an idiot if you help your competitor in business. They have a lot to gain by forcing the Cubs to find other accommodations, and little to gain by letting them play in USCF.

Exactly. This pretty much sums up my position on this. The Cubs pretty much buried the Sox in competition for market share in Chicago between 1984 and 2004. Why would the Sox give the Cubs exactly what they need to get their dream scenario: Staying at Wrigley and rebuilding it into a masterpiece.

IMO, the Cubs would love nothing more than to be able to use USCF for a few years to give them as much flexibility as possible to remake Wrigley into a modern facility with a wish list of features that will blow the Cell away in public perception.

I say force the Cubs to make tough choices. They can either just build a new ballpark elsewhere (and lose the tourist/"shrine" crowd) or they can stick with Wrigley and make whatever renovations to keep the place structurally sound while the Cubs continue to play there (they'll keep the tourist/bar crowd, but the Sox will still be able to offer better amenities).

They don't HAVE TO play at the Cell to keep the Cubs in a viable ballpark. What if Chicago were a 1 team town, what would the Cubs do then? They only need to play elsewhere if they want everything on their wish list: Keep playing at a historic park, and have plenty of time to remake it into a modern gem. NO THANK YOU! I find it hard to believe that 1 or 2 years of extra money to JR is going to offset having the Cell look like a 2nd-rate facility in the end and keeping the Sox as 2nd class citizens in Chicago for another 40 years.

DumpJerry
09-10-2009, 10:32 AM
I say force the Cubs to make tough choices. They can either just build a new ballpark elsewhere (and lose the tourist/"shrine" crowd) or they can stick with Wrigley and make whatever renovations to keep the place structurally sound while the Cubs continue to play there (they'll keep the tourist/bar crowd, but the Sox will still be able to offer better amenities).
They can build a replica Urinal in a different location that will be up to building code. That way, the fans can still enjoy a park where the monthly electric bill is about $30.00 (do they have anything in there that needs electricity to operate???).

RedHeadPaleHoser
09-10-2009, 10:33 AM
They can build a replica Urinal in a different location that will be up to building code. That way, the fans can still enjoy a park where the monthly electric bill is about $30.00 (do they have anything in there that needs electricity to operate???).

The 1971 "Go Cubs Go!" speaker system.

eriqjaffe
09-10-2009, 11:23 AM
do they have anything in there that needs electricity to operate???You think all that Old Style chills itself, broham?

Hitmen77
09-10-2009, 11:56 AM
They can build a replica Urinal in a different location that will be up to building code. That way, the fans can still enjoy a park where the monthly electric bill is about $30.00 (do they have anything in there that needs electricity to operate???).

Exactly. Let them do that if Wrigley isn't safe anymore. That's what teams in other cities do. Such a new place will no doubt be popular and successful, but they'll lose the history/tourists edge they have now.

khan
09-10-2009, 01:02 PM
I'm thinking that no matter what, the ricketts will HAVE TO do a thorough rebuild of the urinal, or move to a new venue.

Remember how the Bears [under lucky sperm Mike McCaskey] bitched high and low from the late '70s until the mid '90s to get a new stadium? They "threatened" to move to Gary, IN or to another suburb. If memory serves, Daley also announced an "ordinance" banning sports teams from using "Chicago" in the team name unless they played IN "Chicago" around the same timeframe. [Of course Soldier Field will soon be considered too small for a 21st Century NFL team/Olympics/World Cup Soccer Opener or Final, and too inflexible for the city to do much with it for the other ~340 days.]

Inasmuch as the Bears needed a renovation to Soldier Field, so too do the scrubs need a renovation to the urinal. The scrubs have already maxed out their revenue streams at the urinal. They can NOT get another cent more from the stadium, short of [further] increasing prices for tickets and their internal scalping service, and for concessions.

Added into this are the safety concerns associated with a crumbling structure. While the urinal is the scrubs' best marketing, it is also a reason why I believe that the ricketts overpaid for the scrubs.

In any case, the scrubs will eventually have to play elsewhere for a season or two. In all likelihood, at least some of the games will be @ USCF, whether we like it or not.

Lip Man 1
09-10-2009, 02:23 PM
Khan:

I wouldn't bet your life on that last statement...we'll see.

Lip

DumpJerry
09-10-2009, 05:03 PM
In any case, the scrubs will eventually have to play elsewhere for a season or two. In all likelihood, at least some of the games will be @ USCF, whether we like it or not.
What is the factual basis for this assertion? I'm not talking about whether we like it or not, but the assertion the Cubs will use Comiskey as their home away from home.

mrfourni
09-10-2009, 05:23 PM
What is the factual basis for this assertion? I'm not talking about whether we like it or not, but the assertion the Cubs will use Comiskey as their home away from home.

I don't think its a foregone conclusion that if the Cub's need to move out of Wrigley to renovate that they will end up at the Cell, but I have to imagine it would be the Cub's first choice, and probably makes the most sense to everyone except the White Sox.

If the Sox say no, what makes anyone think the Brewer's will say yes? They've really backed themselves into a corner at this point.

DumpJerry
09-10-2009, 05:36 PM
I don't think its a foregone conclusion that if the Cub's need to move out of Wrigley to renovate that they will end up at the Cell, but I have to imagine it would be the Cub's first choice, and probably makes the most sense to everyone except the White Sox.

If the Sox say no, what makes anyone think the Brewer's will say yes? They've really backed themselves into a corner at this point.
Here is the bottom line:

Except to the extent it could affect revenue sharing, where the Cubs play if The Urinal is rebuilt is not the White Sox problem. As one previous poster mentioned, what would they do if this was a one-team town like 26 of the MLB teams? The Red Sox pulled it off (to get back to the original post) with a creaky old ballpark, why can't the Cubs? The Cubs will have to work with the assumption that they will have to do rolling renovations (worst case, but most likely, scenario) and that Comiskey is the least likely scenario.

