PDA

View Full Version : The Dreaded M-word...


Lip Man 1
05-01-2013, 11:46 AM
Both the Sun Times and Tribune web sites have big stories on Ricketts and his comments / threats that if the Cubs don't get approval to make the changes to Wrigley, in particular the signage / new scoreboard options he'll have to consider "moving."

At this point it sounds a lot like the talk coming from JR and EE back in the mid 80's but you never know.

Ricketts claims the Cubs can't function nor be competititve without the millions of dollars in income the advertising would bring in.

Of course most fans (both of the Sox and Cub fans themselves) think the Cubs haven't been functioning for over 100 years. LOL.

Lip

dickallen15
05-01-2013, 11:53 AM
I think Ricketts should be able to make the improvements he wishes. I do laugh at the "move" talk. No one is dumb enough to move that team.

kittle42
05-01-2013, 12:52 PM
If the Cubs moved to Rosemont, their attendance might actually be tied to on-the-field success. Imagine that!

doublem23
05-01-2013, 01:07 PM
As a Sox fan who lives adjacent to the Wrigleyville area, I fully encourage the Cubs to move to the burbs as it not only would be a historically short-sighted decision, but would also get them out of my back yard. Win-win!!!

WhiteSox5187
05-01-2013, 01:45 PM
The difference between this situation and the situation the White Sox were in back in the late 1980s was that Tampa was at least a viable alternative for the White Sox, it's not like the White Sox were getting 30k a night back in 1988 when they were pushing for a new ballpark. The Cubs, on the other hand, are drawing well and if they moved they would draw flies. I think just about everyone with a brain knows this and can pretty easily call the Cubs bluff.

vinny
05-01-2013, 01:46 PM
Related: more conceptual drawings of the changes, including the left field sign:

http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/chi-wrigley-field-renovations-cubs-photos/

TheOldRoman
05-01-2013, 01:48 PM
Wait, I thought they announced a deal with the city a few weeks ago? Did that fall through?

Rocky Soprano
05-01-2013, 01:49 PM
Please, he's not that stupid to move the team. I wish the city would just call them on their bluff and tell them to go ahead.

Lip Man 1
05-01-2013, 02:15 PM
Roman:

As I understand it, it was a tentative agreement provided certain provisions would be approved by the city council, the historical site board ect. Then they still have the rooftop owners threatened lawsuit. Some of the city council members have objections to the plan based on some feedback they are getting from the voters in their wards.

Sounds like a real mess doesn't it?

Lip

russ99
05-01-2013, 02:16 PM
This is just posturing to squeeze all he can out of the rooftop people.

Go ahead, move. They'd be back to Lee Elia era crowds if it weren't for Wrigley.

Irishsox1
05-01-2013, 02:23 PM
I think all of the changes are great, especially the video board in left field. The Red Sox have shown that you can have an updated old stadium.

Golden Sox
05-01-2013, 02:31 PM
I think if the bad guys on the Northside moved to Rosemont, the franchise would still be a goldmine. I would assume they would build a nice modern stadium with alot of parking. My only concern about Rosemont would be the stadium site is not close to the River Road Blue line station. They would have to do something about public transportation there in Rosemont. Other than that, I would move the team to Rosemont as long as Rosemont is still giving the land for free for the stadium. Spending upwards of $300 million on rehabbing a dump like Wrigley Field is just crazy. I read an article about the Boston Red Sox a few months ago where one of the team executives said if they had to do it all over again, they would of built a new stadium instead of rehabbing Fenway Park like they did.

dickallen15
05-01-2013, 02:34 PM
I think if the bad guys on the Northside moved to Rosemont, the franchise would still be a goldmine. I would assume they would build a nice modern stadium with alot of parking. My only concern about Rosemont would be the stadium site is not close to the River Road Blue line station. They would have to do something about public transportation there in Rosemont. Other than that, I would move the team to Rosemont as long as Rosemont is still giving the land for free for the stadium. Spending upwards of $300 million on rehabbing a dump like Wrigley Field is just crazy. I read an article about the Boston Red Sox a few months ago where one of the team executives said if they had to do it all over again, they would of built a new stadium instead of rehabbing Fenway Park like they did.

