PDA

View Full Version : Here's Another One...


Lip Man 1
10-29-2011, 03:53 PM
Coincidence???

Especially the line saying that the county appears to want more money from the Bears and Cubs than they did from the Sox.

I agree with others who posted on the other story that this appears to be a concerted effort to get the Cubs help in remaking Wrigley Field.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1030-confidential-sox-20111030,0,5818875.column

Lip

DumpJerry
10-29-2011, 04:40 PM
When your owner started his legal career as an attorney for the IRS, you get tax issues settled quickly.

Dan H
10-30-2011, 10:51 AM
Politically speaking, I don't like public money directly benefiting private concerns. And if the case of the White Sox, any benefits that team receives will be wanted by other franchises in the city. I also would like to see other businesses being able to benefit from the presence of a major league stadium.

Having said this, I am already tired of the whining on the behalf of the Cubs. Because the White Sox get a new restaurant, does that mean the state and the city of have been to bend to every demand the Cubs make?

I know that people have to realize what they get when they move close to Wrigley. But residents have lived in that area as long as the stadium has been there, and they have some rights, too. The Ricketts family owns the Cubs not the neighborhood.

David Haugh whined that the Cubs cannot play more than 30 night games. Yet when the lights were installed, they were only playing 18. People who move into the Wrigley know what they are getting; Ricketts knew what he was getting, too.

The Cubs have done a better job of marketing Wrigley than building a winning team. Now that the park is part of the problem. Maybe somebody should have thought of this before chunks of cement starting falling out?

I am sure some compromises can be worked out. But they should be compromises and not the Cubs getting every demand they want because they still have a strong media outlet advocating for them.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2011, 12:41 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1030-haugh-cubs-chicago--20111030,0,5095483.column

Lip

TomBradley72
10-30-2011, 01:02 PM
Two full pages of pro-Cubs propaganda in the Trib today- end of October coverage exclusively focused on high level management and Wrigley Field revenue- I can't imagine in a million years this kind of coverage on the White Sox senior management or their stadium.

Viva Medias B's
10-30-2011, 01:38 PM
It's like the Cubs now got Theo and the Tribune (remember has a 5% stake in the Cubs) is talking out of its ass against the White Sox as a result.

Fenway
10-30-2011, 02:08 PM
I think the article does present some valid points.

The Cubs are severely limited in the advertising panels inside the park. This is a major source of revenue for teams in the 21st century.

Only in Chicago could the owners of the rooftops have this kind of clout over what happens INSIDE the ballpark.

Wrigley's lighting system in considered the worst in MLB simply because the team was not allowed to build towers in the outfield. Ironically Fenway's system is rated the best. (mainly because of the 2 towers in left field and one in right)

Making the street outside part of the concession area is more of a problem at Wrigley than Fenway as Yawkey Way has no residential units and to the Red Sox simply had to work with Twins (the souvenir gurus) to make it happen. Twins made out very well on the deal.

Increasing night games is a thorny issue and I got some insight on it from Alderman Tunney himself.
(A friend who owns a bar in Lakeview had to go through hoops with Tunney to get patio seating on Broadway but in the end it was approved with the help of the Lakeview Chamber of Commerce)
Tunney stopped by the bar when the patio opened and I was able to speak to him about Wrigley as he wanted to know what exactly the Red Sox had done, and how the neighborhoods in Boston dealt with it.

He was pretty candid saying many of the major clubs (Cubby Bear and Metro) do not want Fri or Sat night games as their customers would go elsewhere instead of dealing with baseball.

I explained to him the Red Sox had the same issue with the major nightclubs behind Fenway on Lansdowne and the team finally cut a deal with Pat Lyons and Live Nation to build 2 sportsbars inside Fenway that Lyons 'owns'. The Red Sox now play on Saturday nights because of that 'deal'.

The Cubs need a compromise so they can play Friday nights at home. This would make MLB happier as teams grumble of playing elsewhere on Thursday night and then flying into Chicago for a Friday afternoon game.

Wrigley WAS a cash cow for Tribune but they had little debt compared to the monster nut Ricketts is facing. Sam Zell didn't become the richest man in Illinois by playing nice and Ricketts overpaid.

The elephant in the room is still a Wrigley renovation or rebuild. The park may well need to be shut down for 18-24 months and then where to the Cubs go?

