PDA

View Full Version : Cubs officially on the sale block


kba
04-02-2007, 08:25 AM
CHICAGO, April 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Tribune Company (NYSE: TRB (http://studio.financialcontent.com/Engine?Account=prnewswire&PageName=QUOTE&Ticker=TRB))
announced today that it plans to sell the Chicago Cubs and the company's 25
percent interest in Comcast SportsNet Chicago after the conclusion of the
2007 baseball season. The sale is expected to be completed in this year's
fourth quarter. "This transition will not impact our on-field performance," said John
McDonough, Cubs president and chief executive officer. "We expect to
compete and win -- our goal of bringing a World Series championship to Cubs
fans everywhere hasn't changed."http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2007/0004557723&EDATE=

Wonder what the asking price is. Guess this includes the ballpark, too, in addition to the 25% Comcast stake.

Luke
04-02-2007, 08:54 AM
Let's hope that a group of investors from Anchorage is meeting right now to discuss a plan to bring National League baseball to Alaska.

Palehose Pete
04-02-2007, 09:01 AM
Let's hope that a group of investors from Anchorage is meeting right now to discuss a plan to bring National League baseball to Alaska.

nice!

Mr.1Dog
04-02-2007, 09:04 AM
I thought I heard this morning on the news that Zell's offer was accepted at $8.2 billion and the sCrUBS will be up for sale at the end of the season.

Flight #24
04-02-2007, 09:15 AM
Oy - get ready for a never-ending maelstrom of speculation. "Cuban wants in"......"Dan Snyder wants a new place to spend"......

But this is the guy I think would be perfect for the job:

:dollarbill:
"First things first......let's address that TV deal"

Regardless, separating the Trib from the Cub is a good thing. Only question is how long it'll take to overcome the institutionalized biases.

mccoydp
04-02-2007, 09:20 AM
How much is Wrigley Field worth in this sale?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e4/303_chef_folks.gif/180px-303_chef_folks.gif

"I'd say about tree-fiddy."

ChiSoxPatF
04-02-2007, 09:37 AM
The Cubs are projected by ESPN and Bloomberg to go somewhere in the range of $600-750 mil and I believe that is for all the rights therein.

On the plus side, Zell is a minority owner in the White Sox and Reinsdorf is very powerful in the owner's association - I think thats a strong indication that the owners won't sign-off on any crazy, win-at-any-cost nuisance owners like Cuban. Let Cub fans think what they want but I'm willing to bet they are going to get an owner with a mentality very similiar to the Tribune Co.

Scottiehaswheels
04-02-2007, 09:37 AM
Wonder if this crimps the status of Zambozo's contract? hmmm could we see him on the Southside next year after all?

Vince
04-02-2007, 10:03 AM
The guy who is buying the tribune owns a minority stake in the Sox (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-070402cubssale-story,1,7473596.story?coll=chi-news-hed):

Zell, who owns a minority stake in the Jerry Reinsdorf-led syndicate that owns the White Sox, was going to be required by Major League Baseball to choose either that investment or the Cubs with his Tribune Co. deal.

Amusing.

rdwj
04-02-2007, 10:06 AM
Wonder if this crimps the status of Zambozo's contract? hmmm could we see him on the Southside next year after all?

Well, he's gonna want a lot of years and a pile of money. ...and the Sox just LOVE signing pitchers to those types of deals

pagansoxfan
04-02-2007, 10:30 AM
i saw on al-jazir that a group of investors wants to bring mlb to iran. it makes sense as selig wants to globalize the game. " learened about globalization from the master, gary bettman; selig stated.:)

gobears1987
04-02-2007, 11:00 AM
i saw on al-jazir that a group of investors wants to bring mlb to iran. it makes sense as selig wants to globalize the game. " learened about globalization from the master, gary bettman; selig stated.:)
That's not teal.

:tealtutor:

WhiteSox5187
04-02-2007, 11:01 AM
All right guys, let's gather together and make a bid. I think a Zambrano for one of the old blue seats deal would benefit everybody involved, don't you?

maurice
04-02-2007, 11:06 AM
Your new corporate master is a Sox fan, and he's dumping the Cubs.

You may now desist your desperate efforts to hype the Cubs and trash the Sox.

That is all.

TDog
04-02-2007, 11:42 AM
Let's hope that a group of investors from Anchorage is meeting right now to discuss a plan to bring National League baseball to Alaska.

Only about 600,000 people would live within a day's drive from the ballpark, but they would be able to return to the Cubs tradition of daylight-only home games. They wouldn't even need lights for their summer night games.

Flight #24
04-02-2007, 11:48 AM
FWLIW, the "RosenBlog" had the following comment:

Somebody will look at buying the Cubs and think aloud -- threaten, even -- about moving them out of Wrigley Field to some north suburb because the ballpark is worth a ton as redeveloped real estate.

It's an interesting thought. Only one I think another corporate/financial owner would look into, and it ignores both the landmark/political issues and the giant hue & cry that would accompany moving the Cubs.

I doubt it would happen for that latter reason, but it's all a question of $$$$. If the new owner thinks the financial hit would be minimal to the Cubs (or temporary) and there's enough value there in additional Wrigley condos, it could easily happen.

And is Mayor Daley really going to protest all that much?:redneck

MisterB
04-02-2007, 11:57 AM
"This transition will not impact our on-field performance," said John
McDonough, Cubs president and chief executive officer. "We expect to
continue sucking -- our goal of draining money from inebriated Cubs
fans everywhere hasn't changed."