The Cubs would love to build a new stadium. They just don't want it to be anywhere but where it is. They will never move, even if they go back and tell them they can't have anything.

I also get a kick out of them now saying the reason they haven't won in over 100 years is because they haven't had the revenues needed to win.

Some are actually buying all of it.

34rancher
05-01-2013, 02:41 PM
I think if the bad guys on the Northside moved to Rosemont, the franchise would still be a goldmine. I would assume they would build a nice modern stadium with alot of parking. My only concern about Rosemont would be the stadium site is not close to the River Road Blue line station. They would have to do something about public transportation there in Rosemont. Other than that, I would move the team to Rosemont as long as Rosemont is still giving the land for free for the stadium. Spending upwards of $300 million on rehabbing a dump like Wrigley Field is just crazy. I read an article about the Boston Red Sox a few months ago where one of the team executives said if they had to do it all over again, they would of built a new stadium instead of rehabbing Fenway Park like they did.

No one can be that dumb to put a stadium by one of the busiest airports in the world. Have you ever sat outside in Rosemont for 15 minutes? The noise alone would send people out of that stadium. What would be unbelievably awesomely funny would be if the cubs moved to Rosemont and then Chicago went and found a way to "claim" the land around they were on as Chicago like they did with O'Hare.

Edit: I just looked at that scoreboard in left, can you imagine how many bugs will be in the left field bleachers?

Steelrod
05-01-2013, 02:41 PM
Please, he's not that stupid to move the team. I wish the city would just call them on their bluff and tell them to go ahead.
Mesa was afraid to and are choking on a 99 million stadium. The A's are moving into the one that the Cubs found unsuitable. ASU was supposed to share the new one but was bullied out by the Cubs. Locals are real pleased with that one.
I assume they are putting in lots of parking to accomodate fans. lol

Lip Man 1
05-01-2013, 03:24 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-wrigley-upgrades-20130501,0,4919937.story

Lip

DumpJerry
05-01-2013, 04:22 PM
I can see his point. As a businessperson, he and his siblings have to think about the resale value of the team. Since the Cubs are one of the few (if not the only, I don't know the situation at all other 29 parks) teams with significant parking revenue, they need to make it up somehow. The reason for this is because all the MLB teams will, in the next few years, get into lucrative televsion/media contracts. For the Cubs to remain financially competitive without the benefit of 10,000+ cars parking in their lots 81 days a year, they need the revenues from in-game advertising. While you can say the Ricketts have all the money in the world, when it comes time to sell the team, potential buyers will want a team that have enough revenue streams so they can compete financially with the other clubs.

Lip Man 1
05-01-2013, 04:31 PM
Cubs warn rooftop owners "don't sue..."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-chicago-cubs-ricketts-threat-20130501,0,2133920.story

Lip

kittle42
05-01-2013, 04:47 PM
Cubs warn rooftop owners "don't sue..."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-chicago-cubs-ricketts-threat-20130501,0,2133920.story

Lip

It seems to me they have every right to block their view, at least after the deal ends. Haven't looked enough to see if they have grounds for doing it now.

doublem23
05-01-2013, 04:47 PM
I can see his point. As a businessperson, he and his siblings have to think about the resale value of the team. Since the Cubs are one of the few (if not the only, I don't know the situation at all other 29 parks) teams with significant parking revenue, they need to make it up somehow. The reason for this is because all the MLB teams will, in the next few years, get into lucrative televsion/media contracts. For the Cubs to remain financially competitive without the benefit of 10,000+ cars parking in their lots 81 days a year, they need the revenues from in-game advertising. While you can say the Ricketts have all the money in the world, when it comes time to sell the team, potential buyers will want a team that have enough revenue streams so they can compete financially with the other clubs.

None of this is over parking

DumpJerry
05-01-2013, 05:20 PM
None of this is over parking
It's about revenues for the team. Parking is huge.

