PDA

View Full Version : Ricketts wants city to fund 200m Wrigley renovation.


WizardsofOzzie
11-12-2010, 09:45 AM
Hopefully this won't get political.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/2886098,ricketts-wrigley-state-aid-11110.article

I enjoyed the line about how other parks have amenities that Wrigley doesn't, and they need to catch up. Isn't that part of the "Wrigley Field experience" that you always hear Cub fans yapping about.

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-12-2010, 10:05 AM
Didn't he comment when they bought the team they were going to use their own $ to do the renovations?

Doesn't matter - they'll use the tourist slant to it to get the $ from the city.

Irishsox1
11-12-2010, 10:26 AM
Who would want to buy a MLB franchise where the best thing about the team is a 100+ year old stadium with limited luxury boxes, no parking and yearly maintenance costs over $1 million? Oh, yea this genius.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/rocknrolla2/Ricketts.jpg

g0g0
11-12-2010, 11:42 AM
Who would want to buy a MLB franchise where the best thing about the team is a 100+ year old stadium with limited luxury boxes, no parking and yearly maintenance costs over $1 million? Oh, yea this genius.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/rocknrolla2/Ricketts.jpg

Cubbies take in something like 2 million in income for each game. That doesn't include Arizona or tax benefits. Just think what they will bring in with renovations. I thought he was an Old Style man - what's this Budweiser doing in the picture? :tongue:

Steelrod
11-12-2010, 11:43 AM
He suckered Mesa. Why not take a shot at Chicago. They were leaving Mesa if the city didn't pony up. If they left Wrigley, would the Sox want to move in.

g0g0
11-12-2010, 11:59 AM
He suckered Mesa. Why not take a shot at Chicago. They were leaving Mesa if the city didn't pony up. If they left Wrigley, would the Sox want to move in.

LOLOLOL! Oh the irony of that statement.

Hitmen77
11-12-2010, 12:37 PM
Hopefully this won't get political.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/2886098,ricketts-wrigley-state-aid-11110.article

I enjoyed the line about how other parks have amenities that Wrigley doesn't, and they need to catch up. Isn't that part of the "Wrigley Field experience" that you always hear Cub fans yapping about.

This is what I hate about the Cubs fans (and not all Cub fans do this) who love to shoot their mouths off about how "great" it is that Wrigley doesn't have the modern amenities of other parks - because that's the way going to a baseball game was meant to be. But, they'd gladly take those amenities in a heartbeat and suddenly they'd drop that whole "we're all wonderful purists" crap. They said the same thing about night baseball when Wrigley had no lights....then Wrigley added lights and *poof*, the mantra of "God meant baseball to be played in the sunshine" was gone.

Cubbies take in something like 2 million in income for each game. That doesn't include Arizona or tax benefits. Just think what they will bring in with renovations. I thought he was an Old Style man - what's this Budweiser doing in the picture? :tongue:

.....all the better reason to have the Ricketts family pay for the renovations themselves? :dunno:

Or maybe the Cubs should have to sell naming rights to Wrigley to fund renovations before any tax dollars are spent on it.

He suckered Mesa. Why not take a shot at Chicago. They were leaving Mesa if the city didn't pony up. If they left Wrigley, would the Sox want to move in.

The thing is, the Cubs are NOT leaving Wrigley. That's their golden goose. They're popular in Mesa, but it's not because of Mesa. They could have gone elsewhere and that was a good negotiating point they had on Mesa. Same when Reinsdorf squeezed a new park out of the State in 1988. He had the 2nd banana team (whose popularity was pretty low in '88) that played in a bad neighborhood in a not-so-popular (outside of the core fanbase) old ballpark. You bet there was a real chance of JR taking the Sox out of town.

As far as the Cubs and Wrigley though, like I said that place and location is their golden goose. Sure they have a big fanbase, but they also sell a ton of tickets just because people are tourists to Wrigley Field or love the night life around the park. I wouldn't think Cubs ownership has much to hold over the city since they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they moved to another location.

.....oh, and almost any Sox fan who would like the idea of the Sox moving to Wrigley would be a total hypocrite. Why would JR move the team there anyway?.....so that he can foot the bill for $200m in renovations?

LoveYourSuit
11-12-2010, 12:47 PM
My group would not renew our season tickets if the Sox moved into Wrigley.

I would still be a Sox fan, but going to games no more for me.

Hitmen77
11-12-2010, 12:50 PM
Sun-Times editorial on this:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/2886714,CST-EDT-edit12a.article

cws05champ
11-12-2010, 12:54 PM
My group would not renew our season tickets if the Sox moved into Wrigley.

I would still be a Sox fan, but going to games no more for me.

I've always had this argument with Cub fans though. If the Sox and Cubs switched Stadiums for a year, who would come out on top for attendance? If the cubs don't have the tourist angle and neighborhood angle, what would their real attendance be?

ewokpelts
11-12-2010, 01:01 PM
This deal is bad for the City and state.

The city and county's amusement tax haul would be capped at 16 million(the 2009 figure, which coincidentially is the last year fo the tribsters control).

Now in 2010, The cubs not only raised prices, offered a "pre-sale' where you paid a 15-20% premium above the already increased ticket prices, but THEN you paid the Amusement tax. It dosent take a genius that the ammount the city got in the amusement tax in 2010 was much greater than 2009. So why would they agree to a deal that caps a revenue generator at a lesser ammount?

Yes, the "excess" amusement tax reciepts (any ammount over 16 million) would pay off the bonds, but why should the state pony up money when the rickets have the abilty to raise the money themselves? It's not like they arent raising prices 12% in 2011. Or that they hosted several non-major league baseball events at wrigley field which brought them more money that wasnt subject to the revenue sharing agreement in MLB.(Dave Matthews concert, wrigley field tours, minor leage game, high school all star game all come to mind).
And didnt they get 2 million dollars for the toyota sign? and additional revenue from other sponsorship deals?

moochpuppy
11-12-2010, 01:08 PM
I hope the city and the state have the balls to say "NO"! What are they gonna do? Move to Naples?

PalehosePlanet
11-12-2010, 01:21 PM
Cubbies take in something like 2 million in income for each game. That doesn't include Arizona or tax benefits. Just think what they will bring in with renovations. I thought he was an Old Style man - what's this Budweiser doing in the picture? :tongue:

Yes, but he'll need about 500 million to renovate Wrigley. There are other ways to bring in revenue. More advertising at the park; more concerts; their own parking garage; etc...