Brian26
09-10-2009, 06:30 PM
I don't think its a foregone conclusion that if the Cub's need to move out of Wrigley to renovate that they will end up at the Cell, but I have to imagine it would be the Cub's first choice, and probably makes the most sense to everyone except the White Sox.

If the Sox say no, what makes anyone think the Brewer's will say yes? They've really backed themselves into a corner at this point.

Cub's and Brewer's, but no Sox's.

:thud:

Tragg
09-10-2009, 07:27 PM
Who owns the Cell? JR or the state/city?

dickallen15
09-10-2009, 07:48 PM
The original plan was for the Cubs to sell Wrigley to the state. Jim Thompson, the guy who made USCF happen and gave JR a sweetheart deal would have been the point man. They were going to drop a huge amount of money into a renovation. Ricketts is supposedly going to drop $250 million. Maybe Ricketts plans to do rolling renovations. If the state bought it, it would have been a total gut job, and it would have been interesting to see if JR would have told Thompson to go scratch if he wanted the Cubs to play at the park he made happen for a year or so. Everything is negotiable.

Lip Man 1
09-10-2009, 08:06 PM
Tragg:

That's not the right question.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, JR has absolutely the first, last and middle vote on anything related to the use of U.S. Cellular Field. The state / city, MLB for all practical (i.e. meaning legal) purposes have no say in the matter...none. That's the way the contract is written. It is simply his decision and his decision alone.

Lip

Fenway
09-10-2009, 10:49 PM
When Fenway was renovated it was done in stages over six off-seasons but the work at no time affected the main seating bowl. They could continue work on the roof as it was all new seating.

With Wrigley while you could renovate the concourse over the off-season it is doubtful they could do the needed work on the upper deck and I doubt they would play with the upper deck closed and only having 25,000 seats to sell.

There is too much tax money involved between the city amusement tax on tickets, hotels and every other kind of fan spending.

The city has little leverage on JR over USCF because it is state owned but the United Center is another kettle of fish.

Now I suppose you could look at Soldier Field as a stopgap option but it would be as much of a farce as when the Dodgers played in the Coliseum 50 years ago.

DumpJerry
09-10-2009, 10:53 PM
Now I suppose you could look at Soldier Field as a stopgap option but it would be as much of a farce as when the Dodgers played in the Coliseum 50 years ago.
That's ok. The Cubs are a farce.

DSpivack
09-10-2009, 11:00 PM
When Fenway was renovated it was done in stages over six off-seasons but the work at no time affected the main seating bowl. They could continue work on the roof as it was all new seating.

With Wrigley while you could renovate the concourse over the off-season it is doubtful they could do the needed work on the upper deck and I doubt they would play with the upper deck closed and only having 25,000 seats to sell.

There is too much tax money involved between the city amusement tax on tickets, hotels and every other kind of fan spending.

The city has little leverage on JR over USCF because it is state owned but the United Center is another kettle of fish.

Now I suppose you could look at Soldier Field as a stopgap option but it would be as much of a farce as when the Dodgers played in the Coliseum 50 years ago.

Any way they renovate section by section over a number of years? Although I don't see how they do that and improve on the structure itself, which is perhaps the biggest problem, no?

chisoxfanatic
09-10-2009, 11:53 PM
With Wrigley while you could renovate the concourse over the off-season it is doubtful they could do the needed work on the upper deck and I doubt they would play with the upper deck closed and only having 25,000 seats to sell.
It's not like they haven't done that before in the past. :tongue:

Luke
09-11-2009, 09:25 AM
Any way they renovate section by section over a number of years? Although I don't see how they do that and improve on the structure itself, which is perhaps the biggest problem, no?

The structure can be renovated and brought to a state of good repair through a series of renovations. That still leaves them with a building with poor layout, poor ingress and egress, small concourses, tiny bathrooms, and no practical way to really have a modern amount of luxury boxes. Another issue they may face is decreased capacity. The main bowl at Fenway presents a good example, they can't touch the oldest seats there because they're grandfathered. If the replaced them, current code dictates more, wider aisles, which would lower capacity. I imagine the case is similar at Wrigley.

Colloquially stated, they're best option might be to just polish that turd.

C-Dawg
09-11-2009, 10:41 AM
Colloquially stated, they're best option might be to just polish that turd.

In before Kittle42!!

Hitmen77
09-11-2009, 11:27 AM
The structure can be renovated and brought to a state of good repair through a series of renovations. That still leaves them with a building with poor layout, poor ingress and egress, small concourses, tiny bathrooms, and no practical way to really have a modern amount of luxury boxes. Another issue they may face is decreased capacity. The main bowl at Fenway presents a good example, they can't touch the oldest seats there because they're grandfathered. If the replaced them, current code dictates more, wider aisles, which would lower capacity. I imagine the case is similar at Wrigley.

Colloquially stated, they're best option might be to just polish that turd.

But, JR and the Sox would rather have one or two years of financial benefit from the Cubs playing at the Cell in exchange for letting the Cubs fix every last flaw at Wrigley!

...and anyone who thinks that Cub fans having to come to the Cell for a couple of years will sway them to like the Cell and the Sox and "keep coming back" are just fooling themselves. You know that most of them will just put their blinders on and complain about our "awful" park in the "ghetto" for 2 years before heading back north.

areilly
09-11-2009, 11:28 AM
Quite a few people are missing the point here: Reinsdorf letting the Cubs play at USCF would be an extremely short-sighted move. It's one, maybe two seasons of a quick buck, and then what? People seem to insist Selig will work some magic to force the Cubs onto the South Side, but no one has anything with which to back up this assertion beyond "money talks."