ZombieRob
05-01-2013, 05:55 PM
It seems to me they have every right to block their view, at least after the deal ends. Haven't looked enough to see if they have grounds for doing it now.
Without the agreement, wouldn't the Roof owners be in essence stealing the product by making money off the Cubs?

DeadMoney
05-01-2013, 06:32 PM
It seems to me they have every right to block their view, at least after the deal ends. Haven't looked enough to see if they have grounds for doing it now.

I'm still curious why MLB hasn't stepped in at any point. Did the Cubs get MLB's approval when they signed the original deal with the rooftop owners, because it sure seems like the rooftops are stealing MLB's product, not the Cubs? If the Cubs didn't, that would seem like a major trump card that the Cubs could try to play - or have MLB play - IMO. Granted, I know nothing of the laws regarding this, contracts, etc., I just thought it was always funny that the deal was with the Cubs, not MLB.

dickallen15
05-01-2013, 06:48 PM
They should show the game on the back of the video board in case any of the people on the rooftop actually were ther to watch the game.

soltrain21
05-01-2013, 07:58 PM
Don't the rooftop owners just have to give 17 percent to the Cubs? I mean, I haven't seen the contract. But maybe the Cubs are just like, "Yeah. We will take 17 percent of the now way smaller pot. We don't care."

jonred
05-01-2013, 08:04 PM
Do you really think that if the Cubs move to Rosemont into a new say $650M+ stadium that would be designed to be a modern version of Wrigley that people wouldn't come? I know it might be wishful thinking on some people's part, but there are plenty of Cubs fans who would love to visit a fast-developing entertainment hub complete with a casino, hotels, restaurants and entertainment. All Ricketts is asking is that he be allowed to manage his business. And if push comes to shove, you better believe the city will want to keep the Cubs in place with all the tax revenue the #3 tourist attraction in the state brings in (not to mention the projected extra $20M a year).

34rancher
05-01-2013, 08:07 PM
The other issue is how much have the cubs benefitted from the rooftops? Their "charm" and "ambience" have long been highlighted on broadcasts and talked about as a lure.

Brian26
05-01-2013, 08:24 PM
I think if the bad guys on the Northside moved to Rosemont, the franchise would still be a goldmine.

No, it would not. It would be a terrible business decision.

Spending upwards of $300 million on rehabbing a dump like Wrigley Field is just crazy. $300 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the depreciation in net worth they would realize once they moved out of the City.

Brian26
05-01-2013, 08:26 PM
They should show the game on the back of the video board in case any of the people on the rooftop actually were ther to watch the game.

LOL, that's pretty good. You're right though. Nobody is watching the game anyway.

Brian26
05-01-2013, 08:27 PM
Do you really think that if the Cubs move to Rosemont into a new say $650M+ stadium that would be designed to be a modern version of Wrigley that people wouldn't come?

Yes.

balke
05-01-2013, 09:21 PM
Side note: I think those plans look pretty good. I'd be interested to check it out and buy a ticket.

Currently, I'm not interested in the old ballpark. I'd be happier to watch the game at a bar next to the stadium. Clean it up and it'd be a nice place to watch a game.

DumpJerry
05-01-2013, 10:39 PM
I think if the bad guys on the Northside moved to Rosemont, the franchise would still be a goldmine.
It would be a goldmine for Rosemont once the Cubs learn how to market themselves as a, get ready for this, baseball team and not a tourist sideshow.

The only other pro sports team that markets itself as a tourist sideshow is the Red Sox and they don't do it as much as the Cubs (there are over 1,000,000,000 people alive today who were around when they last won a World Series title or two).

Golden Sox
05-01-2013, 11:15 PM
I'm told the Cubs/Ricketts are going to buy the buildings that have the rooftop seating out in left field. That would simply eliminate alot of problems/lawsuits.

FielderJones
05-02-2013, 12:46 AM
Do you really think that if the Cubs move to Rosemont into a new say $650M+ stadium that would be designed to be a modern version of Wrigley that people wouldn't come? I know it might be wishful thinking on some people's part, but there are plenty of Cubs fans who would love to visit a fast-developing entertainment hub complete with a casino, hotels, restaurants and entertainment.