Fixed.

chitownhawkfan
04-02-2007, 12:15 PM
I just hope whoever buys them next will be equally as committed to not winning as the Tribune was. I'd hate for them to get a real owner who is independently wealthy and looking for a new toy to blow money on.

Tekijawa
04-02-2007, 12:45 PM
If I was was currently the owner of the Cubs I would take the team Public! I would retain about 50% of the shares, drive up the price of the lemmings and then dump the rest of my shares on them... This is a cash cow and there are so many idiots out there that would be willing to scoop up shares at just about any price... Just a thought?!?!?!?

Tekijawa
04-02-2007, 12:51 PM
Just to add on to my previous post.

Let's say you have 10 Million shares, You could easily have an IPO of about $200-$300 a share that could be sucessful.

pmck003
04-02-2007, 12:56 PM
Does anyone think there's even a remote chance they could be relocated? Maybe if the Sox win the Series, the Cubs stink, and the new owners could get a much larger stadium in Vegas/Portland; maybe then there is a 1-2% chance.

Tekijawa
04-02-2007, 12:58 PM
Does anyone think there's even a remote chance they could be relocated? Maybe if the Sox win the Series, the Cubs stink, and the new owners could get a much larger stadium in Vegas/Portland; maybe then there is a 1-2% chance.= Financial Suicide!

If the Tribune wasn't stupid enough to do it, I can't imagine whoelse would be?

Steelrod
04-02-2007, 01:49 PM
Does anyone think there's even a remote chance they could be relocated? Maybe if the Sox win the Series, the Cubs stink, and the new owners could get a much larger stadium in Vegas/Portland; maybe then there is a 1-2% chance.
Zero chance!

russ99
04-02-2007, 02:42 PM
I am certanly no Cub fan, in fact I take amusement at their follies. The Steve Bartman incident was probably the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV. :tongue:

That said, it's pretty obvious from my annual visit that Wrigley Field is pretty much falling apart. A new owner who's best interests aren't in running a newspaper certainly would either build a new park or do considerable rehab to Wrigley to insure his investment for the 10-20 years it takes to make a decent profit (in selling a team.)

So don't assume that the Cubs can't ever move, because if the Yankees can move from Yankee Stadium and the Red Sox can move from Fenway in order to get more ticket and skybox revenue, the Cubs could likely move sometime in the next 10 years. There's also more night games (more profit) to consider if they move. It remains to be seen if would be somewhere in Wrigleyville or in the burbs, like Schaumburg.

Railsplitter
04-02-2007, 03:00 PM
what if the new Cubs ownership (gasp) cares about winning?

IlliniSox4Life
04-02-2007, 03:14 PM
Unfortunately nothing drastic will probably happen. Cuban probably won't buy them and they probably won't move.

FireMariotti
04-02-2007, 03:28 PM
Does anyone think there's even a remote chance they could be relocated? Maybe if the Sox win the Series, the Cubs stink, and the new owners could get a much larger stadium in Vegas/Portland; maybe then there is a 1-2% chance.

We can always dream. My only question is if they were relocated, does Ronnie Woo Woo get relocated too? Please say yes.

HotelWhiteSox
04-02-2007, 03:35 PM
Wonder if this crimps the status of Zambozo's contract? hmmm could we see him on the Southside next year after all?

I was listening sports radio and they said the latest excuse is that they have to wait until the end of the season to sort it out because of this. I think it was Levine, he said they have no more money to give him and they'd have to get an okay from Zell to get more

Steelrod
04-02-2007, 03:38 PM
Unfortunately nothing drastic will probably happen. Cuban probably won't buy them and they probably won't move.
The only thing Cuban can do is drive the price up for others. Zero chance MLB would want to deal with someone like him.

Flight #24
04-02-2007, 03:46 PM
Just to add on to my previous post.

Let's say you have 10 Million shares, You could easily have an IPO of about $200-$300 a share that could be sucessful.

If I was was currently the owner of the Cubs I would take the team Public! I would retain about 50% of the shares, drive up the price of the lemmings and then dump the rest of my shares on them... This is a cash cow and there are so many idiots out there that would be willing to scoop up shares at just about any price... Just a thought?!?!?!?
I think the disclosure requirements for public companies are a bit much for a baseball team. Other owners would almost certainly never allow it.

thomas35forever
04-02-2007, 04:03 PM
Let's all chip in so that WSI will become the new owners of the Cubs and we can downplay all the media hype.

TDog
04-02-2007, 04:28 PM
Does anyone think there's even a remote chance they could be relocated? Maybe if the Sox win the Series, the Cubs stink, and the new owners could get a much larger stadium in Vegas/Portland; maybe then there is a 1-2% chance.

The Cubs won't leave Chicago. As perennial losers, they are a cash cow. As losers in Chicago, they would do far better financially than a winner would do in Portland or Las Vegas.

Portland and Las Vegas would be problem small-markets for Major League Baseball. Chicago is one of the National League's strongest markets, and the league isn't going to give that up for a problem market waiting to happen.

comet2k
04-02-2007, 04:45 PM
A new owner would have to look at the cost-benefit arguments for building a new stadium vs. renovating Wrigley. Renovating Wrigley wouldn't be cheap and I think there are a lot of space limitations as to what they could do.

One possibility is building a new stadium in the suburbs, where land is cheaper and there might be fewer issues with neighbors. The current Wrigley property could be developed into commercial and retail space that would continue to generate lots of revenue.

A new stadium in the 'burbs would attract a lot of fans for a few years, but after that the Cubs would have to win to keep 'em coming back -- especially if the Sox continue winning.