Tell me, as a Cubs fan, would you not go to the games if the name of the park was say....Google Field? If there was a modern scoreboard w/more advertising possibilities?

That whole stupid "Keep it Wrigley" campaign earlier last year was one of the most blatant examples of naivete and shortsightedness I've ever seen.

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-12-2010, 01:36 PM
Sun-Times editorial on this:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/2886714,CST-EDT-edit12a.article

Is this possibly caveat emptor? He got sold something that was in essence is worse shape than was let on by the Trib and now he's looking for help?

ewokpelts
11-12-2010, 01:55 PM
Is this possibly caveat emptor? He got sold something that was in essence is worse shape than was let on by the Trib and now he's looking for help?No. He's a stone cold businessman. Looking out for his investment.

g0g0
11-12-2010, 02:12 PM
This is what I hate about the Cubs fans (and not all Cub fans do this) who love to shoot their mouths off about how "great" it is that Wrigley doesn't have the modern amenities of other parks - because that's the way going to a baseball game was meant to be. But, they'd gladly take those amenities in a heartbeat and suddenly they'd drop that whole "we're all wonderful purists" crap. They said the same thing about night baseball when Wrigley had no lights....then Wrigley added lights and *poof*, the mantra of "God meant baseball to be played in the sunshine" was gone.



.....all the better reason to have the Ricketts family pay for the renovations themselves? :dunno:

Or maybe the Cubs should have to sell naming rights to Wrigley to fund renovations before any tax dollars are spent on it.



The thing is, the Cubs are NOT leaving Wrigley. That's their golden goose. They're popular in Mesa, but it's not because of Mesa. They could have gone elsewhere and that was a good negotiating point they had on Mesa. Same when Reinsdorf squeezed a new park out of the State in 1988. He had the 2nd banana team (whose popularity was pretty low in '88) that played in a bad neighborhood in a not-so-popular (outside of the core fanbase) old ballpark. You bet there was a real chance of JR taking the Sox out of town.

As far as the Cubs and Wrigley though, like I said that place and location is their golden goose. Sure they have a big fanbase, but they also sell a ton of tickets just because people are tourists to Wrigley Field or love the night life around the park. I wouldn't think Cubs ownership has much to hold over the city since they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they moved to another location.

.....oh, and almost any Sox fan who would like the idea of the Sox moving to Wrigley would be a total hypocrite. Why would JR move the team there anyway?.....so that he can foot the bill for $200m in renovations?

I was just making a statement about the Ricketts family in response to Irishsox1. I really don't have an opinion on the whole thing. Not my tax dollars at risk here.

Yes, but he'll need about 500 million to renovate Wrigley. There are other ways to bring in revenue. More advertising at the park; more concerts; their own parking garage; etc...

Tell me, as a Cubs fan, would you not go to the games if the name of the park was say....Google Field? If there was a modern scoreboard w/more advertising possibilities?

That whole stupid "Keep it Wrigley" campaign earlier last year was one of the most blatant examples of naivete and shortsightedness I've ever seen.

Palehose, I fell in love with the Cubbies from watching them on TV as a kid. Watching Dunston, Ryno, Grace, Sutcliffe, Durham, Davis and Hawk was a wonderful thing.

Wrigley (while a neat place with history) doesn't factor into my love for the team. I would still watch them if they moved to a new park or renamed it. I'm not saying it wouldn't be weird to hear Google Field (has a nice ring to it hmmm...) but it wouldn't change anything for me. From hearing you guys talk about Cubs fans, they must be an altogether different breed up there in Chicago.

I feel sorry for you guys up there because most of my Cubs friends are just like you guys - passionate about the Cubs team and not hung up on the party atmosphere of Wrigley. That's why I've caught more games at the Cell than Wrigley in the past 15 years. :D:

VMSNS
11-12-2010, 02:13 PM
No. He's a stone cold businessman. Looking out for his investment.

I agree to a certain extent, but if he really wanted to milk Cubs fans for all of their worth then he would have hired Sandbgerg, no question.

WizardsofOzzie
11-12-2010, 02:21 PM
I feel sorry for you guys up there because most of my Cubs friends are just like you guys - passionate about the Cubs team and not hung up on the party atmosphere of Wrigley. That's why I've caught more games at the Cell than Wrigley in the past 15 years. :D:
Cubs fans like this (true fans) are the minority it seems. Not sure what part of Indiana you live in, but I'm in Northwest Indiana and 98% of the people I know who like baseball are Cub fans. Of those people, the large majority would go absolutely ape**** if the Cubs left Wrigley, re-named Wrigley, or changed Wrigley in any way shape or form. Of course there is the older gentleman in my office who's a true fan that said "Burn down that dump", but for every 1 of him there are 10 Cub fans who would bust out the pitch forks and call for Rickett's head if he did anything to harm Beautiful Wrigley Field

ewokpelts
11-12-2010, 02:38 PM
I agree to a certain extent, but if he really wanted to milk Cubs fans for all of their worth then he would have hired Sandbgerg, no question.quade's cheaper.

chisoxfanatic
11-13-2010, 02:27 PM
Stadiums should never have to be publicly funded. If I buy a house, I am responsible for paying for it. If a team wants a new stadium, the owner should foot the bill.

khan
11-13-2010, 03:11 PM
At BEST, this was poorly handled by Ricketts, IMO. If he really needs/wants the city and state to help him out, what he should have done is get a phalanx of lawyers and lobbyists handing out the green to the powers that be. He also should have gotten some PR people to come up with a way to develop a justifiable want or NEED to do this. [i.e. "safety issues" or "structural issues" at the urinal.]

At WORST, this is a desperate cash grab and a boondoggle.


All told, Ricketts comes off as the 21st Century edition of Mike McCaskey, in that both horribly botched their attempts to upgrade their stadia, IMO.


I don't mind the urinal getting improved, but I just think it could've been handled better than it was.

DumpJerry
11-13-2010, 03:33 PM
Stadiums should never have to be publicly funded. If I buy a house, I am responsible for paying for it. If a team wants a new stadium, the owner should foot the bill.
The big difference is that your house is not a commercial venture which brings in revenue to the taxing body that gave you the funding.