Cubs fans yes, tourists no. A fairly significant part of the Cubs attendance is tourists. No one's going to add a trip to see the Rosemont Cubs in their brand new stadium as one of the "must" attractions of going to Chicago.

doublem23
05-02-2013, 08:49 AM
It's about revenues for the team. Parking is huge.

It's about ad revenue, the Cubs already backed down on their desire to build a parking structure a few blocks north of the park in the framework agreement.

Railsplitter
05-02-2013, 08:52 AM
No one can be that dumb to put a stadium by one of the busiest airports in the world. Have you ever sat outside in Rosemont for 15 minutes? The noise alone would send people out of that stadium. What would be unbelievably awesomely funny would be if the cubs moved to Rosemont and then Chicago went and found a way to "claim" the land around they were on as Chicago like they did with O'Hare.

Edit: I just looked at that scoreboard in left, can you imagine how many bugs will be in the left field bleachers?

Shea Stadium and Citi Field. The Mets have been playing next to La Guardia Airport for nearly half a century.

doublem23
05-02-2013, 08:58 AM
FYI, Forbes' magazine has the Cubs' total franchise appreciating at 14% over the past year and at nearly $30 million of operating income in 2012, they were baseball's most profitable team last year. And this is surely the team's cooked books.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45mkmf/4-chicago-cubs/

Just in case anyone still wonders why they'd rather sink $500 million into Wrigleyville over all the free crap Rosemont is offering.

doublem23
05-02-2013, 09:02 AM
Shea Stadium and Citi Field. The Mets have been playing next to La Guardia Airport for nearly half a century.

O'Hare handles approximately three times as much traffic as LaGuardia does. It's more comparable to Midway.

Rocky Soprano
05-02-2013, 09:29 AM
FYI, Forbes' magazine has the Cubs' total franchise appreciating at 14% over the past year and at nearly $30 million of operating income in 2012, they were baseball's most profitable team last year. And this is surely the team's cooked books.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45mkmf/4-chicago-cubs/

Just in case anyone still wonders why they'd rather sink $500 million into Wrigleyville over all the free crap Rosemont is offering.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
Ricketts will NEVER move the team. I hope they call his bluff.

mrfourni
05-02-2013, 09:52 AM
I'm told the Cubs/Ricketts are going to buy the buildings that have the rooftop seating out in left field. That would simply eliminate alot of problems/lawsuits.

I think this is the Cubs ultimate goal. The thing about advertisements that obstruct the view of the rooftops is that they can be removed/relocated once the rooftop owners go out of business and are forced to sell their buildings to the Cubs for far less than they're currently worth.

Bucky F. Dent
05-02-2013, 01:09 PM
Gollum said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGbTdfTh7AM

Steelrod
05-02-2013, 02:46 PM
With all the proposed lit signage and building, you will be able to see Wrigleyville from space. Good luck sleeping on game and concert nights. If I owned one of the buildings being partially blocked, I'd erect spotlights and aim them towards home plate!

DSpivack
05-02-2013, 03:11 PM
With all the proposed lit signage and building, you will be able to see Wrigleyville from space. Good luck sleeping on game and concert nights. If I owned one of the buildings being partially blocked, I'd erect spotlights and aim them towards home plate!

Then don't live near Wrigley Field.

Dan H
05-02-2013, 03:20 PM
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
Ricketts will NEVER move the team. I hope they call his bluff.

I agree. Ricketts is not going to move. Take away the Wrigely neighborhood and all you have is a lousy baseball team that is going to stay lousy for the years to come.

Whiny David Haugh thinks that Ricketts should be able to do what he wants with Wrigley. Once Ricketts irons out some legal problems, I agree. As long it is with his money.

Steelrod
05-02-2013, 03:23 PM
Even if he did want to leave, MLB would never approve!

Boondock Saint
05-02-2013, 03:40 PM
I agree. Ricketts is not going to move. Take away the Wrigely neighborhood and all you have is a lousy baseball team that is going to stay lousy for the years to come.