Here's another way money talks: with the Cubs playing in, say, Milwaukee or Indianapolis or wherever they'd end up, the Sox are literally the only game in town. That's a full season of monopolization on the casual Chicago baseball fan. A full season to win over a new generation of lifelong customers.

Let's say Reinsdorf lets the Cubs play at the Cell for a season, and for simplicity's sake we'll say the Sox receive 50% all generated revenue during Cubs games - merch, concessions, whatever. I realize any real-life arrangement wouldn't work like that, but I'll leave that to the team's financial team. Let's say also the Cubs average 30,000 a night for 81 home games, and each of those folks spends an average of $100 per game. Again, I simplify here but we'll keep the numbers consistent later.

30,000 * 81 * $100 = $24,300,000. Cut that in half and the Sox are $12,150,000 richer. Neat.

(I realize MLB would probably base these things on profit, not revenue, but I don't know MLB's profit margin on hot dogs and t-shirts [and probably don't want to]. But again, we'll stay consistent.)

Now let's say the Cubs' departure nets the Sox 5,000 new fans by virtue of there being no other local option. People bring their kids, have a date night to remember, whatever. Say also those people remain fans for 40 years, go to an average of five games a year with one other person and spend $100 in 2009 money each time out.

5,000 * 40 * 5 * 2 * 100 = $20,000,000 LTV, all for the White Sox. That's a considerably higher return without even taking inflation into consideration, and also doesn't require the Sox to redo the playing field after a season of 162 home games. Those fans in turn beget two fans apiece, who convert two fans, etc. etc. etc., and the cycle repeats.

In some respects, keeping the Cubs out could be seen as an investment with an infinite ROI, and that's not even counting the people who show up once or twice in the Cub-less season, never to return again.

So what, exactly, are the Cubs or MLB going to offer the Sox to sway them? Does anyone really think Reinsdorf and the team need the money that badly?

eriqjaffe
09-11-2009, 11:34 AM
So what, exactly, are the Cubs or MLB going to offer the Sox to sway them? Does anyone really think Reinsdorf and the team need the money that badly?Maybe they'll give Soriano to the Sox.

Big D
09-11-2009, 12:18 PM
The structure can be renovated and brought to a state of good repair through a series of renovations. That still leaves them with a building with poor layout, poor ingress and egress, small concourses, tiny bathrooms, and no practical way to really have a modern amount of luxury boxes. Another issue they may face is decreased capacity. The main bowl at Fenway presents a good example, they can't touch the oldest seats there because they're grandfathered. If the replaced them, current code dictates more, wider aisles, which would lower capacity. I imagine the case is similar at Wrigley.

Colloquially stated, they're best option might be to just polish that turd.

It should be pointed out that the Cubs are already one of the highest revenue teams in baseball, even with an antiquated ballpark. So even if they have to "settle" for doing smaller renovations during the offseasons, I think they'll survive.

Luke
09-11-2009, 01:20 PM
In before Kittle42!!

I can't believe I did that. In my defense, I'm on very little sleep.

TomBradley72
09-11-2009, 03:36 PM
Quite a few people are missing the point here: Reinsdorf letting the Cubs play at USCF would be an extremely short-sighted move. It's one, maybe two seasons of a quick buck, and then what? People seem to insist Selig will work some magic to force the Cubs onto the South Side, but no one has anything with which to back up this assertion beyond "money talks."

Here's another way money talks: with the Cubs playing in, say, Milwaukee or Indianapolis or wherever they'd end up, the Sox are literally the only game in town. That's a full season of monopolization on the casual Chicago baseball fan. A full season to win over a new generation of lifelong customers.

Let's say Reinsdorf lets the Cubs play at the Cell for a season, and for simplicity's sake we'll say the Sox receive 50% all generated revenue during Cubs games - merch, concessions, whatever. I realize any real-life arrangement wouldn't work like that, but I'll leave that to the team's financial team. Let's say also the Cubs average 30,000 a night for 81 home games, and each of those folks spends an average of $100 per game. Again, I simplify here but we'll keep the numbers consistent later.

30,000 * 81 * $100 = $24,300,000. Cut that in half and the Sox are $12,150,000 richer. Neat.

(I realize MLB would probably base these things on profit, not revenue, but I don't know MLB's profit margin on hot dogs and t-shirts [and probably don't want to]. But again, we'll stay consistent.)

Now let's say the Cubs' departure nets the Sox 5,000 new fans by virtue of there being no other local option. People bring their kids, have a date night to remember, whatever. Say also those people remain fans for 40 years, go to an average of five games a year with one other person and spend $100 in 2009 money each time out.

5,000 * 40 * 5 * 2 * 100 = $20,000,000 LTV, all for the White Sox. That's a considerably higher return without even taking inflation into consideration, and also doesn't require the Sox to redo the playing field after a season of 162 home games. Those fans in turn beget two fans apiece, who convert two fans, etc. etc. etc., and the cycle repeats.

In some respects, keeping the Cubs out could be seen as an investment with an infinite ROI, and that's not even counting the people who show up once or twice in the Cub-less season, never to return again.

So what, exactly, are the Cubs or MLB going to offer the Sox to sway them? Does anyone really think Reinsdorf and the team need the money that badly?

As a taxpayer....I would want ISFA to have the Cubs play there vs. any place out of state...all of that revenue, etc. should stay in IL and inside Chicago.