Frater Perdurabo
04-02-2007, 04:58 PM
A new owner would have to look at the cost-benefit arguments for building a new stadium vs. renovating Wrigley. Renovating Wrigley wouldn't be cheap and I think there are a lot of space limitations as to what they could do.

One possibility is building a new stadium in the suburbs, where land is cheaper and there might be fewer issues with neighbors. The current Wrigley property could be developed into commercial and retail space that would continue to generate lots of revenue.

A new stadium in the 'burbs would attract a lot of fans for a few years, but after that the Cubs would have to win to keep 'em coming back -- especially if the Sox continue winning.

As a real estate developer, Zell could decide to sell the Cubs but hang onto the property on which the Urinal is crumbling to build some uber-expensive condos. The sale could include a 5-year lease of the Urinal plus a stadium-sized suburban property that Zell might just own in the distant northwest suburbs.

Welcome to opening day 2013, as the Cubs take on the Brewers in their new stadium in beautiful downtown Beloit!.

83 ALROY
04-02-2007, 04:58 PM
Since Mr. Zell owns a minority stake in the Sox, I can see two things happening:

1) No more Sox bashing in the Tribune.

2) A big increase in the amount of Cub hype, reaching an absolute fever pitch until a deal is finalized for their sale. After that, both teams will get fair and equal treatment by the Tribune.

comet2k
04-02-2007, 05:07 PM
As a real estate developer, Zell could decide to sell the Cubs but hang onto the property on which the Urinal is crumbling to build some uber-expensive condos. The sale could include a 5-year lease of the Urinal plus a stadium-sized suburban property that Zell might just own in the distant northwest suburbs.

Welcome to opening day 2013, as the Cubs take on the Brewers in their new stadium in beautiful downtown Beloit!.

That's another good possibility, especially since Sam is a real estate guy.

My guess is that renovating Wrigley would take at least one season, maybe two. That means the new owners would have to pay rent to the Sox and/or Brewers during that time, when fewer fans would probably want to bother.

Another guess is that the cost of renovating Wrigley may not be that much less than a new stadium in the suburbs.

When you add these things up, I see Wrigley Field coming down.

Disclaimer: I've bought one house in my life and sold one, so I'm not quite in the same league as Zell on real estate. :D:

ondafarm
04-02-2007, 05:23 PM
i saw on al-jazir that a group of investors wants to bring mlb to iran. it makes sense as selig wants to globalize the game. " learened about globalization from the master, gary bettman; selig stated.:)

Hey, I have copyrighted the accidental blunder of using turquoise in place of teal for effect. Not to mention that you mispelt al-Jazeera.

Cease and desist, or I else.

ondafarm
04-02-2007, 05:25 PM
. . . Welcome to opening day 2013, as the Cubs take on the Brewers in their new stadium in beautiful downtown Beloit!.

What about Schaumberg?

WSox597
04-02-2007, 05:28 PM
"Let's hope that a group of investors from Anchorage is meeting right now to discuss a plan to bring National League baseball to Alaska"


I think Alaska has enough dog teams already.

ondafarm
04-02-2007, 05:32 PM
The Chicago Cubs of Schaumberg. It has a nice ring to it doesn't it? ((It's the only ring they'll get, they ain't going anywhere near the WS.))

IlliniSox4Life
04-02-2007, 05:41 PM
Sooooo.....

Once the sale is complete, there is a stronger connection between the Sox and Tribune than the Cubs and Tribune....

MEDIA BIAS HERE WE COME!

Man, it's gonna be great reading about the Sox all the time and how good they are. Plus, I can't wait to hear how all of our prospects are can't-miss future HOFers!


You write tomorrows Soxbune Headline?

Risk
04-02-2007, 05:43 PM
What about Schaumberg?

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Living in the NW burbs offers a great opportunity to live a boring, quaint existence that needs not be sullened by the loserdum that is the Chicago National League Ballclub.:cool:

Risk

tick53
04-02-2007, 07:38 PM
Oy - get ready for a never-ending maelstrom of speculation. "Cuban wants in"......"Dan Snyder wants a new place to spend"......

But this is the guy I think would be perfect for the job:

:dollarbill:
"First things first......let's address that TV deal"

Regardless, separating the Trib from the Cub is a good thing. Only question is how long it'll take to overcome the institutionalized biases.

No doubt are we are going to hear about for the next year is, who will the new owner be. Then prepare for another year of how the new ownership is working out.

soxinthecity
04-02-2007, 10:21 PM
I see the new owners striking a deal to rename the park to get a ton of money upfront the fans get PO'ed and a few years later the team get dumped again.

Chicken Dinner
04-02-2007, 11:25 PM
I bet the concrete will still fall.:smile:

Slats
04-03-2007, 05:04 AM
New ownership, new ballpark. They are the northsiders, so let them move north... way north.... Zion.

The Zion Cubs. I like it.

Frater Perdurabo
04-03-2007, 06:29 AM
They are the northsiders, so let them move north... way north....

Green Bay

tebman
04-03-2007, 08:00 AM
"Let's hope that a group of investors from Anchorage is meeting right now to discuss a plan to bring National League baseball to Alaska"


I think Alaska has enough dog teams already.


:rolling:

Flight #24
04-03-2007, 09:05 AM
Anyone know what the current state of the Chubs lease on Wrigley is? With news coming out that the Cubs may be for sale sans the park, that makes it even more likely, IMO that they'll move eventually.