Whiny David Haugh thinks that Ricketts should be able to do what he wants with Wrigley. Once Ricketts irons out some legal problems, I agree. As long it is with his money.

Bingo. But he'd have to be stupid to move the team.

DumpJerry
05-04-2013, 07:36 PM
Wrigleyville residents are afraid the Cubs will turn their quiet neighborhood into Times Square (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-residents-fear-times-square-effect-of-signs-in-wrigley-plan-20130503,0,4009946.story), but I'm thinking more like the Vegas Strip in terms of signage and bright lights.

Red Barchetta
05-05-2013, 11:43 AM
Wrigleyville residents are afraid the Cubs will turn their quiet neighborhood into Times Square (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-residents-fear-times-square-effect-of-signs-in-wrigley-plan-20130503,0,4009946.story), but I'm thinking more like the Vegas Strip in terms of signage and bright lights.


What I never have understood about this argument is that the ballpark was there before the residents (unless their brownstones were handed down through family generations).

The fact that someone could buy a home a few blocks away from a major league ball park and then complain about the noise and traffic of night games is ridiculous. Sort of like buying a condo on the Vegas stip and then complaining about the lights never turning off. :rolleyes:

Steelrod
05-05-2013, 09:18 PM
Why is the word moving dreaded?
I wish nothing more than them to move! Anywhere.

doublem23
05-05-2013, 11:04 PM
What I never have understood about this argument is that the ballpark was there before the residents (unless their brownstones were handed down through family generations).

The fact that someone could buy a home a few blocks away from a major league ball park and then complain about the noise and traffic of night games is ridiculous. Sort of like buying a condo on the Vegas stip and then complaining about the lights never turning off. :rolleyes:

Um, obviously those of us who live close enough to Wrigley to be affected by it on gamedays are aware the park is there and are willing to make sacrifices. I don't think most residents around here have a problem with giving a little to the Cubs. Half of the charm of Wrigley Field is the vibrant, affluent surrounding neighborhood. But when the Cubs keep coming in and asking for more concessions, more night games, and more burden on their neighbors, yes, it does become a problem. They're not the only residents here. They're only a part of this neighborhood. If they want to have 81 night games a season and have 20 Jumbotrons and advertising as far as the eye can see, they're more than welcome to do that, but they won't because the Wrigleyville and surrounding neighborhoods are too important to them.

It's no different than if someone bought a house that backed up to busy 4-lane road. Obviously that person would have to live with the fact that there would be traffic noise, but if the county came in and said they were going to widen it to 8 lanes, I have a feeling some people wouldn't just roll over and take it.

This may come as a shock to some people, but not everyone wants to live in a place where the roads look like this:

http://thevreelandclinic.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/fast-food-nation.jpg

C-Dawg
05-06-2013, 11:00 AM
This may come as a shock to some people, but not everyone wants to live in a place where the roads look like this:

http://thevreelandclinic.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/fast-food-nation.jpg

Taco Bell... McDonald's...

Let me guess - Addison St. out in front of Wrigley Field?

doublem23
05-06-2013, 12:36 PM
Taco Bell... McDonald's...

Let me guess - Addison St. out in front of Wrigley Field?

Yeah, and it's ****ing horrible, so I'm happy to see they're finally working on a solution, but replacing some ****ty advertising with more, brighter ****ty advertising isn't exactly the ideal solution.

Red Barchetta
05-06-2013, 05:09 PM
Um, obviously those of us who live close enough to Wrigley to be affected by it on gamedays are aware the park is there and are willing to make sacrifices. I don't think most residents around here have a problem with giving a little to the Cubs. Half of the charm of Wrigley Field is the vibrant, affluent surrounding neighborhood. But when the Cubs keep coming in and asking for more concessions, more night games, and more burden on their neighbors, yes, it does become a problem. They're not the only residents here. They're only a part of this neighborhood. If they want to have 81 night games a season and have 20 Jumbotrons and advertising as far as the eye can see, they're more than welcome to do that, but they won't because the Wrigleyville and surrounding neighborhoods are too important to them.