I heard Ricketts (Tommy) on The Score the other day, if I was doing the interview, I would have probed more deeply on the following stuff he said:
1. "Wrigley Field is the third most popular tourist destination in Illinois." This might be true (not sure how they measure such things, but let's just assume for now it is true), but how many people who come to Illinois as a tourist (not a Cub fan) would not otherwise come to Illinois if Wrigley was not here? Probably the same number.
2. "Wrigley Field adds $600,000,000 into the local economy."Sorry, but not true. He did not explain how he derived this number. Did he count the revenues of the bars and restaurants for a one mile radius around the park on game days? If people did not go eat and/or drink at these places on gameday, they would have elsewhere-most people do not fast if they can't go to a Cubs game.
3. "There is no kitchen in Wrigley. The concessionaire has to prepare the food offsite and bring it in." ewwwwwwwwww........:puking:My advice is to not order food after the Third Inning if you want something fresh.

DumpJerry
11-13-2010, 03:35 PM
At BEST, this was poorly handled by Ricketts, IMO. If he really needs/wants the city and state to help him out, what he should have done is get a phalanx of lawyers and lobbyists handing out the green to the powers that be. He also should have gotten some PR people to come up with a way to develop a justifiable want or NEED to do this. [i.e. "safety issues" or "structural issues" at the urinal.]

At WORST, this is a desperate cash grab and a boondoggle.


All told, Ricketts comes off as the 21st Century edition of Mike McCaskey, in that both horribly botched their attempts to upgrade their stadia, IMO.


I don't mind the urinal getting improved, but I just think it could've been handled better than it was.
I agree, but to do so would be an admission that they really want to avoid. He might as well say "Well, White Sox fans are right, the place is a dump and dangerous. Oh, bring the kids, by the way."

Frater Perdurabo
11-13-2010, 05:15 PM
I heard Ricketts (Tommy) on The Score the other day, if I was doing the interview, I would have probed more deeply on the following stuff he said:
1. "Wrigley Field is the third most popular tourist destination in Illinois." This might be true (not sure how they measure such things, but let's just assume for now it is true), but how many people who come to Illinois as a tourist (not a Cub fan) would not otherwise come to Illinois if Wrigley was not here? Probably the same number.

I'm calling BS. According to this file (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hr1_c6_jhksJ:www.explorechicago.org/etc/medialib/explore_chicago/tourism/pdfs_press_releases/chicago_office_of.Par.60218.File.dat/Statistics_2008.pdf+illinois+tourism+statistics&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi2mxosoxROqy6shtjCQ7bkcPUNvE4Wnsn-3-5sZmtGOZPsfOlVV0zWBEzkIMpZClAGnn8UPm1ZyEc7RnESf1t2 Leo7QNOTG8ah0siO8uiO-Ihg3e-4A2xSHORMZSdeN2KSkFLc&sig=AHIEtbSU8WK1e92G03W4r9SmjIAuN0F_Fg) from the City of Chicago Department of Tourism, both Navy Pier (8.3 million) and Millennium Park (4 million) drew more visitors than Wrigley (3.3 million) in 2008. Also, Taste of Chicago alone (3.5 million) drew more visitors than Wrigley. So, at best, The Cubs could claim to be the No. 4 "event" within the city limits.

TheVulture
11-13-2010, 05:15 PM
Who would want to buy a MLB franchise where the best thing about the team is a 100+ year old stadium with limited luxury boxes, no parking and yearly maintenance costs over $1 million? Oh, yea this genius.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/rocknrolla2/Ricketts.jpg

Read in the Trib he showed up in Harry Caray glasses thinking the writer meant real glasses like Harry actually wore, and thought, that's kind of cool. Nope, wrong again.

DumpJerry
11-13-2010, 05:19 PM
Well, the Bears and White Sox could block the deal. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2890432,CST-NWS-wrigley13.article)

Fenway
11-13-2010, 09:54 PM
the plot thickens

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news&id=7787634

Brian26
11-13-2010, 10:05 PM
No. He's a stone cold businessman. Looking out for his investment.

Yes, but he's also a naive fanboy that thought it would be cool to own the Cubs. A stone cold businessman would have perhaps considered the deteriorating stadium situation into the $900 million price tag before making the deal. He looks like a fool now more than a sharp businessman.

DumpJerry
11-13-2010, 10:12 PM
the plot thickens

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news&id=7787634
Meh. He's on his way out of office. Not a factor in the discussion.

Fenway
11-13-2010, 10:20 PM
The Red Sox were sold for $700M in 2002 but that included 80 percent of NESN which is now worth more than the team and Fenway

They have spent $285M to rehab Fenway and have gotten back about 10 percent from the city and state in tax credits.

Obviously they doing quite nicely since they just bought Liverpool FC.

I sensed this summer that Flubs fans have finally had it...YEAR ONE was a train wreck.

I was fearful of John Henry and Tom Werner when they took over but they delivered.

DumpJerry
11-13-2010, 10:24 PM
I was fearful of John Henry and Tom Werner when they took over but they delivered.
Before buying the team, could they clean a bathroom?

Fenway
11-13-2010, 10:37 PM
Before buying the team, could they clean a bathroom?

Werner hired Roseann for that

cws05champ
11-14-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm calling BS. According to this file (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hr1_c6_jhksJ:www.explorechicago.org/etc/medialib/explore_chicago/tourism/pdfs_press_releases/chicago_office_of.Par.60218.File.dat/Statistics_2008.pdf+illinois+tourism+statistics&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi2mxosoxROqy6shtjCQ7bkcPUNvE4Wnsn-3-5sZmtGOZPsfOlVV0zWBEzkIMpZClAGnn8UPm1ZyEc7RnESf1t2 Leo7QNOTG8ah0siO8uiO-Ihg3e-4A2xSHORMZSdeN2KSkFLc&sig=AHIEtbSU8WK1e92G03W4r9SmjIAuN0F_Fg) from the City of Chicago Department of Tourism, both Navy Pier (8.3 million) and Millennium Park (4 million) drew more visitors than Wrigley (3.3 million) in 2008. Also, Taste of Chicago alone (3.5 million) drew more visitors than Wrigley. So, at best, The Cubs could claim to be the No. 4 "event" within the city limits.
Also, you can't count all of the Cubs attendance figure as tourism since the majority (maybe 2/3) is from inside the city/suburbs and not tourists. I think I remember Ricketts quote somewhere that they sell over 1 million tickets to people outside the state of Illinois.


I think the most important thing is being overlooked:

But here's the catch: If the Cubs move to the head of the line (of the Bond-Amusement tax), the Bears and Sox could be deprived of the money they may need to complete stadium renovations.

The Sox lease the Cell, and it's only named the Cell now because they had to sell the naming rights to the stadium for renovations(as part if a deal for the Bears Bonds for renovations). Let the Cubs do the same thing first before they come looking for public financing....sell the Wrigley naming rights which would probably go for close to $100M.

