PDA

View Full Version : Morrissey: "Wrigley Field is still a dump"


WizardsofOzzie
04-04-2007, 11:08 AM
Wrigley Field is still a dump.

Several years ago I used that very word, dump, to describe the ballpark. At that point, chunks of concrete were falling onto seats at Wrigley. The place was showing its advanced age, had a hygiene problem and lacked many of the amenities that could be found in more modern parks.
If you want to believe that you're getting the best baseball experience for your buck, good for you. But you've been sold some propaganda, comrade.
Wow, is Zell already in command???

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070403morrissey,1,6122762.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

The Immigrant
04-04-2007, 11:12 AM
:sahaf

Irishsox1
04-04-2007, 11:20 AM
Morrisey might have called out Wrigley years ago, but not like this. The corporate whores in the tower can finally stop pushing Wrigley as the ultimate baseball experience. Personally, I like Morrisey's idea of tearing down and rebuilding the main area, but keeping the bleachers. I have no idea where the Cubs would play while the work is being done, but if they were able to drop a space ship in Soldier Field and get away with it, then they will be able to tear down part of Wrigley.

thedudeabides
04-04-2007, 11:23 AM
I have heard several of their writers say they couldn't wait until the tribune sold the Cubs. We'll find out if the slant changes. I think it'll be a little while until they have total freedom, but it looks like they may have some already.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 11:29 AM
I think it is telling that when the Red Sox were at Wrigley 2 years ago, Jerry Remy went into a 5 minute on-air rant at what a dump Wrigley Field was.

Fenway was getting that way in 2001 as Harrington was not putting any money into the park, but John Henry and Friends have now put $100 Million back into the park and it shows.

Fenway still has cramped seating, lousy leg room, too many obstructed view seats but it is 1000% better than Wrigley.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 11:30 AM
I have no idea where the Cubs would play while the work is being done, but if they were able to drop a space ship in Soldier Field and get away with it, then they will be able to tear down part of Wrigley.

333 W 35th St is where the Cubs would go......State of Illinois would be delighted to take their money

bryPt
04-04-2007, 11:55 AM
finally, someone over there gets it. I am sure he kiss a** in a few days to make up for it though.

SOXPHILE
04-04-2007, 12:08 PM
Well well well...Welcome to reality, Rick. How do you like it so far ? So, now that you've finally seen the Urinal for what it is, any chance you might recant that whole "A Cubs WS victory parade would make the the Sox parade look like an Oak Lawn 4th of July parade" ?

Can we now expect some columns about a certain megalomaniac right fielder that used to play for the Lil' Blue Team, and his obvious use of steroids and HGH during that time, and the Tribune's complicity in it, i.e. the lack of reporting on it by you and your pals McGrath, VanDyke and Sullivan ?

tebman
04-04-2007, 12:08 PM
I have heard several of their writers say they couldn't wait until the tribune sold the Cubs. We'll find out if the slant changes. I think it'll be a little while until they have total freedom, but it looks like they may have some already.
I don't doubt that the writers were unhappy about the Tribune owning the Cubs. Who would want to deal with insightful critics like the posters at WSI? :tongue:

The problem has always been the perception that drives the reality. Newspaper owns team, newspaper covers team, therefore newspaper shills for team. George Knue was fond in his posts of defending the holy moat that separated the newspaper from its corporate interests, but c'mon! The paper, the radio station, and the TV station are all owned by the same company that owns the team -- of course they're shilling for the team. If the business news of the last couple of months has proved anything, it's that the Tribune is first and foremost about maximizing corporate revenue.

Now that the Cubs will be sold, maybe we can get the Tribune to fire on Mariotti instead of on the White Sox.

ewokpelts
04-04-2007, 12:16 PM
I think it is telling that when the Red Sox were at Wrigley 2 years ago, Jerry Remy went into a 5 minute on-air rant at what a dump Wrigley Field was.

Fenway was getting that way in 2001 as Harrington was not putting any money into the park, but John Henry and Friends have now put $100 Million back into the park and it shows.

Fenway still has cramped seating, lousy leg room, too many obstructed view seats but it is 1000% better than Wrigley.
but the fans have foot that bill....dosent the blow sawks have the highest priced tickets in baseball?

Fenway
04-04-2007, 12:22 PM
but the fans have foot that bill....dosent the blow sawks have the highest priced tickets in baseball?

It amazes me the more they raise the prices the harder it is to get tickets


http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/ticketing/seating_pricing.jsp

They have already sold 2,600,000 for 2007

Nellie_Fox
04-04-2007, 12:28 PM
333 W 35th St is where the Cubs would go......State of Illinois would be delighted to take their moneyIIRC, the Sox have veto power over any non-White Sox activities taking place there. I can't imagine them approving the Cubs playing there.

cheeses_h_rice
04-04-2007, 12:31 PM
Excellent column.