JR's lease does allow him to say no to the Cubs but he can not afford to take that PR hit. Most likely Selig would order him to do it anyhow - and in the end the Sox would make money on the deal.

But unless the landmark restrictions are removed the team may well have to look at building outside the city limits. The Red Sox played that card by buying an option on a country club in Newton which was next to I-95 and a subway station (Riverside) and Mayor Menino caved. Epstein is well aware of this.

roylestillman
10-30-2011, 03:48 PM
As long as we're dealing with government subsidies, dont feel sorry for the Cubs over landmark designation. The Cubs used that designation to obtain Class L status, thereby lowering property taxes paid on the park.

Fenway
10-30-2011, 04:28 PM
As long as we're dealing with government subsidies, dont feel sorry for the Cubs over landmark designation. The Cubs used that designation to obtain Class L status, thereby lowering property taxes paid on the park.

The Tribune did exactly what John Harrington (Yawkey Trust) did in Boston.

Harrington bailed because of the cost of a new park ( he didn't think renovation would work ) - Zell did the same.

Now the unknown is, can Theo be like Larry Lucchino in getting things done. As this article shows, LL moved mountains.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/10/30/in_red_sox_lineup_hes_the_toughest_out/?page=full

DumpJerry
10-30-2011, 05:23 PM
Two full pages of pro-Cubs propaganda in the Trib today- end of October coverage exclusively focused on high level management and Wrigley Field revenue- I can't imagine in a million years this kind of coverage on the White Sox senior management or their stadium.

It's like the Cubs now got Theo and the Tribune (remember has a 5% stake in the Cubs) is talking out of its ass against the White Sox as a result.
So what? Posts like these only play to the Cubbie stereotype that Sox fans are "jealous" and have an "inferiority complex." All the press in the world heaping praise on the Cubs and slamming the Sox will not change the outcome of even one baseball game.

With another brand new stadium coming online this coming season (Miami), that is one more stadium with nicer home team player facilities than Wrigley's which is a factor when big name free agents decide where to play.

cws05champ
10-30-2011, 10:17 PM
So what? Posts like these only play to the Cubbie stereotype that Sox fans are "jealous" and have an "inferiority complex." All the press in the world heaping praise on the Cubs and slamming the Sox will not change the outcome of even one baseball game.

With another brand new stadium coming online this coming season (Miami), that is one more stadium with nicer home team player facilities than Wrigley's which is a factor when big name free agents decide where to play.

So what if play into a stereotype? There is some jealousy that exists mainly because of the unbalanced and unfair coverage that has happened for the last 30 years. We're not supposed to point out an injustice just to stay out of a stereotype?

And I beg to differ that it could have an effect on the field. Positive press for the Cubs and bad press for the Sox could lead to lower attendance from casual fans and less money to spend on players.

DumpJerry
10-30-2011, 10:31 PM
So what if play into a stereotype? There is some jealousy that exists mainly because of the unbalanced and unfair coverage that has happened for the last 30 years. We're not supposed to point out an injustice just to stay out of a stereotype?

And I beg to differ that it could have an effect on the field. Positive press for the Cubs and bad press for the Sox could lead to lower attendance from casual fans and less money to spend on players.
How many World Series titles did all that positive, gushing media the Cubs had in the 80's, 90's and 2000's get them? The White Sox had a 127M payroll this past year despite all that negative press from the past 30 years. No shortage of money there.

kaufsox
10-31-2011, 05:18 PM
Two full pages of pro-Cubs propaganda in the Trib today- end of October coverage exclusively focused on high level management and Wrigley Field revenue- I can't imagine in a million years this kind of coverage on the White Sox senior management or their stadium.

Meh, hiring Theo is the biggest baseball story in months around here and how the Ricketts are going to get with the city and fix the stadium is a pretty big local issue as well. When a two time world series winning GM from a media saturated market comes to town, it's going to be news. Theo is one of about five, maybe ten, GMs that a casual fan could name. Just don't see the conspiracy.

gosox41
10-31-2011, 10:21 PM
Meh, hiring Theo is the biggest baseball story in months around here and how the Ricketts are going to get with the city and fix the stadium is a pretty big local issue as well. When a two time world series winning GM from a media saturated market comes to town, it's going to be news. Theo is one of about five, maybe ten, GMs that a casual fan could name. Just don't see the conspiracy.