It's no different than if someone bought a house that backed up to busy 4-lane road. Obviously that person would have to live with the fact that there would be traffic noise, but if the county came in and said they were going to widen it to 8 lanes, I have a feeling some people wouldn't just roll over and take it.

This may come as a shock to some people, but not everyone wants to live in a place where the roads look like this:

http://thevreelandclinic.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/fast-food-nation.jpg

It can also be looked at from the owner of the ballclub perspecitve as well. I'm sure Wrigley never expected to have to concede anything to residents who built grandstand seating on their rooftops to view his product without paying for tickets. The only difference between that and the 4-lane road analogy is that the 4-lane road doesn't have city aldermen on its side.

Parrothead
05-06-2013, 10:10 PM
Um, obviously those of us who live close enough to Wrigley to be affected by it on gamedays are aware the park is there and are willing to make sacrifices. I don't think most residents around here have a problem with giving a little to the Cubs. Half of the charm of Wrigley Field is the vibrant, affluent surrounding neighborhood. But when the Cubs keep coming in and asking for more concessions, more night games, and more burden on their neighbors, yes, it does become a problem. They're not the only residents here. They're only a part of this neighborhood. If they want to have 81 night games a season and have 20 Jumbotrons and advertising as far as the eye can see, they're more than welcome to do that, but they won't because the Wrigleyville and surrounding neighborhoods are too important to them.

It's no different than if someone bought a house that backed up to busy 4-lane road. Obviously that person would have to live with the fact that there would be traffic noise, but if the county came in and said they were going to widen it to 8 lanes, I have a feeling some people wouldn't just roll over and take it.

This may come as a shock to some people, but not everyone wants to live in a place where the roads look like this:

http://thevreelandclinic.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/fast-food-nation.jpg

you won't have to worry about all the lights and signs, they will be facing inside the park and there will be big scoreboards in the outfield to shield the lights from getting to the rooftops.

You all you people complaining....you knew the park was there before you moved in (unless you moved there over 100 years ago) quit complaining. It is like moving near an airport and complaining about the noise.

doublem23
05-07-2013, 09:19 AM
It can also be looked at from the owner of the ballclub perspecitve as well. I'm sure Wrigley never expected to have to concede anything to residents who built grandstand seating on their rooftops to view his product without paying for tickets. The only difference between that and the 4-lane road analogy is that the 4-lane road doesn't have city aldermen on its side.

That and the Cubs have a contract with the rooftop owners that runs for another 11 years.

you won't have to worry about all the lights and signs, they will be facing inside the park and there will be big scoreboards in the outfield to shield the lights from getting to the rooftops.

You all you people complaining....you knew the park was there before you moved in (unless you moved there over 100 years ago) quit complaining. It is like moving near an airport and complaining about the noise.

**** that. The Ricketts have been here for 3 seasons and they're suddenly allowed to run this neighborhood like they own the place? What a ****ing joke. They knew what they were getting into when they plunked down nearly a billion dollars for the team and the park (or, if they didn't, they're morons who don't deserve pity either way). Nobody here is asking the Cubs to retract what they already do, almost all of us who live here are well aware of the sacrifices we have to make for the Cubs and we accept them, but that doesn't mean giving them a blank check to destroy the fabric of this place that drew us here in the first place. I don't care what the Cubs do with their own building, but when you start talking about throwing up skywalks and electronic advertising outside the park? Then you start infringing on the public space.

Again, I get that some of you guys live in miserable places and have given up hope. That's fine. Those of us who live here don't. Every community in Chicago that is still thriving can thank a strong, tight-knit community advocacy groups that ensure that quality of life for the residents of the neighborhood is still a priority in the city's business. If the Cubs don't like it, they can move to ****ing Rosemont. They can build a replica of their ****hole in a ****hole town. It's karma.

DumpJerry
05-07-2013, 12:04 PM
you won't have to worry about all the lights and signs, they will be facing inside the park and there will be big scoreboards in the outfield to shield the lights from getting to the rooftops.