Jerksticks
09-11-2009, 06:18 PM
I agree with areilly 100%. Reilly, it's kinda like buying Long Island from the Natives, no? Yea Jerry would make tens of millions of dollars from some sort of agreement, but he'd also lose an unquantifiable number of dollars over the long haul. It would be hard to compete against the whole nation coming to see "The brand new Glorious Wrigley Field" in the heart of a wonderful neighborhood. My bet is Jerry realizes this also, and by putting the Cubs in a jam we kinda throw a wrench in their attempts to gain an even larger portion of Chicago baseball revenue. Strictly business/monetarily speaking, I think blood is in the water, and Jerry has to smell it.

Remember, Jerry makes a little money if the cubs play here for a few years, but way more money if he captures market points. It's all about money, always.

Hitmen77
09-11-2009, 09:00 PM
As a taxpayer....I would want ISFA to have the Cubs play there vs. any place out of state...all of that revenue, etc. should stay in IL and inside Chicago.

As stated already in this thread, those aren't the only 2 options. The other options are: a) the Cubs play at Wrigley while they do renovations or b) the Cubs build a new stadium at a different location in Chicago.

forrestg
09-12-2009, 03:23 AM
If the yankees can build a stadium to replace the house that Ruth built. Wrigley field can be torned down no questions asked.

dickallen15
09-12-2009, 07:05 AM
I agree with areilly 100%. Reilly, it's kinda like buying Long Island from the Natives, no? Yea Jerry would make tens of millions of dollars from some sort of agreement, but he'd also lose an unquantifiable number of dollars over the long haul. It would be hard to compete against the whole nation coming to see "The brand new Glorious Wrigley Field" in the heart of a wonderful neighborhood. My bet is Jerry realizes this also, and by putting the Cubs in a jam we kinda throw a wrench in their attempts to gain an even larger portion of Chicago baseball revenue. Strictly business/monetarily speaking, I think blood is in the water, and Jerry has to smell it.

Remember, Jerry makes a little money if the cubs play here for a few years, but way more money if he captures market points. It's all about money, always.


How is he going to lose money in the long run? The people going to Cubs games are still going to Cubs games. People aren't going to suddenly become Sox fans because JR made them play their "home" games in Milwaukee or Detroit for a season. If USCF burned to the ground tomorrow and the Sox had to play 2010 and maybe 2011 in another park, how many people would switch to being a Cubs fan if the Sox had to play their games in Milwaukee? I would think you would gain more "market points" if you let them play in your park. If anything, getting some more casual fans to USCF to watch the Cubs may make them realize its not the danger zone many have built it up to be. The Cubs are going to sellout anyway when they either build a new park or rehab there current home. Maybe the casual fan who can't get tickets says hey let's go watch the White Sox, they are pretty good and the park is really nice.

dickallen15
09-12-2009, 07:10 AM
Quite a few people are missing the point here: Reinsdorf letting the Cubs play at USCF would be an extremely short-sighted move. It's one, maybe two seasons of a quick buck, and then what? People seem to insist Selig will work some magic to force the Cubs onto the South Side, but no one has anything with which to back up this assertion beyond "money talks."

Here's another way money talks: with the Cubs playing in, say, Milwaukee or Indianapolis or wherever they'd end up, the Sox are literally the only game in town. That's a full season of monopolization on the casual Chicago baseball fan. A full season to win over a new generation of lifelong customers.

Let's say Reinsdorf lets the Cubs play at the Cell for a season, and for simplicity's sake we'll say the Sox receive 50% all generated revenue during Cubs games - merch, concessions, whatever. I realize any real-life arrangement wouldn't work like that, but I'll leave that to the team's financial team. Let's say also the Cubs average 30,000 a night for 81 home games, and each of those folks spends an average of $100 per game. Again, I simplify here but we'll keep the numbers consistent later.

30,000 * 81 * $100 = $24,300,000. Cut that in half and the Sox are $12,150,000 richer. Neat.

(I realize MLB would probably base these things on profit, not revenue, but I don't know MLB's profit margin on hot dogs and t-shirts [and probably don't want to]. But again, we'll stay consistent.)

Now let's say the Cubs' departure nets the Sox 5,000 new fans by virtue of there being no other local option. People bring their kids, have a date night to remember, whatever. Say also those people remain fans for 40 years, go to an average of five games a year with one other person and spend $100 in 2009 money each time out.

5,000 * 40 * 5 * 2 * 100 = $20,000,000 LTV, all for the White Sox. That's a considerably higher return without even taking inflation into consideration, and also doesn't require the Sox to redo the playing field after a season of 162 home games. Those fans in turn beget two fans apiece, who convert two fans, etc. etc. etc., and the cycle repeats.

In some respects, keeping the Cubs out could be seen as an investment with an infinite ROI, and that's not even counting the people who show up once or twice in the Cub-less season, never to return again.

So what, exactly, are the Cubs or MLB going to offer the Sox to sway them? Does anyone really think Reinsdorf and the team need the money that badly?

Its a quick buck that he would never see otherwise. Its not like the Cubs are going to fix up Wrigley or build a new park and have to start over with their fanbase.

I don't see the long run argument. The Cubs are going to always sell out. You might as well get something and hope people enjoy the experience at your park enough that they will want to return. Face it, a new park or a rehabbed Wrigley Field is still going to be considered light years better than USCF by 99.99% of Cubs fans, and giving the Brewers or Tigers or Twins the extra revenue whatever it may be for allowing the Cubs to play at their park is the shortsided approach IMO. If anything 3,000,000 extra people hit the turnstiles at USCF for a season. A lot more than 5000 of them realize all their perceptions about USCF and the surrounding neighborhood couldn't have been more incorrect. They start coming to Sox games.

DumpJerry
09-12-2009, 09:27 AM
If the yankees can build a stadium to replace the house that Ruth built. Wrigley field can be torned down no questions asked.