When essential city services are being cut and you try and ram this through for a private company that is one of the most profitable franchises already...it smells bad.

russ99
11-14-2010, 09:37 AM
This greedy clown is doing the same thing he's trying in Arizona, get the public pay for improvements so he can make more money.

Just because state money built the Cell, which they rent, doesn't mean we should sit still when a multi-billionaire wants the public to pay to improve something he owns.

As a taxpayer, I want no part in any handout so a rich man can build skyboxes and parking lots, which is what this is all about. IMO, "Renovating Wrigley" is pretty low on his priority list.

The state and city has nothing to gain here. If Wrigley was transferred to the same group that owns the Cell, and Ricketts paid rent like the Sox do, then this could be discussed.

Furthermore, if he wants taxpayer help, then open the books, let's see how much revenue is brought in by the Cubs overall operation, then we can see if there is a real need is for state help.

Fenway
11-14-2010, 09:47 AM
I have always been surprised that the Cubs haven't offered daily tours of Wrigley like the Red Sox do. Fenway has tours from 9 AM to 4 PM 7 days a week all year long at $12 a head - I know a few WSI'ers have done it.

Certainly Fenway is a tourist destination and most visitors to the city want to see it along with Quincy Market, Freedom Trail, CHEERS (The Brits love that place) etc

I scratched my head when Ed Sherman blogged this week that he doesn't see Wrigley as a dump like old Comiskey became at the end - falling concrete and all -

Personally Wrigley scares me as I was there in 2008 when a horrific thunderstorm hit the northside during a night game and the upper deck was shaking.

Janet Marie Smith who did the Fenway renovations was contacted by Ricketts about Wrigley and she told him the upper deck needed to be replaced and then went back to work for the Orioles for renovations at Camden Yards now being done. The Cubs were not interested in what she offered.

DumpJerry
11-14-2010, 10:16 AM
I have always been surprised that the Cubs haven't offered daily tours of Wrigley like the Red Sox do. Fenway has tours from 9 AM to 4 PM 7 days a week all year long at $12 a head - I know a few WSI'ers have done it.
They do tours of The Urinal. At least when Tribco owned them they did tours. I know people who did tours. Had to go through crisis counseling afterwards, but they did it.

Fenway
11-14-2010, 10:41 AM
They do tours of The Urinal. At least when Tribco owned them they did tours. I know people who did tours. Had to go through crisis counseling afterwards, but they did it.

True but there were assigned dates in advance - maybe twice a month. Fenway tours amaze me, you will see busloads of people from Korea and Japan taking the tour in January.

My friend PJ wrote about the night Wrigley almost blew away

http://bythebanksoftherivercharles.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-had-never-been-to-wrigley-fieldwhat.html

Red Barchetta
11-14-2010, 07:12 PM
This is what I hate about the Cubs fans (and not all Cub fans do this) who love to shoot their mouths off about how "great" it is that Wrigley doesn't have the modern amenities of other parks - because that's the way going to a baseball game was meant to be. But, they'd gladly take those amenities in a heartbeat and suddenly they'd drop that whole "we're all wonderful purists" crap. They said the same thing about night baseball when Wrigley had no lights....then Wrigley added lights and *poof*, the mantra of "God meant baseball to be played in the sunshine" was gone.



.....all the better reason to have the Ricketts family pay for the renovations themselves? :dunno:

Or maybe the Cubs should have to sell naming rights to Wrigley to fund renovations before any tax dollars are spent on it.



The thing is, the Cubs are NOT leaving Wrigley. That's their golden goose. They're popular in Mesa, but it's not because of Mesa. They could have gone elsewhere and that was a good negotiating point they had on Mesa. Same when Reinsdorf squeezed a new park out of the State in 1988. He had the 2nd banana team (whose popularity was pretty low in '88) that played in a bad neighborhood in a not-so-popular (outside of the core fanbase) old ballpark. You bet there was a real chance of JR taking the Sox out of town.

As far as the Cubs and Wrigley though, like I said that place and location is their golden goose. Sure they have a big fanbase, but they also sell a ton of tickets just because people are tourists to Wrigley Field or love the night life around the park. I wouldn't think Cubs ownership has much to hold over the city since they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they moved to another location.

.....oh, and almost any Sox fan who would like the idea of the Sox moving to Wrigley would be a total hypocrite. Why would JR move the team there anyway?.....so that he can foot the bill for $200m in renovations?

I agree. The only thing the Cubs organization has is Wrigley Field. Do you think the sheep would flock to a multi-purpose dome to watch so many losing seasons? The Tribune Company's marketing department was brilliant in remarketing an old, out-dated ballpark into a model of all things old-school baseball.

The same Cub fans who were against lights, ballpark advertising, etc. claiming that the "correct" or "right" way to watch baseball should give up their air conditioned cars and homes and return to old-school living. :rolleyes:

Nellie_Fox
11-15-2010, 12:54 AM
...it's only named the Cell now because they had to sell the naming rights to the stadium...It's NOT named "the cell." And I'm quite certain that U.S. Cellular would rather people not call it that, as it completely leaves out their name. (Full disclosure: I hate the name "the cell." It's not even unique. People call the Verizon Center here in Mankato "the cell.")

Noneck
11-15-2010, 01:15 AM
(Full disclosure: I hate the name "the cell." It's not even unique. People call the Verizon Center here in Mankato "the cell.")

Sox Park has worked for me my whole life.

ewokpelts
11-15-2010, 09:37 AM
They do tours of The Urinal. At least when Tribco owned them they did tours. I know people who did tours. Had to go through crisis counseling afterwards, but they did it.wrigley tours are inseason and only fri-sun when the team is on the road.

khan
11-15-2010, 01:06 PM
I agree, but to do so would be an admission that they really want to avoid. He might as well say "Well, White Sox fans are right, the place is a dump and dangerous. Oh, bring the kids, by the way."

I'd thought about that. But that's where getting the army of spin doctors, marketers, PR types, and ad companies comes in to the picture.

Those people were BORN to make bad situations look good, losing propositions look like winners, and "safety issues" look like "preserving our heritage."


In either case, I still think this was ham-handedly managed by Ricketts.

ewokpelts
11-16-2010, 11:03 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-1116-rogers-on-baseball--20101115,0,4417271.column

Phil Rogers cheerleading for his company's former asset.

One big glaring error in his article. The United Center was built with 100% private money.