You all you people complaining....you knew the park was there before you moved in (unless you moved there over 100 years ago) quit complaining. It is like moving near an airport and complaining about the noise.

**** that. The Ricketts have been here for 3 seasons and they're suddenly allowed to run this neighborhood like they own the place? What a ****ing joke. They knew what they were getting into when they plunked down nearly a billion dollars for the team and the park (or, if they didn't, they're morons who don't deserve pity either way). Nobody here is asking the Cubs to retract what they already do, almost all of us who live here are well aware of the sacrifices we have to make for the Cubs and we accept them, but that doesn't mean giving them a blank check to destroy the fabric of this place that drew us here in the first place. I don't care what the Cubs do with their own building, but when you start talking about throwing up skywalks and electronic advertising outside the park? Then you start infringing on the public space.

Again, I get that some of you guys live in miserable places and have given up hope. That's fine. Those of us who live here don't. Every community in Chicago that is still thriving can thank a strong, tight-knit community advocacy groups that ensure that quality of life for the residents of the neighborhood is still a priority in the city's business. If the Cubs don't like it, they can move to ****ing Rosemont. They can build a replica of their ****hole in a ****hole town. It's karma.
Ricketts thinks that he bought a neighborhood and not a baseball team and its park. The sheer arrogance of this is appalling, it has now gone beyond a "baseball thing" because we're talking about transforming an entire community's character.

The Tribune Company could have easily done the same thing. They had the money, they had the political clout. They chose to be responsible neighbors.

I'm looking forward to the day the karma comes back around and bites Ricketts in the ass. It will happen. Not today. Not tomorrow. But some day.....


This whole thing started as "we need to renovate Wrigley Field" to "we need to make people forget that the Cubs play baseball and the Cubs are a Disney-like source of entertainment."

russ99
05-08-2013, 01:33 PM
I can understand the perspective of the team dealing with the rooftop owners. But if you sign a contract, you shouldn't decide later to push it.

And that's what Ricketts is doing - pushing everyone a little more to see what he can get. If he gets more, why not push a little more. 3 concerts, 5 concerts, concerts with a street fair, more nite games, more seats, more video boards, more ads, even more nite games, etc. Give him what he wants and 2-3 years later, he'll be at it again.

The thought that the Cubs need some of these concessions to be economically viable is downright laughable.

The residents have a legitimate concern, and as anyone who's gone to the bars in the area on a Friday or Saturday night can attest to, the last thing they want are a ton of drunken idiots hanging out at "Cubs Square" all hours of the night. Plus this wouldn't just an issue during Cubs dates, that would be a year-round issue.

Ironic, the Cubs used the Trib use to spin lies about Bridgeport being problematic... :tongue:

blandman
05-08-2013, 01:55 PM
Um, obviously those of us who live close enough to Wrigley to be affected by it on gamedays are aware the park is there and are willing to make sacrifices. I don't think most residents around here have a problem with giving a little to the Cubs. Half of the charm of Wrigley Field is the vibrant, affluent surrounding neighborhood. But when the Cubs keep coming in and asking for more concessions, more night games, and more burden on their neighbors, yes, it does become a problem. They're not the only residents here. They're only a part of this neighborhood. If they want to have 81 night games a season and have 20 Jumbotrons and advertising as far as the eye can see, they're more than welcome to do that, but they won't because the Wrigleyville and surrounding neighborhoods are too important to them.

It's no different than if someone bought a house that backed up to busy 4-lane road. Obviously that person would have to live with the fact that there would be traffic noise, but if the county came in and said they were going to widen it to 8 lanes, I have a feeling some people wouldn't just roll over and take it.