But what Morrissey leaves out is the obvious -- that Wrigley has only become to be seen as a "shrine" as nearly every other ballpark in the country gets torn down and replaced. Wrigley and Fenway are really the only old-fashioned ballparks left standing, so their status as such guarantees that they will forever be seen as "great" places to see a game...greatness here being a relative term. For one or two games a year, sure, it's cool to witness baseball in a simulated atmosphere of how "it used to be" (I say simulated, because Wrigley has definitely gone through changes of its own in the last 50 years). But for the true fan and connoisseur of the game, watching more than a couple games at Wrigley quickly reveals its immense flaws, which we've enumerated here countless times.

skottyj242
04-04-2007, 12:35 PM
Wow, is Zell already in command???

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070403morrissey,1,6122762.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed


Zell still owns the team.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 12:37 PM
Fenway certainly wasn't considered a shrine in 1967 when Bob Gibson looked in horror and said "Where is the upper deck?" concerned that the players cut would be lower.

The 75 Series started the "lore" of Fenway just as the NBC Game of the Week promoted both Wrigley and Fenway. On TV Wrigley does look beautiful ( but so did the Boston Garden which was the biggest dump of all )

The first time I went to Camden Yards I said OK blow Fenway up but it isn't going to happen now and probably not for another 20-30 years...





Excellent column.

But what Morrissey leaves out is the obvious -- that Wrigley has only become to be seen as a "shrine" as nearly every other ballpark in the country gets torn down and replaced. Wrigley and Fenway are really the only old-fashioned ballparks left standing, so their status as such guarantees that they will forever be seen as "great" places to see a game...greatness here being a relative term. For one or two games a year, sure, it's cool to witness baseball in a simulated atmosphere of how "it used to be" (I say simulated, because Wrigley has definitely gone through changes of its own in the last 50 years). But for the true fan and connoisseur of the game, watching more than a couple games at Wrigley quickly reveals its immense flaws, which we've enumerated here countless times.

The Immigrant
04-04-2007, 12:40 PM
Zell still owns the team.

He won't own any part of the Tribune until the deal actually closes, and that won't happen for a few weeks. His breakup fee if the deal blows up is only $25 million, so don't be shocked if it all falls through before the closing.

skottyj242
04-04-2007, 12:42 PM
He won't own any part of the Tribune until the deal actually closes, and that won't happen for a few weeks. His breakup fee if the deal blows up is only $25 million, so don't be shocked if it all falls through before the closing.

You're talking semantics. From everything I have read it's done.

WizardsofOzzie
04-04-2007, 12:43 PM
Zell still owns the team.
True but he's made it obvious he wants nothing to do with it, making the selling off of the Cubs one of the first statements he made after his bid was accepted

DumpJerry
04-04-2007, 12:45 PM
Someone call?

DumpJerry
04-04-2007, 12:46 PM
IIRC, the Sox have veto power over any non-White Sox activities taking place there. I can't imagine them approving the Cubs playing there.
You are correct. A couple of years ago when The Urinal was falling apart and Daley was threatening to bulldoze it, a plan to have the Cubs play at Comiskey was floated and the Sox shot it down.

WizardsofOzzie
04-04-2007, 12:48 PM
You are correct. A couple of years ago when The Urinal was falling apart and Daley was threatening to bulldoze it, a plan to have the Cubs play at Comiskey was floated and the Sox shot it down.
Could you image how much the Cub fans would trash our park if the Cubs got to play there on a constant basis? :?:

cheeses_h_rice
04-04-2007, 12:48 PM
True but he's made it obvious he wants nothing to do with it, making the selling off of the Cubs one of the first statements he made after his bid was accepted

The Cubs being sold at the end of 2007 was one of the conditions of the deal; I don't think it has much to do with Zell's personal feelings on the matter. He wanted to buy a media company, not a baseball team, from what I've read.

WizardsofOzzie
04-04-2007, 12:49 PM
The Cubs being sold at the end of 2007 was one of the conditions of the deal; I don't think it has much to do with Zell's personal feelings on the matter. He wanted to buy a media company, not a baseball team, from what I've read.
Gotcha, I wasn't aware of that

ewokpelts
04-04-2007, 12:55 PM
IIRC, the Sox have veto power over any non-White Sox activities taking place there. I can't imagine them approving the Cubs playing there.Why NOT? The sox own the parking lots. They will make money even if they give the cubs a cut of the parking revenue.

credefan24
04-04-2007, 12:55 PM
Hasn't the whole "Wrigley mystique" only been around since 1991, after Old Comiskey was torn down? Before then, I don't recall people gushing over Wrigley. In fact, Old Comiskey blew away Wrigley, in every single way possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which is slightly ironic, given that the same architect designed both stadiums.