That said, the Cubs scheme is based off taking money AWAY from the amusement tax. Soldier Field and Comiskey II were financed by adding a tax to hotel rooms in chicago(why they didnt do it in all of cook county escapes me). That was a new tax that impacted out of towners more than what ricketts proposes for the wrigley rennovation.

oh, and he dosent want to give up his "potential 365 days a year" facilty to get state money.

last i checked, the sox gave the state the old comiskey land and parking lots. and soldier field was always on public property(chicago park district owns the land, while isfa owns the building).

khan
11-16-2010, 12:28 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-1116-rogers-on-baseball--20101115,0,4417271.column

Phil Rogers cheerleading for his company's former asset.

One big glaring error in his article. The United Center was built with 100% private money.

That said, the Cubs scheme is based off taking money AWAY from the amusement tax. Soldier Field and Comiskey II were financed by adding a tax to hotel rooms in chicago(why they didnt do it in all of cook county escapes me). That was a new tax that impacted out of towners more than what ricketts proposes for the wrigley rennovation.

oh, and he dosent want to give up his "potential 365 days a year" facilty to get state money.

last i checked, the sox gave the state the old comiskey land and parking lots. and soldier field was always on public property(chicago park district owns the land, while isfa owns the building).
Well stated.

Phil Rogers is an ass-clown and no better than Mike Kiley was in terms of falling all over himself to apologize for the scrubs. He's no journalist, and an example of why the newspaper business is [RIGHTLY, IMO] dying.


To me, the big differences are the bolded parts. The SOX gave up old comiskey and the land, so that the state could build [and OWN] Comiskey II. What's more, is that if memory serves, Uncle Jerry paid for the renovations to Comiskey.


As time passes, I'm becoming MORE opposed to Tom Ricketts-McCaskey's scheme, not LESS opposed...

DSpivack
11-16-2010, 12:59 PM
It's NOT named "the cell." And I'm quite certain that U.S. Cellular would rather people not call it that, as it completely leaves out their name. (Full disclosure: I hate the name "the cell." It's not even unique. People call the Verizon Center here in Mankato "the cell.")

When I lived in DC I remember hearing the Verizon Center there being called the Phonebooth.

ewokpelts
11-16-2010, 01:21 PM
Well stated.

Phil Rogers is an ass-clown and no better than Mike Kiley was in terms of falling all over himself to apologize for the scrubs. He's no journalist, and an example of why the newspaper business is [RIGHTLY, IMO] dying.


To me, the big differences are the bolded parts. The SOX gave up old comiskey and the land, so that the state could build [and OWN] Comiskey II. What's more, is that if memory serves, Uncle Jerry paid for the renovations to Comiskey.


As time passes, I'm becoming MORE opposed to Tom Ricketts-McCaskey's scheme, not LESS opposed...isfa issued $68 million bonds to rennovate the park with teh us cellular money going to pay the bonds off.

khan
11-16-2010, 01:34 PM
isfa issued $68 million bonds to rennovate the park with teh us cellular money going to pay the bonds off.
That's right, the US Cell money... I'd forgotten about that.


In any case, the building of the park and the renovations were better-managed by Uncle Jerry than what Ricketts is attempting to do so far.

C-Dawg
11-16-2010, 01:34 PM
I enjoyed the line about how other parks have amenities that Wrigley doesn't, and they need to catch up. Isn't that part of the "Wrigley Field experience" that you always hear Cub fans yapping about.

Overheard on another message board (not baseball related):

"This clod obviously doesn't understand that baseball purists are his core constituency. I don't see his ownership of the Cubs going well."

Wow, they're turning on him already!

soltrain21
11-16-2010, 03:41 PM
News around work is that Ricketts have pulled this off the table.

Hitmen77
11-16-2010, 03:45 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-1116-rogers-on-baseball--20101115,0,4417271.column

Phil Rogers cheerleading for his company's former asset.

One big glaring error in his article. The United Center was built with 100% private money.

That said, the Cubs scheme is based off taking money AWAY from the amusement tax. Soldier Field and Comiskey II were financed by adding a tax to hotel rooms in chicago(why they didnt do it in all of cook county escapes me). That was a new tax that impacted out of towners more than what ricketts proposes for the wrigley rennovation.

oh, and he dosent want to give up his "potential 365 days a year" facilty to get state money.

last i checked, the sox gave the state the old comiskey land and parking lots. and soldier field was always on public property(chicago park district owns the land, while isfa owns the building).

Phil's employer, on the other hand, is against this plan:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cubs-20101115,0,3273427.story

WizardsofOzzie
11-16-2010, 04:19 PM
Overheard on another message board (not baseball related):

"This clod obviously doesn't understand that baseball purists are his core constituency. I don't see his ownership of the Cubs going well."

Wow, they're turning on him already!

It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-16-2010, 04:35 PM
News around work is that Ricketts have pulled this off the table.

Interesting.

I wonder if the Northwestern home game being held at his park (i.e., $$$$) changed his mind about asking for bond secured money to fix his purchase.

Foulke You
11-17-2010, 12:07 AM
News around work is that Ricketts have pulled this off the table.
Either that or the intense negative reaction his plan got in the media and local circles. It seems that everyone (including Cubs fans) has little patience for billionaires asking for public dollars of any kind in one of the worst state budget crunches in the history of Illinois.

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-17-2010, 08:08 AM
Heard the Comcast business report/commercial this morning on the M & H show (Ed Sherman) - the Ricketts are sending out a questionnaire/survey to Cub season ticket holders(I believe) asking them about their feelings about "membership" to a possible Triangle Building Club, additional seating in the LF/RF corners of the park (not sure where unless they build new) as well as an OUTFIELD VIDEO BOARD that would "not take away from the classic scoreboard".

Let's see how that goes over.

soxfan43
11-17-2010, 08:20 AM
Heard the Comcast business report/commercial this morning on the M & H show (Ed Sherman) - the Ricketts are sending out a questionnaire/survey to Cub season ticket holders(I believe) asking them about their feelings about "membership" to a possible Triangle Building Club, additional seating in the LF/RF corners of the park (not sure where unless they build new) as well as an OUTFIELD VIDEO BOARD that would "not take away from the classic scoreboard".

Let's see how that goes over.