The Trib had the synergies of WGN/Cubune/Wrigley/Cubs. Split them up and all of a sudden the team may have to start shelling out bigger bucks in lease payments to provide market value to the stadium owner, esp given property values and the renovations required.

Increased lease payments v. a likely available sweetheart deal farther N but a PR hit? I could see it happening. The big question is what the current lease terms and length are. Ordinarily, I'd say "watch the Cubs PR staff (Cubune writers) to see if they start downplaying the "shrine" or about how "wrigley could be recreated". But with the pending split, who knows whether the "mouthpiece" phenomenon will continue (my guess - nothing bad will be written, lots of stuff about how the Cubs are a potential sleeping giant of Yankee proportions......until the sale is final).

By the way - Zell apparently picked his Sox ownership over the Cubs, further evidence of just how smart this guy is!

Luke
04-03-2007, 09:12 AM
It's purely a guess, but I would say the Cubs pay the Trib pennies on the dollar for rent.

I think one possible scenario is that the Cubs end up staying where they are, but the grandstands are completely torn down, and rebuilt with less seating, more luxury boxes and higher prices. Although that assumes it possible to do that in the existing foot print.

I don't think anyone would buy the stadium without the team, and I think Zell knows this. It's just a way to generate more money in the sale by splitting the two up.

jabrch
04-03-2007, 09:22 AM
The Cubs will never leave Wrigley while the building is still standing. No owner would buy them without havingn some security of that lease - otherwise they'd have a huge gaping financial exposure.

Flight #24
04-03-2007, 10:20 AM
The Cubs will never leave Wrigley while the building is still standing. No owner would buy them without havingn some security of that lease - otherwise they'd have a huge gaping financial exposure.

I don't know about that. The Cubs are a huge brand with or without Wrigley, and have a lot of value. The papers today estimated ~$600M for the Cubs without the park. Plus, any new owner knows that he can snap his fingers and almost certainly get a great deal for a new park in the N.Suburbs and while you'd take a hit from the PR aspect of leaving Wrigley, that area has a ludicrous amount of wealth, most of whom are already Cub fans and who would now be extremely close to the park.

You'd lose the frat-boy crowd and some of the tourists, but gain more rich families, IMO. And to the extent that the lease price would go up and hit the financials anyway if you stay at Wrigley, the incremental $ hit from a move might not be as bad as you'd think.

I still find it unlikely, but it's not as farfetched - IF they're willing to split the assets and sell the team only.

maurice
04-03-2007, 12:22 PM
Interesting TV coverage on CLTV and WTTW last night. Reportedly, the Cubs' sweetheart deal with the Trib-owned broadcast outlets is fairly long-term. That could affect the sale price and also ensure that the Cubs stay on WGN for years after the sale. However, when the right expire, they will be put on the open market and WGN will have to compete with other stations. There also was discussion that a real estate guy like Zell could refuse to lease Wrigley after the team is sold and just develop the land.

Cubs - Wrigley - WGN - Cubgasmic media coverage + losing = trouble.

The best part was Freddie Mitchell bitching about the "perception" of Cubune media bias when he himself accounts for much of the data. This guy published Cub fluff piece after Cub fluff piece for years, but rarely had anything to say about the Sox. He had something like a 10:1 ratio of Cub old-timer interviews:Sox old-timer interviews.

Steelrod
04-03-2007, 01:09 PM
Interesting TV coverage on CLTV and WTTW last night. Reportedly, the Cubs' sweetheart deal with the Trib-owned broadcast outlets is fairly long-term. That could affect the sale price and also ensure that the Cubs stay on WGN for years after the sale. However, when the right expire, they will be put on the open market and WGN will have to compete with other stations. There also was discussion that a real estate guy like Zell could refuse to lease Wrigley after the team is sold and just develop the land.

Cubs - Wrigley - WGN - Cubgasmic media coverage + losing = trouble.

The best part was Freddie Mitchell bitching about the "perception" of Cubune media bias when he himself accounts for much of the data. This guy published Cub fluff piece after Cub fluff piece for years, but rarely had anything to say about the Sox. He had something like a 10:1 ratio of Cub old-timer interviews:Sox old-timer interviews.
It's been deemed an historic landmark and will remain basically forever. The new owner will also own the responsibility of keep it up.

tebman
04-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Interesting TV coverage on CLTV and WTTW last night. Reportedly, the Cubs' sweetheart deal with the Trib-owned broadcast outlets is fairly long-term. That could affect the sale price and also ensure that the Cubs stay on WGN for years after the sale. However, when the right expire, they will be put on the open market and WGN will have to compete with other stations. There also was discussion that a real estate guy like Zell could refuse to lease Wrigley after the team is sold and just develop the land.

Cubs - Wrigley - WGN - Cubgasmic media coverage + losing = trouble.

The best part was Freddie Mitchell bitching about the "perception" of Cubune media bias when he himself accounts for much of the data. This guy published Cub fluff piece after Cub fluff piece for years, but rarely had anything to say about the Sox. He had something like a 10:1 ratio of Cub old-timer interviews:Sox old-timer interviews.
This whole thing will be interesting, to say the very least. Zell (or his people) say they want to sell the Cubs. That probably makes sense since the company could use the cash, and Zell apparently wants to focus on the publishing business. Whoever the new owner(s) turns out to be, they're going to have to untangle the knot of dealing with an aging ballpark that needs major repairs while not disturbing its landmark status. And at the same time they're going to have to deal with the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will occur when they inevitably announce that they're building a new ballpark.