This may come as a shock to some people, but not everyone wants to live in a place where the roads look like this:

http://thevreelandclinic.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/fast-food-nation.jpg

Doublem, I get your argument. I just think the neighborhood is failing to realize that the Cubs can't operate with as much sacrifice as they're asking. Yeah, they did it for years, and that's part of the reason they've been the clowns of the league. The reality is, you're either going to see a lot more of what you see in that picture, or you're going to see none of it because it's all going to be somewhere else, along with the Cubs. The Cubs are going to play the bulk of their games as night games, and they're going to have all the amenities of a legit ballpark neighborhood. Wrigleyville needs to decide if it's the neighborhood or not.

SI1020
05-08-2013, 02:07 PM
Doublem, I get your argument. I just think the neighborhood is failing to realize that the Cubs can't operate with as much sacrifice as they're asking. Yeah, they did it for years, and that's part of the reason they've been the clowns of the league. The reality is, you're either going to see a lot more of what you see in that picture, or you're going to see none of it because it's all going to be somewhere else, along with the Cubs. The Cubs are going to play the bulk of their games as night games, and they're going to have all the amenities of a legit ballpark neighborhood. Wrigleyville needs to decide if it's the neighborhood or not. I totally agree with the blandman on this. Especially the bolded.

Moses_Scurry
05-08-2013, 03:00 PM
I just want this saga to drag on as long as humanly possible. It's been quite entertaining!

doublem23
05-08-2013, 03:26 PM
Doublem, I get your argument. I just think the neighborhood is failing to realize that the Cubs can't operate with as much sacrifice as they're asking. Yeah, they did it for years, and that's part of the reason they've been the clowns of the league. The reality is, you're either going to see a lot more of what you see in that picture, or you're going to see none of it because it's all going to be somewhere else, along with the Cubs. The Cubs are going to play the bulk of their games as night games, and they're going to have all the amenities of a legit ballpark neighborhood. Wrigleyville needs to decide if it's the neighborhood or not.

I think this is a load of garbage the Ricketts are trying to sell. The Cubs had one of the best teams in baseball in 2007 and 2008 and a recent Forbes report named them the most profitable team in the Majors last season. There is no doubt in my mind they can field a competitive club under many of the current conditions simply expected of a good neighbor. Many of these proposals are simply rooted in greed, which I get. They're trying to maximize their profits and that's perfectly acceptable, but it's also acceptable for the residents of this neighborhood to voice our concerns about this proposal. The Ricketts know that a strong and vibrant Lakeview is every bit as important to the Cubs success as the renovations in Wrigley Field itself; this neighborhood's character is as much of a draw as the park is. There's a reason they're not biting at the acres of free land Rosemont is willing to give them, because they're ultimately better off here. But that means a shared commitment to preserving this neighborhood.

If anyone thinks Wrigleyville only needs the Cubs and not the other way around, you're not seeing the whole picture.

DumpJerry
05-08-2013, 04:14 PM
Where have all the Cub fans gone? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0507-cubs-20130507,0,3882586.story)

Wrigleyville is crowded, Wrigley isn't.

blandman
05-08-2013, 04:16 PM
I think this is a load of garbage the Ricketts are trying to sell. The Cubs had one of the best teams in baseball in 2007 and 2008 and a recent Forbes report named them the most profitable team in the Majors last season. There is no doubt in my mind they can field a competitive club under many of the current conditions simply expected of a good neighbor. Many of these proposals are simply rooted in greed, which I get. They're trying to maximize their profits and that's perfectly acceptable, but it's also acceptable for the residents of this neighborhood to voice our concerns about this proposal. The Ricketts know that a strong and vibrant Lakeview is every bit as important to the Cubs success as the renovations in Wrigley Field itself; this neighborhood's character is as much of a draw as the park is. There's a reason they're not biting at the acres of free land Rosemont is willing to give them, because they're ultimately better off here. But that means a shared commitment to preserving this neighborhood.

If anyone thinks Wrigleyville only needs the Cubs and not the other way around, you're not seeing the whole picture.

I think the Landscape has changed since they're no longer owned by Chicago's largest media outfit. And it's a change more rapid than you're giving Cub's fans credit for.

Lip Man 1
05-08-2013, 05:09 PM
According to the Tribune web site the latest proposal has the Cubs playing over 40 night games. I think it's 46 or 48.

Lip