Josh

Luke
04-04-2007, 12:59 PM
IIRC, the Sox have veto power over any non-White Sox activities taking place there. I can't imagine them approving the Cubs playing there.

I think that's correct, but I also think MLB might be able to force the their hand a bit. I don't think they would be too happy losing that gate revenue. It would be pretty funny thought if the Sox and Brewers both rejected them.

Mr.1Dog
04-04-2007, 01:01 PM
Why not at one of the minor league or college parks somewhere in the state? Throw them down in Champaign like the Bears.

Iwritecode
04-04-2007, 01:07 PM
Hasn't the whole "Wrigley mystique" only been around since 1991, after Old Comiskey was torn down? Before then, I don't recall people gushing over Wrigley. In fact, Old Comiskey blew away Wrigley, in every single way possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which is slightly ironic, given that the same architect designed both stadiums.

Josh

It was before that but certainly after they were bought by the Cubune. It's amazing what can happen when you have a national paper printing daily stories about "beautiful Wrigley Field". Of course Morrisey nelects to mention this at all and blames the flocking on WGN being a superstation.

gobears1987
04-04-2007, 01:21 PM
IIRC, the Sox have veto power over any non-White Sox activities taking place there. I can't imagine them approving the Cubs playing there.Why not? The Sox would probably work out a deal to get concessions and parking money. They were talking about it in 2004 as the concrete was falling.

gobears1987
04-04-2007, 01:21 PM
Zell still owns the team.Cut he also has partial ownership in a team that 100% of the posters on this board support.

cheeses_h_rice
04-04-2007, 01:30 PM
Gotcha, I wasn't aware of that

From a Cubune article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704030231apr03,1,1659036.story?page=2&coll=chi-newslocal-hed) on Zell:

Tribune Co. management will manage the process of selling the Cubs, which is planned to be completed before Zell closes on the Tribune Co. deal late this year. Having the team sold before Zell finalizes his deal eliminates any need for Major League Baseball to approve Zell as an owner. It also avoids any controversy over the fact that Zell owns a minority stake in the White Sox.

wdelaney72
04-04-2007, 01:37 PM
I think it is telling that when the Red Sox were at Wrigley 2 years ago, Jerry Remy went into a 5 minute on-air rant at what a dump Wrigley Field was.

Fenway was getting that way in 2001 as Harrington was not putting any money into the park, but John Henry and Friends have now put $100 Million back into the park and it shows.

Fenway still has cramped seating, lousy leg room, too many obstructed view seats but it is 1000% better than Wrigley.

I can't speak for Fenway now, but I was there in 2000 for 2 games, and it was WAY WORSE than Wrigley. At that time they were still pushing a new stadium elsewhere in Boston and they were most certainly letting the place go right down the crapper. My father-in-law lives in Haverhill and I've been told it's in much better shape now.... but still cramped and obstructed.

FielderJones
04-04-2007, 01:43 PM
You are correct. A couple of years ago when The Urinal was falling apart and Daley was threatening to bulldoze it, a plan to have the Cubs play at Comiskey was floated and the Sox shot it down.

:?:

Let's see, another 81 days of revenue from tickets, concessions, and parking. An opportunity to show Iowa tourists that your park is a great place to see a ball game. Yeah, what a terrible idea. Let's shoot that sucker down right away.

Sorry, but I'm missing the logic here. Help me out.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 01:48 PM
I can't speak for Fenway now, but I was there in 2000 for 2 games, and it was WAY WORSE than Wrigley. At that time they were still pushing a new stadium elsewhere in Boston and they were most certainly letting the place go right down the crapper. My father-in-law lives in Haverhill and I've been told it's in much better shape now.... but still cramped and obstructed.

Next year they are going to replace the wooden grandstand seats and knock out three rows to increase legroom. They can do it now with the new seats on the roof.

SBSoxFan
04-04-2007, 01:56 PM
It was before that but certainly after they were bought by the Cubune. It's amazing what can happen when you have a national paper printing daily stories about "beautiful Wrigley Field". Of course Morrisey nelects to mention this at all and blames the flocking on WGN being a superstation.

I think he's partially correct. WGN being a superstation meant that if people in central Indiana, for example, wanted to watch a baseball game it would be the cubs long before the Cubune started pimping for them. I forget if TBS was a superstation and also broadcasting Braves' games back then.

cheeses_h_rice
04-04-2007, 02:01 PM
I think he's partially correct. WGN being a superstation meant that if people in central Indiana, for example, wanted to watch a baseball game it would be the cubs long before the Cubune started pimping for them. I forget if TBS was a superstation and also broadcasting Braves' games back then.

WGN's been a superstation since at least 1978 -- that's when my family moved out of state and 'GN was our main connection back to Chicago.