The radio and TV stations have most of their identity tied up with the Cubs, so losing the broadcast rights would be a deep wound. The newspaper will do just fine because the couple of square miles of Winnetka that the Tribune markets toward will still be served, Cubs or no Cubs. :tongue:

I have a good friend I've known since childhood who's a Cubs fan. He and I have enjoyed talking baseball for decades. He hasn't attended a game at Wrigley Field for over ten years because he's not happy about the Tribune's marketing of it as a tourist attraction and yuppie playland instead of as a major-league baseball enterprise. If this tangled web of radio/TV/Tribune/Cubs/overrated-ballpark gets pulled apart in the next year, he'll be among the happy baseball fans waiting to get back in.

Frontman
04-03-2007, 02:59 PM
"Let's hope that a group of investors from Anchorage is meeting right now to discuss a plan to bring National League baseball to Alaska"


I think Alaska has enough dog teams already.



That was pure classic Sox fandom at its finest WSox597.
:kneeslap:

Frontman
04-03-2007, 03:00 PM
It's been deemed an historic landmark and will remain basically forever. The new owner will also own the responsibility of keep it up.

Unless of course it looses landmark status due to the park changes, like Soldier Field did after the remodel. It could happen.

Fenway
04-03-2007, 03:02 PM
The irony of all this is the Cubs are probably the one division of the Tribune that is still increasing profits.

I suspect Cuban will overpay to get them.

Flight #24
04-03-2007, 03:19 PM
The irony of all this is the Cubs are probably the one division of the Tribune that is still increasing profits.

I suspect Cuban will overpay to get them.

I highly doubt that he'll be the next owner.

1) He's not a Cub fan (he's even admitted to muttering "root root root for the Pirates" while singing the 7th inning stretch. So to him it would be the thrill of a general baseball team and/or the financial aspect.

2) I see no way in hell baseball owners let him in if there's any other viable alternative (and there will be).

WSox597
04-03-2007, 03:57 PM
The news media today is full of stories about how Wrigley Field is not included in the sale. Why would anybody buy the sCrubs without their pitiful excuse for a ballpark?

The Trib company has no reason to hold back the sale of the park, unless they have images of condos dancing in their brains.

I do like the idea of moving the team to a northern suburb, though. You want to be northsiders, BE northsiders.

Schaumburg is pretty congested already, imagine it on game day if the team moved there.

On a lighter note, a Cub fan at work started to give me grief about the number of people in the park on opening day. I wanted tickets, and mentioned it to another person that all that was left was the high ones. This mutt actually said, "oh there's plenty of seats available." Snide little frat boy nitwit.

So, I said, "hey you want to talk numbers, how's about 1908?" Dead silence was the result. So, yes, please move, and take your loser fanbase with you.

maurice
04-03-2007, 04:07 PM
I recently posted some fake headlines, joking that the usual suspects at the Cubune would cast off their shackles and immediately change their tune, now that the Trib is owned by a Sox fan who intends to sell the Cubs. As a result, I found the following quotes in today's paper that much more amusing.

Rogers: "After all, with no pennants in its 26 years, Tribune Co. represents the least successful, longest-tenured ownership group in the major leagues. While Tribune Co. management couldn't turn the trick, eccentrics and neophytes like Marge Schott, Wayne Huizenga and Jeffrey Loria presided over World Series championships. Carl Pohlad somehow celebrated twice."

Morrisey: "That's not an apology for Tribune Co.'s ham-handed handling of the club, just an acknowledgement that some things are irreparable. I have about a century of evidence that says I'm right....[T]he team hasn't won a World Series since 1908. Nobody wants to hear that....By the only measure that matters, winning, Tribune Co.'s ownership of the Cubs has been weak."

Downey: "Sam Zell, a native Midwesterner, has let it be known that when he runs Tribune Co., he won't be distracted by the Cubs' insatiable desire to hurl tens of millions of dollars at pitchers with sore arms....He could move this property through Century 21, except for the fact Wrigley Field looks more like something out of Century 19....I have no clue who the Cubs' new principal owner will be—or, for that matter, how this person is going to feel about being stuck with a $300 million tab the current management ran up during a long winter's binge."

Wow.

BeeBeeRichard
04-03-2007, 04:08 PM
Since landmark status may prevent the demolition
of Wrigley whether it's sold with or without the Cubs, here's an idea:

1. Move the Cubs to a larger, more modern N/NW suburban ballpark.

2. Move a minor league team into Wrigley.

Their current fan base will never know the difference. (Or is there a difference?)

Frontman
04-03-2007, 04:11 PM
The news media today is full of stories about how Wrigley Field is not included in the sale. Why would anybody buy the sCrubs without their pitiful excuse for a ballpark?

The Trib company has no reason to hold back the sale of the park, unless they have images of condos dancing in their brains.


Unless of course the Trib wants the best of both worlds.

No longer have to pay the finances of the team, yet can charge the team rent to use Wrigley, then double down on televising the games.

comet2k
04-03-2007, 04:30 PM
[quote=WSox597;1525008]The news media today is full of stories about how Wrigley Field is not included in the sale. Why would anybody buy the sCrubs without their pitiful excuse for a ballpark?


Because they don't want a pitiful excuse for a ballpark with the landmark and space restrictions of Wrigley Field?

Flight #24
04-03-2007, 04:44 PM
The news media today is full of stories about how Wrigley Field is not included in the sale. Why would anybody buy the sCrubs without their pitiful excuse for a ballpark?