The conspiracy is that the Sox have rec'd press as of late in regards to the new restaurant being tax payer funded as well as the sweet lease deal they have that the state all of the sudden wants to review. All this came out during the same time frame that the Cubs made huge news hiring a big name GM who is coming into a similar situation that existed with the Red Sox.

I belive this is 'strike while the iron is hot.' The Cubs know they are getting great PR. Add a little negative in for the Sox and the benefits the state gives them and it just might make fans (and some politicians) excited enough to find a way to fund a renovation for the Cubs.

I would guess most politics is done through game playing on some level like this.


Bob

DumpJerry
10-31-2011, 11:07 PM
The "conspiracy" shows that the White Sox are run by some very shrewd business people. Oh, the horrors!:rolleyes:

DSpivack
11-01-2011, 12:32 AM
Meh, hiring Theo is the biggest baseball story in months around here and how the Ricketts are going to get with the city and fix the stadium is a pretty big local issue as well. When a two time world series winning GM from a media saturated market comes to town, it's going to be news. Theo is one of about five, maybe ten, GMs that a casual fan could name. Just don't see the conspiracy.

The conspiracy is that the Sox have rec'd press as of late in regards to the new restaurant being tax payer funded as well as the sweet lease deal they have that the state all of the sudden wants to review. All this came out during the same time frame that the Cubs made huge news hiring a big name GM who is coming into a similar situation that existed with the Red Sox.

I belive this is 'strike while the iron is hot.' The Cubs know they are getting great PR. Add a little negative in for the Sox and the benefits the state gives them and it just might make fans (and some politicians) excited enough to find a way to fund a renovation for the Cubs.

I would guess most politics is done through game playing on some level like this.


Bob

Yep. Who knows if the Ricketts could afford to renovate Wrigley on their own. I would venture a guess that they could not without hurting the budget of the team for several years. They have been trying to get the city and/or state to help pay for that renovation for a couple of years now, to no avail. Now that there is a strong wave of support for the team, in hiring away a popular and successful general manager from another, they are trying to ride that wave to get done what is the biggest obstacle in both the short and long term for the team. That makes sense to me, and I don't see that as a conspiracy. I think someone behind the scenes--whether or not that is one of the Ricketts or Crane Kenney, I don't know who and I don't know that it matters--is shopping around several stories to try and get that done. Showing that the other team in town has benefited from public coffers in the past seems just part of that PR movement to me.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2011, 12:00 PM
If there is a "movement" via the media to get the city / state to pay for a Wrigley renovation it doesn't appear to be working:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8577572-419/mayor-rahm-emanuel-hasnt-changed-his-mind-on-plan-to-revamp-wrigley.html

Lip

Whitesox029
11-06-2011, 06:19 PM
The Cubs are severely limited in the advertising panels inside the park. This is a major source of revenue for teams in the 21st century.

I understand that the landmark status is the main hindrance against further signage, but even if it weren't for that, Cubs fans would still whine about it. They whined about the Toyota sign and the UnderArmor signs when those went up. What they fail to understand is that signage in ballparks is not some new-fangled trend that started creeping in in the 90s and infiltrated everywhere but their precious Shrine. There have been ads in baseball parks as long as there have been baseball parks. And I'm not just talking about a small sign here and there (here's the right field wall at Ebbets Field: https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJgALxE_pCeKI5kEFvYnRaz1hu0LCQh MTvxJiiCDN6He11onGc)
Cubs fans need to get over it. Then again, there are a lot of things they need to get over.

Frater Perdurabo
11-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Cubs fans need to get over it. Then again, there are a lot of things they need to get over.

Starting with themselves.

DumpJerry
11-06-2011, 08:00 PM
I understand that the landmark status is the main hindrance against further signage, but even if it weren't for that, Cubs fans would still whine about it. They whined about the Toyota sign and the UnderArmor signs when those went up. What they fail to understand is that signage in ballparks is not some new-fangled trend that started creeping in in the 90s and infiltrated everywhere but their precious Shrine. There have been ads in baseball parks as long as there have been baseball parks. And I'm not just talking about a small sign here and there (here's the right field wall at Ebbets Field: https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJgALxE_pCeKI5kEFvYnRaz1hu0LCQh MTvxJiiCDN6He11onGc)
Cubs fans need to get over it. Then again, there are a lot of things they need to get over.
Cub fans live in a past that never existed.