The Yankees have a team to sell to the public, the Cubs only sell their ballpark.

The Cubs are going to always sell out.
Not true. There is no evidence that this will happen. Look at the huge number of no-shows they are experiencing right now at their games in nice weather. After making the playoffs two years in a row while promising they will win the World Series and averaging one run per game over the past six playoff games, they have alienated their fans with their constant failures which, in the past, were considered "cute." If they continue on the same track of mediocre play for the next year or two, you will see empty seats wherever it is they call home.

roylestillman
09-12-2009, 08:34 PM
Quite a few people are missing the point here: Reinsdorf letting the Cubs play at USCF would be an extremely short-sighted move. It's one, maybe two seasons of a quick buck, and then what? People seem to insist Selig will work some magic to force the Cubs onto the South Side, but no one has anything with which to back up this assertion beyond "money talks."

Here's another way money talks: with the Cubs playing in, say, Milwaukee or Indianapolis or wherever they'd end up, the Sox are literally the only game in town. That's a full season of monopolization on the casual Chicago baseball fan. A full season to win over a new generation of lifelong customers.

Let's say Reinsdorf lets the Cubs play at the Cell for a season, and for simplicity's sake we'll say the Sox receive 50% all generated revenue during Cubs games - merch, concessions, whatever. I realize any real-life arrangement wouldn't work like that, but I'll leave that to the team's financial team. Let's say also the Cubs average 30,000 a night for 81 home games, and each of those folks spends an average of $100 per game. Again, I simplify here but we'll keep the numbers consistent later.

30,000 * 81 * $100 = $24,300,000. Cut that in half and the Sox are $12,150,000 richer. Neat.

(I realize MLB would probably base these things on profit, not revenue, but I don't know MLB's profit margin on hot dogs and t-shirts [and probably don't want to]. But again, we'll stay consistent.)

Now let's say the Cubs' departure nets the Sox 5,000 new fans by virtue of there being no other local option. People bring their kids, have a date night to remember, whatever. Say also those people remain fans for 40 years, go to an average of five games a year with one other person and spend $100 in 2009 money each time out.

5,000 * 40 * 5 * 2 * 100 = $20,000,000 LTV, all for the White Sox. That's a considerably higher return without even taking inflation into consideration, and also doesn't require the Sox to redo the playing field after a season of 162 home games. Those fans in turn beget two fans apiece, who convert two fans, etc. etc. etc., and the cycle repeats.

In some respects, keeping the Cubs out could be seen as an investment with an infinite ROI, and that's not even counting the people who show up once or twice in the Cub-less season, never to return again.

So what, exactly, are the Cubs or MLB going to offer the Sox to sway them? Does anyone really think Reinsdorf and the team need the money that badly?

OK since nobody has caught this in a couple of days I hereby declare myself the math police (as opposed to our grammar squad, who I applaud and support.)

The answer to equation A. = $121.5 million.

Equation B. = $200 million.

Doesn't change your arguement, except that there is no way the cubs would ever split revenues in half and only winning would permanently increase attendance by 5,000 a year.

CLR01
09-12-2009, 08:51 PM
OK since nobody has caught this in a couple of days I hearby declare myself the math police (as oppose to our grammar squad, who I applaud and support.)

The answer to equation A. = $121.5 million.

Equation B. = $200 million.

Doesn't change your arguement, except that there is no way the cubs would ever split revenues in half and only winning would permanently increase attendance by 5,000 a year._

Frontman
09-12-2009, 09:05 PM
The Cubs would play at USCF. There's no realistic alternative. Sure, they could play in Milwaukee, but after the novelty wore off there would be a strain. Wrigley Field and its mythology is the attraction, not the team. The Sox would get the last laugh as they collected the concession revenue. :tongue:

Not only that, but you'd see how many "true" Cubs fans are there; you know the one's who come to the game to WATCH THE GAME, not the bleached out bimbos in the bleachers.

Granted, the moronic Cubs fans would then blame the low attendance on them playing in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.......

khan
09-14-2009, 10:26 AM
What is the factual basis for this assertion? I'm not talking about whether we like it or not, but the assertion the Cubs will use Comiskey as their home away from home.
I stated it as one man's opinion, not as fact.

I recognize that JR has the first, middle, last, and ONLY say as to whether or not anything else happens in USCF. Ultimately, it will be up to him as to what happens there.

However, I think that the state and city wouldn't like to lose out on all the tax revenue from a sea of mouthbreathing morons watching the scrubs in milwaukee or elsewhere. As a taxpayer, I don't want wisconsin getting any more of OUR money.

Chicagoland tourism would also suffer, if the city only hosts 81 MLB games instead of 162. Restaurants, hotels, even cab drivers would all take a hit as well.

Now, I don't believe that ALL 81 scrubs home games could feasibly be played at USCF, even if MLB wanted it to be so. [The sodfather would have a fit, it would be difficult to reschedule rainouts, and I don't think JR would go for it, among other reasons.] But, I do believe that with some palm-greasing, JR might OK a limited schedule of scrubs home games at USCF.

I honestly don't think it would be that big of a deal, and it would do more good than harm to be gracious to the scrubs.

Tragg
09-14-2009, 11:11 PM
If the yankees can build a stadium to replace the house that Ruth built. Wrigley field can be torned down no questions asked.
Isn't that the truth.

Hitmen77
09-15-2009, 08:30 AM
I stated it as one man's opinion, not as fact.

I recognize that JR has the first, middle, last, and ONLY say as to whether or not anything else happens in USCF. Ultimately, it will be up to him as to what happens there.

However, I think that the state and city wouldn't like to lose out on all the tax revenue from a sea of mouthbreathing morons watching the scrubs in milwaukee or elsewhere. As a taxpayer, I don't want wisconsin getting any more of OUR money.