If you buy the park, you get all the associated renovation headaches and space/landmark limitations. You could avoid all of that and move to a likely free, sweetheart deal of a stadium in the N. Burbs. The only calculus involved is:
(Incremental revenue from new stadium including cheaper lease terms than are likely in Wrigley once the current one is up) + (Savings from not having to renovate Wrigley) - (Potential decline in attendance from the move, primarily frat boys and tourists) + (Potential increased attendance from N. Burb residents).



The Trib company has no reason to hold back the sale of the park, unless they have images of condos dancing in their brains.
Exactly. Sam Zell knows full well the value of either a)a full-market rate lease for the Cubs or b)the retail value of residential development at that location. If he sells Wrigley, he'll surely recoup the bulk of that value in the sale price, which means the new owner will have to pony up that $$$.

It's probably the one situation in which a new owner could get away with moving: "I wanted to buy Wrigley, but they weren't selling it at anything but an exorbitant price. So instead, I'm going to build a new, state of the art replica of Wrigley to keep the history alive." He does that and maintains the payroll level and he can get away with it. Zell & The Trib look like the bad guys and laugh all the way to the bank.

I don't think it'll happen, but it's by no means a huge longshot.

soxfan80
04-03-2007, 05:35 PM
The news media today is full of stories about how Wrigley Field is not included in the sale. Why would anybody buy the sCrubs without their pitiful excuse for a ballpark?

The Trib company has no reason to hold back the sale of the park, unless they have images of condos dancing in their brains.

I do like the idea of moving the team to a northern suburb, though. You want to be northsiders, BE northsiders.

Schaumburg is pretty congested already, imagine it on game day if the team moved there.

On a lighter note, a Cub fan at work started to give me grief about the number of people in the park on opening day. I wanted tickets, and mentioned it to another person that all that was left was the high ones. This mutt actually said, "oh there's plenty of seats available." Snide little frat boy nitwit.

So, I said, "hey you want to talk numbers, how's about 1908?" Dead silence was the result. So, yes, please move, and take your loser fanbase with you.
Ask Wayne Huizinga about owning the stadium but not the team? He made MORE money than the Marlins did in thier 2003 title run.
Zell's all about real estate. This type of scenario could net him serious money.

maurice
04-03-2007, 06:28 PM
And if Zell is willing to put $ ahead of "history," why not pull a Sun-Times and sell / convert Trib Tower? Why waste prime Michigan Ave. property on Dan McGrath's office when it could be a multi-million $ condo?

ilsox7
04-03-2007, 06:33 PM
And if Zell is willing to put $ ahead of "history," why not pull a Sun-Times and sell / convert Trib Tower? Why waste prime Michigan Ave. property on Dan McGrath's office when it could be a multi-million $ condo?

I've read in several places that one of the main reasons he is doing this deal is the amount of prime real estate across the country that Tribune Co. owns. I think it's almost a guarantee that they move corporate HQ and lease out their current HQ and parking.

ode to veeck
04-03-2007, 07:33 PM
the more I read about the Trib and Zell deal, the stranger it gets. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003566838

The LA billionaires atrying to figure out a way they still have chance. I think the Trib shareholder have to approve the Zell deal at some point.

LongLiveFisk
04-03-2007, 07:53 PM
I heard on the radio today (I think it was WGN) that, when asked whether this move would help the Cubs secure a World Series championship sooner, 58% said "No". I'm not sure if that's being pessimistic on their part or just realistic.

Viva Medias B's
04-03-2007, 09:03 PM
Ask Wayne Huizinga about owning the stadium but not the team? He made MORE money than the Marlins did in thier 2003 title run.
Zell's all about real estate. This type of scenario could net him serious money.

Zell selling the Cubs and essentially becoming the team's landlord is a smart business decision, although I wonder how he would convince a prospective new Cubs owner to agree to such terms. Also, would still owing Wrigley Field along with his White Sox shares pose a conflict of interest?

Grzegorz
04-03-2007, 09:36 PM
Listening to the Score this afternoon you'd think that the Cubs are the Phoenix rising from the desert.

Zell sells the Cubs, a real Chicagoan buys the team, install an erudite baseball president, and dominate this century of baseball. All the while reducing the Chicago White Sox to second class status.

All this was enough to make me vomit...

It is so important to me that the Chicago White Sox keep up their winning ways. They should get all the scouting talent they can hire to build this system not for next year but for years to come.

TDog
04-03-2007, 09:55 PM
... Also, would still owing Wrigley Field along with his White Sox shares pose a conflict of interest?

For what it's worth, I don't see how it would be, unless there are some MLB rules that I am missing. Baseball, unlike media conglomerates, has an antitrust exemption. Even if it didn't, I'm not sure it would be a conflict to lease property to more than one franchise. To have an ownership share in one team that leases property while having an ownership share in property leased by another team shouldn't be a legal problem, anyway.

IndianWhiteSox
04-04-2007, 05:52 AM
Zell selling the Cubs and essentially becoming the team's landlord is a smart business decision, although I wonder how he would convince a prospective new Cubs owner to agree to such terms. Also, would still owning Wrigley Field along with his White Sox shares pose a conflict of interest?