Cubs fans need to get over themselves and wake up in the 21st century. You can keep your old ballpark untainted by modern things like ads, video boards, selling naming rights and things like that but don't come begging to the state for billions of dollars in the middle of this budget crunch. You want to keep your stadium like that? Then figure it out and pay for it yourself. If the Cubs had added some more in stadium signage, put in a small video scoreboard to run ads on and sold the naming rights, then I'm guessing they probably wouldn't need 200million from the state. Maybe the state and the taxpayers would be a little more likely to provide them with some of the money if they at least tried some ways to increase revenue at Wrigley.

Hendu
11-17-2010, 08:32 AM
How much would the Cubs get for naming rights? If the Sox got $68 million you'd think the "shrine" would be able to take in a lot more. The taxpayers shouldn't have to risk a dime until every funding avenue is explored.

Fenway
11-17-2010, 08:32 AM
Cubs fans need to get over themselves and wake up in the 21st century. You can keep your old ballpark untainted by modern things like ads, video boards, selling naming rights and things like that but don't come begging to the state for billions of dollars in the middle of this budget crunch. You want to keep your stadium like that? Then figure it out and pay for it yourself. If the Cubs had added some more in stadium signage, put in a small video scoreboard to run ads on and sold the naming rights, then I'm guessing they probably wouldn't need 200million from the state. Maybe the state and the taxpayers would be a little more likely to provide them with some of the money if they at least tried some ways to increase revenue at Wrigley.

The Red Sox did all of that with Fenway - the renovations just blended in perfectly - nobody misses the net over the Monster -

ewokpelts
11-17-2010, 08:42 AM
The Red Sox did all of that with Fenway - the renovations just blended in perfectly - nobody misses the net over the Monster -The Monster Seats look awesome. And I like how the "Red Sox Nation" fan club lets ALL members watch BP from the monster seats(WITH early entry!)

ewokpelts
11-17-2010, 08:44 AM
How much would the Cubs get for naming rights? If the Sox got $68 million you'd think the "shrine" would be able to take in a lot more. The taxpayers shouldn't have to risk a dime until every funding avenue is explored.
The cubs "COULD" get 150-200 million in naming rights money, but the public uproar over the name change could kill the deal. What company would want to have thier name dragged through the mud for 35 years as irate fans protest your actions?

eriqjaffe
11-17-2010, 10:30 AM
The cubs "COULD" get 150-200 million in naming rights money, but the public uproar over the name change could kill the deal. What company would want to have thier name dragged through the mud for 35 years as irate fans protest your actions?Maybe they could strike a deal with Wrigley Chewing Gum.

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-17-2010, 10:52 AM
Maybe they could strike a deal with Wrigley Chewing Gum.

Remember when Zell commented that the Wrigleys should pay him for the free pub? Maybe Ricketts should start there.

khan
11-17-2010, 11:15 AM
Heard the Comcast business report/commercial this morning on the M & H show (Ed Sherman) - the Ricketts are sending out a questionnaire/survey to Cub season ticket holders(I believe) asking them about their feelings about "membership" to a possible Triangle Building Club, additional seating in the LF/RF corners of the park (not sure where unless they build new) as well as an OUTFIELD VIDEO BOARD that would "not take away from the classic scoreboard".

Let's see how that goes over.
The bolded part [to me] sounds like the NATURAL thing to do. In other words, for the Ricketts family [who are in the securities industry, after all] to start a REIT or do an IPO to pay for improvements in/around the Urinal, and/or to purchase properties in the area.

In other words, to start a separate company, wherein the Ricketts family could own the MAJORITY of/controlling portion of the shares of Wrigley and adjoining properties. Then, shares of this company could be sold to scrubs fans and other mouthbreathing morons to provide the funds to do what they need/want to do.

It could be a pretty significant money maker for the Ricketts, given the huge size of scrubs nation.

How much would the Cubs get for naming rights? If the Sox got $68 million you'd think the "shrine" would be able to take in a lot more. The taxpayers shouldn't have to risk a dime until every funding avenue is explored.
This is the other no-brainer, IMO. As you mentioned, the SOX got $68M, hence the scrubs should be able to get closer to ~$100M or more in naming rights.

Between a REIT/IPO and naming rights, not only could the Ricketts pay for renovations to the urinal, but they probably could start buying up properties in a ~1 mile radius of the urinal to put in parking or offices or other facilities.

dickallen15
11-17-2010, 11:41 AM
Ricketts bought the park but wants the state to loan him some money, increasing the worth of his investment, that he will pay back using money from Cubs fans. Genius. At least the Sox don't technically own USCF. If the park was in such bad shape, and he can't afford fixing it up, why didn't he just buy the team? Zell was up for selling both separately. Or why doesn't he go to the bank and get a loan to fix it up or ask daddy for some cash? Personally, I think he overpaid for the Cubs and believe he's realizing that right now. I think filling up the park if the team doesn't start winning is winding down, but he's got so many horrific contracts, building a winner is going to be tough for a while.

khan
11-17-2010, 11:55 AM
Ricketts bought the park but wants the state to loan him some money, increasing the worth of his investment, that he will pay back using money from Cubs fans. Genius. At least the Sox don't technically own USCF. If the park was in such bad shape, and he can't afford fixing it up, why didn't he just buy the team? Zell was up for selling both separately. Or why doesn't he go to the bank and get a loan to fix it up or ask daddy for some cash? Personally, I think he overpaid for the Cubs and believe he's realizing that right now. I think filling up the park if the team doesn't start winning is winding down, but he's got so many horrific contracts, building a winner is going to be tough for a while.
On the first bolded point, the park is the only real reason to own the cubs. It's a cash cow. An AGING cash cow, but a cash cow nonetheless.

I agree with your second bolded point. But leveraging fans' dollars through an IPO or REIT could actually increase the valuation of the urinal.

I fully understand the concept of using 'other peoples' money' to get even richer. It's good, if you can get it. But, given all the variables in play, I think there are a lot of other/better ways to raise capital to improve the venue.

tebman
11-17-2010, 01:35 PM
If the park was in such bad shape, and he can't afford fixing it up, why didn't he just buy the team? Zell was up for selling both separately. Or why doesn't he go to the bank and get a loan to fix it up or ask daddy for some cash? Personally, I think he overpaid for the Cubs and believe he's realizing that right now. I think filling up the park if the team doesn't start winning is winding down, but he's got so many horrific contracts, building a winner is going to be tough for a while.

On the first bolded point, the park is the only real reason to own the cubs. It's a cash cow. An AGING cash cow, but a cash cow nonetheless.

I agree with your second bolded point. But leveraging fans' dollars through an IPO or REIT could actually increase the valuation of the urinal.