Chicagoland tourism would also suffer, if the city only hosts 81 MLB games instead of 162. Restaurants, hotels, even cab drivers would all take a hit as well.

Now, I don't believe that ALL 81 scrubs home games could feasibly be played at USCF, even if MLB wanted it to be so. [The sodfather would have a fit, it would be difficult to reschedule rainouts, and I don't think JR would go for it, among other reasons.] But, I do believe that with some palm-greasing, JR might OK a limited schedule of scrubs home games at USCF.

I honestly don't think it would be that big of a deal, and it would do more good than harm to be gracious to the scrubs.

The Cubs aren't going to play in Milwaukee or any other city. If they can't play at the Cell, then they'll either make do with renovations while Wrigley stays open (enough to make it structurally sound, but not enough to rebuild it into a fully modern "shrine") or they will have to build a new stadium.

TomBradley72
09-15-2009, 10:11 AM
Quite a few people are missing the point here: Reinsdorf letting the Cubs play at USCF would be an extremely short-sighted move. It's one, maybe two seasons of a quick buck, and then what? People seem to insist Selig will work some magic to force the Cubs onto the South Side, but no one has anything with which to back up this assertion beyond "money talks."

Here's another way money talks: with the Cubs playing in, say, Milwaukee or Indianapolis or wherever they'd end up, the Sox are literally the only game in town. That's a full season of monopolization on the casual Chicago baseball fan. A full season to win over a new generation of lifelong customers.

Let's say Reinsdorf lets the Cubs play at the Cell for a season, and for simplicity's sake we'll say the Sox receive 50% all generated revenue during Cubs games - merch, concessions, whatever. I realize any real-life arrangement wouldn't work like that, but I'll leave that to the team's financial team. Let's say also the Cubs average 30,000 a night for 81 home games, and each of those folks spends an average of $100 per game. Again, I simplify here but we'll keep the numbers consistent later.

30,000 * 81 * $100 = $24,300,000. Cut that in half and the Sox are $12,150,000 richer. Neat.

(I realize MLB would probably base these things on profit, not revenue, but I don't know MLB's profit margin on hot dogs and t-shirts [and probably don't want to]. But again, we'll stay consistent.)

Now let's say the Cubs' departure nets the Sox 5,000 new fans by virtue of there being no other local option. People bring their kids, have a date night to remember, whatever. Say also those people remain fans for 40 years, go to an average of five games a year with one other person and spend $100 in 2009 money each time out.

5,000 * 40 * 5 * 2 * 100 = $20,000,000 LTV, all for the White Sox. That's a considerably higher return without even taking inflation into consideration, and also doesn't require the Sox to redo the playing field after a season of 162 home games. Those fans in turn beget two fans apiece, who convert two fans, etc. etc. etc., and the cycle repeats.

In some respects, keeping the Cubs out could be seen as an investment with an infinite ROI, and that's not even counting the people who show up once or twice in the Cub-less season, never to return again.

So what, exactly, are the Cubs or MLB going to offer the Sox to sway them? Does anyone really think Reinsdorf and the team need the money that badly?

Worst economy in decades...state/local govt. revenue shortfalls all over the place....I value tax revenue staying within the state of Illinois more than I value somehow leveraging this situation to improve the popularity of a baseball team. I would hope JR would see it the same way.

GoSox2K3
09-19-2009, 03:17 PM
Its a quick buck that he would never see otherwise. Its not like the Cubs are going to fix up Wrigley or build a new park and have to start over with their fanbase.

I don't see the long run argument. The Cubs are going to always sell out. You might as well get something and hope people enjoy the experience at your park enough that they will want to return. Face it, a new park or a rehabbed Wrigley Field is still going to be considered light years better than USCF by 99.99% of Cubs fans, and giving the Brewers or Tigers or Twins the extra revenue whatever it may be for allowing the Cubs to play at their park is the shortsided approach IMO. If anything 3,000,000 extra people hit the turnstiles at USCF for a season. A lot more than 5000 of them realize all their perceptions about USCF and the surrounding neighborhood couldn't have been more incorrect. They start coming to Sox games.

No it won't.

If the Cubs have to rehab Wrigley while they still occupy it, they'll have to compromise and just do enough fixes to keep it structurally sound. They'll still have the crowded concourses and bathroom, obstructed seats, and overall lack of amenities.

If the Cubs build a new park, it'll likely be viewed as better than the Cell, but they'll lose the all-important "history" and "shrine" selling point they currently have.

Of course, the Cubs will get both the history and the totally modern ballpark if they get to play at the Cell for 2 years....and some people here apparently think this is the only option. They'll be popular no matter what, but this last option would just kill the Sox in market share competition.

GoSox2K3
09-19-2009, 03:20 PM
Worst economy in decades...state/local govt. revenue shortfalls all over the place....I value tax revenue staying within the state of Illinois more than I value somehow leveraging this situation to improve the popularity of a baseball team. I would hope JR would see it the same way.

:rolleyes:
Some people apparently aren't bothering to read all the points made in this thread.

The Cubs are NOT going to be forced to play in Milwaukee. They can do the same thing 26 other teams would be forced to do: Fix what they can at Wrigley while still playing there or abandon the history for a new ballpark.

It is NOT the White Sox role in life to make sure that the Cubs "historic Wrigley shrine" golden goose keeps running in perpetuity.

GlassSox
09-20-2009, 08:54 PM
The Cubs have started cleaning up the dump by sending Milton Bradley home. :tongue:

Lundind1
09-20-2009, 10:03 PM
As a Sox STH, I have to pose another question. Would I get a crack at my awesome seats if the Cubs did play here. I am a White Sox fan first, stating that so I don't get booed outa here faster than Luis Terrero, but I think it would be great to have the option to see 162 games here.