If he only owns the Sox than there's no way it's a conflict of interest. Unless he wan't to lose one billion dollars in the next three years.
:tongue:

Viva Medias B's
04-04-2007, 07:43 AM
In an interview in the Tribune today, Zell refers to Wrigley Field as an "old maid." He told the paper that he would probably sell Wrigley but in a separate transaction from the Cubs sale.

wdelaney72
04-04-2007, 08:37 AM
This is going to get REALLY interesting.
1) Zell is no dummy and whatever he does with the Cubs and Wrigley (which it appears that'll he'll handle them separately) will result in major money for him.
2) Whoever buys the Cubs (without the ballpark) will move the team... once the current "sweetheart" lease expires. There's no way in hell an owner of a baseball team will agree to lease that dump when it will have the oppourtunity of getting a free deal in the burbs. If Zell still owns the ballpark, they'll charge a ridiculous lease. If some third party owns the ballpark, they'll charge a ridiculous lease. Zell me actually end up selling the ballpark with the team, but what he's saying now by separating the two is simply driving up the market value... BRILLIANT.

soxinthecity
04-04-2007, 09:53 AM
There's another story in this as well, Wrigleyville I bet those residents are worried that their property value is a stake.

No Cubs = no neighborhood, while most compained about the noise, the night games and the crowds I can't wait to hear them start crying of how it could affect their neigborhood if they leave.

tebman
04-04-2007, 10:01 AM
There's another story in this as well, Wrigleyville I bet those residents are worried that their property value is a stake.

No Cubs = no neighborhood, while most compained about the noise, the night games and the crowds I can't wait to hear them start crying of how it could affect their neigborhood if they leave.
This is really what drives all of this. The Tribune never cared about quality baseball (obviously). They bought the team originally to guarantee programming for the radio and TV station. When they realized they had a profitable singles bar on their hands they milked it. The increasing value of the surrounding property also excited the Trib bosses as they saw the neighborhood change from seedy to gentrified.

Zell is a real-estate guy and he'll do what's best for his property investment. My guess is that it'll work our real well for the neighbors too, whether it's a remodeled ballpark or Cubbie-Condos on Addison. :tongue:

Luke
04-04-2007, 10:02 AM
There's another story in this as well, Wrigleyville I bet those residents are worried that their property value is a stake.

No Cubs = no neighborhood, while most compained about the noise, the night games and the crowds I can't wait to hear them start crying of how it could affect their neigborhood if they leave.

Here's the interesting thing about that; A lot of buildings in the immediate area are rentals or roof top buildings without permanent residents. I think the people that complained were a very vocal minority of residents that had been there for a long time, and are becoming fewer by the month.

I think that area is so well established as a party-hub that it won't matter, at least property value-wise. What I'll be really curious about it what they do with an empty, landmarked stadium that no one wants to play in, but can't be torn down.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 10:35 AM
I was just thinking

One of the biggest real estate owners in Lakeview just might be interested in buying the Cubs

http://chicagobusiness.com/mag/images/articles/24641.gif

:rolleyes:

thedudeabides
04-04-2007, 10:47 AM
I was just thinking

One of the biggest real estate owners in Lakeview just might be interested in buying the Cubs

http://chicagobusiness.com/mag/images/articles/24641.gif

:rolleyes:

I don't even wish that upon Cub fans. Blacked out home games?

ewokpelts
04-04-2007, 11:04 AM
This is going to get REALLY interesting.
1) Zell is no dummy and whatever he does with the Cubs and Wrigley (which it appears that'll he'll handle them separately) will result in major money for him.
2) Whoever buys the Cubs (without the ballpark) will move the team... once the current "sweetheart" lease expires. There's no way in hell an owner of a baseball team will agree to lease that dump when it will have the oppourtunity of getting a free deal in the burbs. If Zell still owns the ballpark, they'll charge a ridiculous lease. If some third party owns the ballpark, they'll charge a ridiculous lease. Zell me actually end up selling the ballpark with the team, but what he's saying now by separating the two is simply driving up the market value... BRILLIANT.


I'm not so sure the state'll pony up the cash for a new stadium in the burbs.
Wrigley in 1986(the last time they tried to get a stadium) was a historic dump, but now it's a "shrine" to these people(notice i didnt use teal, as I'm writing about the thoughts of thier fans and not us).
And seeing the massive crowds the last few years there, I'm not sure most burbs(aside from rosemont) would want that hassle. And while the governer might sign off on it, the rest of the lawmakers have other fiscal worries more important than a free $400 million plaything for mark cuban(an outsider) or some other rich ****(even if they're from illinois).

They may be foreced to stay. And Zell will be free to charge up the whazoo in rent. Cuz the cub without wrigley are just the tampa bay devil rays .

ewokpelts
04-04-2007, 11:05 AM
I don't even wish that upon Cub fans. Blacked out home games?
unless he voids the current contract(which is probably ironclad), he wont be able to black out home games.

wdelaney72
04-04-2007, 12:33 PM
I'm not sure most burbs(aside from rosemont) would want that hassle.

Good point, I agree that Naperville, Schaumburg, and the North Shore could be that picky and pass it up, but there's a lot more Waukegans, North Chicagos, Addisons, and Elgins that would LOVE that kind of economic boost.

Even I agree moving the Cubs to Waukegan would be stupid, but stranger things have happened.

ode to veeck
04-04-2007, 03:03 PM
Here's the interesting thing about that; A lot of buildings in the immediate area are rentals or roof top buildings without permanent residents. I think the people that complained were a very vocal minority of residents that had been there for a long time, and are becoming fewer by the month.

I think that area is so well established as a party-hub that it won't matter, at least property value-wise. What I'll be really curious about it what they do with an empty, landmarked stadium that no one wants to play in, but can't be torn down.

Where did you get this information? When I lived at 3610 Shefflied across from the park in 1982, it was the last rental (non-condo) building on the block and the conversions of rentals to condos has been continuing at pretty steady rates since that time.