I fully understand the concept of using 'other peoples' money' to get even richer. It's good, if you can get it. But, given all the variables in play, I think there are a lot of other/better ways to raise capital to improve the venue.

When Ricketts and the other bidders were haggling with the Tribune in the last couple of years, the first thing that occurred to me was how much work that ballpark was going to need. Purchase price numbers nearing a billion dollars were bounced around but nowhere did I see a mention of the $200 million or more it would take to rebuild that place.

Landmark, shmandmark. . .if the structure is nearly 100 years old it's going to need major repairs to stay safe. I can't believe the bidders didn't know all this when they agreed to buy the team.

Without the ballpark all Ricketts has is an underperforming baseball team whose long-time broadcast & media partner is in bankruptcy. He has to know this, which is why he's looking for an easy $200 million. That it's a bad idea goes without saying, but what really surprises me is how clumsy and tone-deaf these guys are. The state's broke, the city's broke, the election's over, and they show up asking to dip into the amusement tax. There's got to be a punchline about chutzpah in there somewhere.

ewokpelts
11-17-2010, 01:38 PM
Maybe they could strike a deal with Wrigley Chewing Gum.actually, the wrigley co. has stated they hav eno plans to enter in a naming rights deal for cubs park.

ewokpelts
11-17-2010, 01:40 PM
The bolded part [to me] sounds like the NATURAL thing to do. In other words, for the Ricketts family [who are in the securities industry, after all] to start a REIT or do an IPO to pay for improvements in/around the Urinal, and/or to purchase properties in the area.

In other words, to start a separate company, wherein the Ricketts family could own the MAJORITY of/controlling portion of the shares of Wrigley and adjoining properties. Then, shares of this company could be sold to scrubs fans and other mouthbreathing morons to provide the funds to do what they need/want to do.

It could be a pretty significant money maker for the Ricketts, given the huge size of scrubs nation.


This is the other no-brainer, IMO. As you mentioned, the SOX got $68M, hence the scrubs should be able to get closer to ~$100M or more in naming rights.

Between a REIT/IPO and naming rights, not only could the Ricketts pay for renovations to the urinal, but they probably could start buying up properties in a ~1 mile radius of the urinal to put in parking or offices or other facilities.i think they meant "triangle club" as in "stadium club".

DSpivack
11-17-2010, 01:47 PM
i think they meant "triangle club" as in "stadium club".

The Triangle Building is the proposed development on the wedge of space between Clark, Waveland, and Wrigley.

Now, what that club exactly is, I haven't seen mention of in their plans exactly.

ewokpelts
11-17-2010, 02:09 PM
The Triangle Building is the proposed development on the wedge of space between Clark, Waveland, and Wrigley.

Now, what that club exactly is, I haven't seen mention of in their plans exactly.
I've been in the current cubs stadium club. it's tiny, and not really useful to a 21st century ball club.

i suspect the "triangle club" would be like any other stadium club except that you cant watch the game from the club(like how the sox stadium club is set up). this would make it similar to the Chicago Stadium Club and Ketel Club @ the United Center.

The triangle Builing started life simply as a parking garage, and has morphed into parking(most likely only for players and front office staff), , office space, bar and restaurant space, gift shops, and possibly a cubs museum. all of which can be used year round.

that said, tommy boy ricketts can afford the triangle building AND wrigley rennovations is he wanted.

Things he can do include: naming rights, PSLs(something the tribsters rejected when jim thompson suggested), facility charges(quite a few concert facilities charge this), and more non-mlb events.

fenway's suggestion for more tours is a bright idea.

Hitmen77
11-17-2010, 02:24 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1117-cubs-wrigley-field-chicag20101116,0,6476286.story

I do like the artist conception of the "Cubs Alley" in this article - similar to Yawkey Way in Boston.

Could the Sox possibly do something like this in front of the Cell?

ewokpelts
11-17-2010, 03:13 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1117-cubs-wrigley-field-chicag20101116,0,6476286.story

I do like the artist conception of the "Cubs Alley" in this article - similar to Yawkey Way in Boston.

Could the Sox possibly do something like this in front of the Cell?yawkey way is on a city street in boston. it's a partnership between, the red sox, the city, and the bars that lose foot traffic due to the street being closed.

DSpivack
11-17-2010, 03:26 PM
yawkey way is on a city street in boston. it's a partnership between, the red sox, the city, and the bars that lose foot traffic due to the street being closed.

Eutaw Street at Camden Yards comes to mind as something similar.

Hitmen77
11-17-2010, 03:39 PM
yawkey way is on a city street in boston. it's a partnership between, the red sox, the city, and the bars that lose foot traffic due to the street being closed.

The Cubs Alley proposal would not be on a city street. They're not the same, but the concept does appear to be similar.

MisterB
11-17-2010, 03:56 PM
Could the Sox possibly do something like this in front of the Cell?

35th St. is a major thoroughfare. There's no way you could close it to traffic every game day without making an already difficult traffic situation into a compete nightmare.

Hitmen77
11-17-2010, 04:07 PM
35th St. is a major thoroughfare. There's no way you could close it to traffic every game day without making an already difficult traffic situation into a compete nightmare.

Again, the Cubs proposal is not for a city street.

When I wondered if the Sox could do something similar, I wasn't envisioning any plan to shut down a city street.

Eutaw Street at Camden Yards comes to mind as something similar.

I've never been to Baltimore. What is Eutaw Street like? Is it on an actual street, or is it solely a pedestrian venue next to the ballpark.

doublem23
11-17-2010, 04:15 PM
Again, the Cubs proposal is not for a city street.

When I wondered if the Sox could do something similar, I wasn't envisioning any plan to shut down a city street.

Yeah, there's plenty of room, however, Wrigley, for all it's problems, is really a lot more urban & pedestrian traffic friendly than the Cell.

Before the Sox can even attempt something as ambitious, I'd like to see them develop something in that little storefront they built across the 35th Street. The beer garden is an OK start, but there's a lot of work to be done.

Red Barchetta
11-17-2010, 04:29 PM
The Cubs Alley proposal would not be on a city street. They're not the same, but the concept does appear to be similar.

Since the Cubs own the parcel, they don't need permission to close down or open the ally. I also think it's a cool idea. However they really need to gut the entire concourse, modernize it, restructure the upper deck, install more modern skyboxes in between and improve the player/team facilities. Not a small task for an old ballpark that is land-locked.

asindc
11-17-2010, 04:53 PM
Again, the Cubs proposal is not for a city street.