Now in my heart of hearts, I would love to tell them to go to hell. But on the other hand, I love baseball and would love to see the Sox reap the monetary windfall from having that many events here.

The Sox, just like the baseball team I work for, has a contract with Delaware North Corporation. DNC takes in all of the money and pays the Sox a percentage up to a certain dollar amount. As the income increases, so does the commission on vendor sales. I think that the Sox would split the vendor commissions and ticket sales in a 2 year contract with that other team.

As a STH, and this goes for the others out there, you do get first crack at tickets for "other" events at the Cell. There are next to none of them that are open to the public but you still get the shot at them. I would like to get the Cubs Package with my Sox tickets and make as many games as possible, mostly to see the other teams in NL that we never get to see and sell the rest. What I would propose to the Sox is let their season ticket holders have first right, after a cutoff you can give the Cubs STH's next priority in order of seniority (kinda like upgrades) until the requirement for season seat are filled. The Cubs could offer partial plans only if they had seats still available for STH's. If not, then the rest get sold single game, because there are always an allotment of seats that would never be sold as season tickets, only single game.

All I am saying is, give me a shot at em.

khan
09-21-2009, 09:58 AM
The Cubs aren't going to play in Milwaukee or any other city. If they can't play at the Cell, then they'll either make do with renovations while Wrigley stays open (enough to make it structurally sound, but not enough to rebuild it into a fully modern "shrine") or they will have to build a new stadium.
My view is that the ricketts family overpaid for an asset that has virtually already maxed out its revenue streams. To keep that business viable, they will have to improve their earning potential at the urinal and elsewhere.

The local TV/radio contract was already a sticking point for the sale, and I think the ricketts were correct to re-neg the purchase price because of this issue. [EDIT] I believe that the ricketts were going to try to further re-neg the price, due to the venue's insufficiencies, but the other bidder forced them to pay a premium on the sale.

The venue lacks sufficient seating to meet demand, and lacks sufficient PREMIUM seating [i.e. luxury boxes] to assure profitability in coming decades. There are no parking lots that the scrubs control, which, besides a convenience to their customers, is yet another revenue stream that they do not have; I'm guessing that most of the other MLB clubs DO have this convenience and source of revenue.

Oh, and this is only as an "aside" to the fact that chicken wire cannot maintain the urinal's structural integrity in perpetuity.

To me, this means a full rebuild of the urinal, if the ricketts choose to retain ownership of the venue. If not, and they want to go a "cheaper" route, then a sale of the urinal to the state, coupled with a "construction-while-the-scrubs-still-play-there" option is on the table.

Nellie_Fox
09-21-2009, 10:30 AM
If not, and they want to go a "cheaper" route, then a sale of the urinal to the state, coupled with a "construction-while-the-scrubs-still-play-there" option is on the table.Didn't the state already make it clear that they don't want to buy Wrigley and pay for renovating it?

ewokpelts
09-21-2009, 10:50 AM
Didn't the state already make it clear that they don't want to buy Wrigley and pay for renovating it?tell that to jim thompson

khan
09-21-2009, 11:00 AM
Didn't the state already make it clear that they don't want to buy Wrigley and pay for renovating it?

True. But does that mean "no" forever?

Didn't Mayor Daley and his partners in crime state that they were against a renovation of Soldier Field for years before they eventually agreed to it?

Hitmen77
09-21-2009, 04:57 PM
My view is that the ricketts family overpaid for an asset that has virtually already maxed out its revenue streams. To keep that business viable, they will have to improve their earning potential at the urinal and elsewhere.

The local TV/radio contract was already a sticking point for the sale, and I think the ricketts were correct to re-neg the purchase price because of this issue. [EDIT] I believe that the ricketts were going to try to further re-neg the price, due to the venue's insufficiencies, but the other bidder forced them to pay a premium on the sale.

The venue lacks sufficient seating to meet demand, and lacks sufficient PREMIUM seating [i.e. luxury boxes] to assure profitability in coming decades. There are no parking lots that the scrubs control, which, besides a convenience to their customers, is yet another revenue stream that they do not have; I'm guessing that most of the other MLB clubs DO have this convenience and source of revenue.

Oh, and this is only as an "aside" to the fact that chicken wire cannot maintain the urinal's structural integrity in perpetuity.

To me, this means a full rebuild of the urinal, if the ricketts choose to retain ownership of the venue. If not, and they want to go a "cheaper" route, then a sale of the urinal to the state, coupled with a "construction-while-the-scrubs-still-play-there" option is on the table.

The bold above is all the more reason why IMO the Sox should say no to the Cubs at the Cell. The Cubs are maxing out on their revenue stream? Good! Right now they're one of the richest teams with the 3rd highest payroll in MLB.
http://www.getlisty.com/preview/2009-mlb-team-payrolls/

There's no reason why they should be entitled to maintaining that huge advantage over most other teams. If their revenues are maxed out, then they can stop handing out blank checks to buy a playoff-bound team. It's only because of their own stupidity that they're not able buy themselves a pennant.

They can either just rehab Wrigley and live within their means payroll-wise or they can go to a new stadium where they'll still be popular and rich, but they can kiss the tourists and "Wrigley Field fans" goodbye.

AZChiSoxFan
09-21-2009, 05:12 PM
tell that to jim thompson

OK, just give me his phone number and/or E-mail address.

Red Barchetta
09-21-2009, 08:16 PM
No it won't.

If the Cubs have to rehab Wrigley while they still occupy it, they'll have to compromise and just do enough fixes to keep it structurally sound. They'll still have the crowded concourses and bathroom, obstructed seats, and overall lack of amenities.