Scrubs staying or moving won't have a lot of impact on property values in general--the whole area from North Ave to Irving or lawrence on the east side has been going up for a long, long time. Gentrification started in many of these areas as early as the late 70s and property values been steadily climing since--some now challenge the most expensive real estate areas of NY city or high end CA communities in terms of pricing. The only property values that might have some adjustments if the cubs left would be those on Waveland and Sheffield directly across from the park.

Luke
04-04-2007, 03:29 PM
Sorry, it was a guess. Quantitatively I have nothing. I didn't go through the Cook County Assessor's records or anything like that. I have been to work functions in several of the rooftop buildings, and they're essentially bars on each level. They might rent out the garden units in some buildings, but I'm not sure.

I have a couple friends in the area, so I've spent a fair amount of time there (more than I would like anyway) and always gotten the impression that the immediate area is mainly rentals. I'm going mostly on the "for rent" signs and the transience of the area. So my assumption is based mostly qualitative observation.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 03:44 PM
Good point, I agree that Naperville, Schaumburg, and the North Shore could be that picky and pass it up, but there's a lot more Waukegans, North Chicagos, Addisons, and Elgins that would LOVE that kind of economic boost.

Even I agree moving the Cubs to Waukegan would be stupid, but stranger things have happened.

Cubs would get a sweetheart deal to build in Chicago they would NEVER leave the city

ewokpelts
04-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Cubs would get a sweetheart deal to build in Chicago they would NEVER leave the citywhere do you build? the cubs would NEVER build a stadium anywhere near the sox, and river north and most of the lakeshore are already developed. And I doubt Richie will let the cubs cut up lincoln park.

Viva Medias B's
04-04-2007, 11:58 PM
On Mulligan & Hanley this morning, they speculated that once Cabrini Green is completely gone, its site would be a neat venue for a new Cubs stadium because of all the gentrification going on there.

Also, I heard Mike Murphy today cite "informed sources" and say McDonald's Corporation might be interested in buying the Cubs.

Scottiehaswheels
04-05-2007, 12:05 AM
Just curious if anyone knows.... I read that the Cubs have a long term deal to be on WGN.... Anyone know how long that deal lasts? Just wondering if perhaps after that deal runs out, JR might talk to his buddy Zell and get the Sox put on WGN in their place?

tebman
04-05-2007, 07:49 AM
On Mulligan & Hanley this morning, they speculated that once Cabrini Green is completely gone, its site would be a neat venue for a new Cubs stadium because of all the gentrification going on there.
The Cabrini site wouldn't work because there aren't major streets there to handle gameday traffic. But there is plenty of available property to the northwest off the Kennedy expressway if they were really serious about it. All this is hypothetical, though. I don't realistically see Wrigley Field going away for a long time -- it'll be like Lenin's body in Moscow's Red Square, embalmed and on display long after it makes sense.

Also, I heard Mike Murphy today cite "informed sources" and say McDonald's Corporation might be interested in buying the Cubs.
:rolling:
I don't know which is funnier: McDonald's buying the Cubs, or that Mike Murphy knows "informed sources."

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 08:26 AM
About this Cabrini Green nonsense......

Where's the expressway?
Where's the train lines?

Both way too far for any serious consideration.

It's either in the Suburbs(with access to at LEAST ONE major highway and a possibly not too far from metra) or in the City. West, South, and Southwest Side are Sox territory as per mlb's territorial rights. So that leaves the northwest side as well as the north side. All way too deveolped(and too valuable) for the Cubs to get any sizeable tract of land for thier use.
There's NO WAY Daley or any other mayor will gut Lincoln Park. And if they were crazy enough to do so, there's only LSD(which is NOT equipped to handle 10-20k cards for game time, let alone rush hour traffic) and NO TRAIN ACCESS. And there's even LESS parking. Montrose Harbor has the same problems.

Realistically, the cubs split time in Miller Park and Comiskey while the Cubs(or zell) rebuild the grandstand. Which benefits two people a lot. Bud Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf. The men who will pick the next owner of the cubs. (Uncle Jerry headed the sale of the Nationals as well as the Red Sox)

wdelaney72
04-05-2007, 09:26 AM
Cubs would get a sweetheart deal to build in Chicago they would NEVER leave the city
1) They will get an even sweeter deal in the suburbs.
2) There's no place on the North Side left to develop... South, yes, but that's not realistic from anyone's perspective, nor should it be.

I more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Zell is (brilliantly) doing this to drive up the sale price of the team. In the end, I think the ballpark will be included in the deal, but it will be for a huge amount of money.

ode to veeck
04-05-2007, 11:53 AM
1) They will get an even sweeter deal in the suburbs.
2) There's no place on the North Side left to develop... South, yes, but that's not realistic from anyone's perspective, nor should it be.

I more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Zell is (brilliantly) doing this to drive up the sale price of the team. In the end, I think the ballpark will be included in the deal, but it will be for a huge amount of money.

ding ding ding, the most likely answer as this guy has made billions polishing turds and selling them

TDog
04-05-2007, 12:02 PM
On Mulligan & Hanley this morning, they speculated that once Cabrini Green is completely gone, its site would be a neat venue for a new Cubs stadium because of all the gentrification going on there.

Also, I heard Mike Murphy today cite "informed sources" and say McDonald's Corporation might be interested in buying the Cubs.


Ray Kroc, who built the fast-food empire, didn't do so badly with the Padres, although he died nine months before his team went to the World Series.