When I wondered if the Sox could do something similar, I wasn't envisioning any plan to shut down a city street.



I've never been to Baltimore. What is Eutaw Street like? Is it on an actual street, or is it solely a pedestrian venue next to the ballpark.

Yes. The actual street between the park and the warehouse behind RF was annexed for foot traffic, vendors, etc.

DSpivack
11-17-2010, 05:32 PM
Yes. The actual street between the park and the warehouse behind RF was annexed for foot traffic, vendors, etc.

Also, Eutaw St. is closed to ticket holders on game day; this proposal by the Cubs would not be.

Nellie_Fox
11-18-2010, 01:22 AM
A Cubs fan think Wrigley is a dump, and think Ricketts should build a new, comfortable ballpark rather than trying to renovate:

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/2411235-474/police-cubs-union-community-fans.html

Wsoxmike59
11-18-2010, 08:01 AM
Ed Sherman of Crain's Chicago Business had a wonderful column yesterday online regarding the Cubs new owner Tom Rickett's stating "there is no plan B." if the Cubs didn't get State and Local money to fund the needed renovations to keep Wrigley Field alive.

Well old Ed came up with not only Plan B, but Plan C-D-E-F etc....there's many many ways to come up with outside money (other than Rickett's own) to fund this project.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=business-of-sports&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3a2b8a0d29-ce49-4d27-b89d-db70ca1d290d&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com


Pay particularly close attention to Plan D. This line jumped out at me and it's what we Sox fans have always suspected.

The Cubs like to point out that 37% of the people who attend games at Wrigley come from out of town. OK, let's make the sap from Des Moines pay for the renovations.


The Cubs like to tout that it's the 3rd largest tourist attraction in the State.

For years the Cub fans used to beat that old dead horse about attendance vs the Sox. And in today's Crains it's stated that 37% of Wrigley's attendance comes from out of state. And prob another 15% of Cub fans are transplanted out of state folk that settle in Chicago for a career. I've known several who have done just that. (I'm looking at you WXRT DJ's and local sportsmedia type named Giangreco)

You take all that away, and Chicago is prob 50/50 Cubs fans and Sox fans. The tipping point for Cub fans is the tourist crowd and the transplants. And now we have proof on those numbers thanks to the Cubs themselves and Crains for disclosing that fact.

Mike

P.S. Sorry for going off on the attendance tangent.....but that argument with Cub fans always irked me.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 09:55 AM
I think a facility surcharge would get them money in no time.

$5 a ticket for every ticket sold in wrigley, be it cub games, tours, concerts, minor league and high school exhibitions.
3 million cubs tickets sold will equal 15 million per year. In a 10 year period, teh cubs would have 150 million to work with.

Hitmen77
11-18-2010, 11:18 AM
Yeah, there's plenty of room, however, Wrigley, for all it's problems, is really a lot more urban & pedestrian traffic friendly than the Cell.

Before the Sox can even attempt something as ambitious, I'd like to see them develop something in that little storefront they built across the 35th Street. The beer garden is an OK start, but there's a lot of work to be done.

That makes sense. I guess seeing as that storefront is still empty, they're a ways away from having some sort of vibrant "corridor" outside the park. I agree that the beer garden is a good start. Also, the championship brick plaza makes a nice improvement and is a gathering place for fans before the game. I'm thinking aesthetics here more than a request to add a bunch of shops/bars that the neighborhood can't support (yet).

I think a facility surcharge would get them money in no time.

$5 a ticket for every ticket sold in wrigley, be it cub games, tours, concerts, minor league and high school exhibitions.
3 million cubs tickets sold will equal 15 million per year. In a 10 year period, teh cubs would have 150 million to work with.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Instead of the Cubs being able to dip into a State of IL tax, why don't they just set up their own "surcharge" per ticket for funding renovations? We always here how Cubs fans flock to Wrigley no matter what. Well, if that's really true - have them pay up. It's not like a $5 surcharge is going to drop Cubs attendance to 10,000.

Also, I know that part of this is because of existing contract obligations that Ricketts can't control, but why is it that the Cubs are entitled to have the highest payroll in the National Leauge and then still expect the city and state to pay millions to fix Wrigley. Hey, how about cutting that $146 million payroll to a reasonable $100 million (which would still be 3rd highest in the NL)? That's almost $50 million right there. Is the State really going to spend tax money to help assure that the Cubs keep handing out stupid contracts to buy themselves NL Central titles?

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 12:51 PM
Through my sources, the empty "storefront" on 35th between wells and shields will be used for TBD's expansion. The Beer Garden was the first step in using that site.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 12:54 PM
That makes sense. I guess seeing as that storefront is still empty, they're a ways away from having some sort of vibrant "corridor" outside the park. I agree that the beer garden is a good start. Also, the championship brick plaza makes a nice improvement and is a gathering place for fans before the game. I'm thinking aesthetics here more than a request to add a bunch of shops/bars that the neighborhood can't support (yet).



That's exactly what I was thinking. Instead of the Cubs being able to dip into a State of IL tax, why don't they just set up their own "surcharge" per ticket for funding renovations? We always here how Cubs fans flock to Wrigley no matter what. Well, if that's really true - have them pay up. It's not like a $5 surcharge is going to drop Cubs attendance to 10,000.

Also, I know that part of this is because of existing contract obligations that Ricketts can't control, but why is it that the Cubs are entitled to have the highest payroll in the National Leauge and then still expect the city and state to pay millions to fix Wrigley. Hey, how about cutting that $146 million payroll to a reasonable $100 million (which would still be 3rd highest in the NL)? That's almost $50 million right there. Is the State really going to spend tax money to help assure that the Cubs keep handing out stupid contracts to buy themselves NL Central titles?The Cubs can take operating losses by financing the rennovations themselves, thus reducing revenue sharing and luxury tax payments.

The yankees are doing this with some of Yankee Stadium 3's costs.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 01:00 PM
Here's an Idea:

It's a twist off the "brick pavers" you see at parks nowadays, but the cubs could let fans buy "brick shares". Own a brick that will be on the exterior of the rennovated Wrigley Field. I would charge $1000 per brick(you get a brick to display at home with a brick share certificate). And $2500 for a Bleacher Brick(which dont need to be replaced, so you're just selling a "share")

I wouldnt offer custom messages, just let the "owner" know what park of the wall he has his brick on.

if you could sell 100,000 bricks throughout the building, that's $10 million.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 01:01 PM
of course, selling the various seats, poles, signs, concrete netting to colelctors/fans will bring in money as well.