If the Cubs build a new park, it'll likely be viewed as better than the Cell, but they'll lose the all-important "history" and "shrine" selling point they currently have.

Of course, the Cubs will get both the history and the totally modern ballpark if they get to play at the Cell for 2 years....and some people here apparently think this is the only option. They'll be popular no matter what, but this last option would just kill the Sox in market share competition.

I thought I read that the Tribune company had purchased land north of Wrigley near the DePaul campus. Wherever it is and whenever it happens, if the Cubs build a new ballpark, you know damn well it will be built to be a better Wrigley Field. Meaning, they will not go too far away from the current design, i.e. outfield bleachers, ivy on the walls, manual scoreboard in CF, etc.

I could see them building basically a modern replica that allows for more fans, better luxery suites ($$$) and wider/modern concourse with better amenities.

In the same article, I read that the block Wrigley is currently on would be converted into condos with a park that would maintain the existing ivy walls.

However, with the landmark status, I'm not sure how much of this is science fiction. I would imagine that if they built a new ballpark, the Cubby Bear, etc. would be invited to move into an adjoining location, etc. so they never lose their fanbase. :tongue:

You think it's bad now, imagine the hype during the "Last season at beautiful and historic Wrigley Field".

areilly
09-21-2009, 08:21 PM
I thought I read that the Tribune company had purchased land north of Wrigley near the DePaul campus. Wherever it is and whenever it happens, if the Cubs build a new ballpark, you know damn well it will be built to be a better Wrigley Field.

It would have been a smart move of them, but this statement doesn't make any geographic sense. Do you mean north near Loyola? Or did you mean south of Wrigley? I can only imagine the hilarity of Wrigleyville and Trixieville joined together in unholy matrimony!

:gulp:

soxinem1
09-21-2009, 08:25 PM
Here's the best way to renovate Wrigley Field:

http://wowktv.com/images/100307112036_wrecking%20ball.jpg

Red Barchetta
09-21-2009, 08:51 PM
It would have been a smart move of them, but this statement doesn't make any geographic sense. Do you mean north near Loyola? Or did you mean south of Wrigley? I can only imagine the hilarity of Wrigleyville and Trixieville joined together in unholy matrimony!

:gulp:

Yep, my memory failed me and my geography was wrong. I think it was Loyola.

roylestillman
09-23-2009, 05:49 PM
If the new owners of the Cubs plan to renovate the perfect person is now available as the Red Sox have fired Janet Marie Smith who was in charge of the Fenway renovation. Ms. Smith also was a lead designer at Camden Yards and Petco Field.

http://bit.ly/b3VS3

sent via UberTwitter

According to Dave Kaplan on Chicago Tribune Live, the Cubs have hired Janet Marie Smith.

Fenway, you're either prophetic or the Cubs are spying on WSI.

Fenway
09-23-2009, 08:40 PM
According to Dave Kaplan on Chicago Tribune Live, the Cubs have hired Janet Marie Smith.

Fenway, you're either prophetic or the Cubs are spying on WSI.

Smart and logical move by Cubs. She will do wonders with the dump

soxinem1
09-23-2009, 08:47 PM
You think it's bad now, imagine the hype during the "Last season at beautiful and historic Wrigley Field".

'Years from now, you can say you were there'.

Sounds famiiar, right?

DumpJerry
09-24-2009, 12:04 AM
Smart and logical move by Cubs. She will do wonders with the dump
After one week she'll run out of the room screaming.

MARTINMVP
09-24-2009, 09:15 PM
I got into an argument with a few Cub fan friends from college last night, who insisted that they would be very upset if the Cubs were to ever move out of Wrigley and into another location. One of them even admitted that many people go to the games to watch uninspiring baseball just to experience the ballpark.

I'm sorry, but I don't need a ballpark to like a team. Yes, of course you want your team to have a nice ballpark and you want to be able to enjoy it, but take someone like me who maybe goes to a handful of ball games each year (both teams). Overall, the ballpark doesn't do much for me since I am watching the games at home.

A true baseball fan should not base their love for a team because of the ballpark, I'm sorry.

chisoxfanatic
09-24-2009, 09:18 PM
A true baseball fan should not base their love for a team because of the ballpark, I'm sorry.
The Cubs do not have very many "true" baseball fans, so why are you surprised with your friends' statement?

Brian26
09-24-2009, 09:22 PM
It would have been a smart move of them, but this statement doesn't make any geographic sense. Do you mean north near Loyola? Or did you mean south of Wrigley? I can only imagine the hilarity of Wrigleyville and Trixieville joined together in unholy matrimony!

:gulp:

Yep, my memory failed me and my geography was wrong. I think it was Loyola.

FWIW, there was a rumor four or five years ago that the Cubs had purchased land over by Lane Tech high school, near Addison & Western. Coincidentally, this is also near the WGN tv studios.

MARTINMVP
09-24-2009, 10:09 PM
Not surprised, surprised like I never heard it before. But, more so of a I still can't believe they are like that.

While part of my conversion to the South Side (still on-going... doesn't happen overnight) has to do with loving U.S. Cellular Field, I don't need it to love a baseball team.

cub killer
09-25-2009, 08:52 PM
Is there still a possibility that the scrubs would use US Cellular Field? I hope not, because that would be suicide for the White Sox.

Imagine if they outdrew us in our own stadium. We'd look like total chumps, which would scare away new fans. Any short-term gain by having the scrubs on the South Side, would be greatly nullified by the long term ill effects, as have been mentioned in this thread by previous posters.

Lip Man 1
09-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Cub:

Go back to the beginning and read this thread, then make your own judgment.

Lip