I believe 'TBS has been a superstation since the early '80s, at the very least.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 02:10 PM
WGN's been a superstation since at least 1978 -- that's when my family moved out of state and 'GN was our main connection back to Chicago.

I believe 'TBS has been a superstation since the early '80s, at the very least.

TBS was the first and it happened by accident.

Ted Turner was in Rhode Island all summer as he was defending the Americas Cup and he asked his enginering staff at Channel 17 in Atlanta if there was any way he could watch the Braves games in Newport. They told him he could build an expensive ground station and beam the games on satellite.

Turner didn't care about the expense and then asked the question that changed everything.

Can anybody else watch this? They replied Yes, anyone with an antenna.

The light bulb went off in Ted's head and Channel 17 became a superstation.

Iwritecode
04-04-2007, 02:14 PM
I think he's partially correct. WGN being a superstation meant that if people in central Indiana, for example, wanted to watch a baseball game it would be the cubs long before the Cubune started pimping for them. I forget if TBS was a superstation and also broadcasting Braves' games back then.

Yes, partially correct. But it's still a bit glaring to leave that obvious fact out.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 03:08 PM
Red Sox showed off the 2007 "improvements to Fenway" to the Mayor this morning

http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=80779&clipid=1343579&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true

ode to veeck
04-04-2007, 04:31 PM
There's still a number of interesting angles in the whole Zell buys the Trib deal and the Trib sells Cubs and tries maybe to sell or lease Wrigley separately.

Financially, I'm glad I'm not a TribCo. shareholder, as I don't see what TribCo. gets outa the deal, which creates a few $B of new dept for a struggling media conglemerate while Zell only puts up $300M--other than the fact that they go from public to privately held and Wall Street scrutiny on their piss poor management goes down (replaced by monthly reviews with the banks holidng all the new paper I guess). Oh yeah, Tribco. execs get their bonuses outta the new cash, but more significant staffing cuts loom at their prize periodicals (which still have some of the best staffs in the country in some regards). I think the board and then the shareholders still have to approve the Zell deal.

The thinly veiled attempt to sell the Cubs without Wrigley per se makes for more mayhem. First of all, the place is literally falling down, and probably in much worse shape than say old Comiskey was when Jerry held the state hostage for the sweetheart deal for the Cell, as it seems the deep pockets of Tribco could overspend for worn out pitching and build more bleachers, but haven't really done anything to the failing ancient structure in general. I'll bet it will take at least $150-200M to fix the place in the very very near future, just to keep it a safe place for baseball fans. So what new owner wants a 3rd party slumlord to fight over needed repairs with for the next how ever many years they're around. Sure the Cubs are an attractive franchise, but who in their right mind would want them without Wrigley and the 3M annual fans the park guarantees. Coangelo, Ruban and the various other interested parties are certainly business savvy enough to understand the value Wrigley adds to the team. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

The whole lurid story of Tribco is like something that ought be reported by the Enquirer or the Star vs the Wall Street Journal or The Economist.

Fenway
04-04-2007, 04:33 PM
as I don't see what TribCo. gets outa the deal

They get rid of the Chandler family

ode to veeck
04-04-2007, 04:35 PM
They get rid of the Chandler family


Like I said, I'm glad I'm not a shareholder as they look even worse on paper after the deal, just minus the Chandlers

ws05champs
04-04-2007, 07:13 PM
The thinly veiled attempt to sell the Cubs without Wrigley per se makes for more mayhem. First of all, the place is literally falling down, and probably in much worse shape than say old Comiskey was when Jerry held the state hostage for the sweetheart deal for the Cell, as it seems the deep pockets of Tribco could overspend for worn out pitching and build more bleachers, but haven't really done anything to the failing ancient structure in general. I'll bet it will take at least $150-200M to fix the place in the very very near future, just to keep it a safe place for baseball fans. So what new owner wants a 3rd party slumlord to fight over needed repairs with for the next how ever many years they're around. Sure the Cubs are an attractive franchise, but who in their right mind would want them without Wrigley and the 3M annual fans the park guarantees. Coangelo, Ruban and the various other interested parties are certainly business savvy enough to understand the value Wrigley adds to the team. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

The mind boggles at the possibilities here. There is only so far you can go to repair an aging stadium. Even the Yankees know this. The land around Wrigley is terribly expensive. You just couldn't build something new next to Wrigley like the Sox did. Plus the land that Wrigley sits on is very valuable. So here is what I am hoping for. The new Cubs owners decide that it is just not cost effective to keep repairing Wrigley. They sell Wrigley and the land around it to a real estate developer. They move the team to Las Vegas and build a new stadium with the money they got from the sale of Wrigley.:D:

LongLiveFisk
04-04-2007, 09:59 PM
:?:

Let's see, another 81 days of revenue from tickets, concessions, and parking. An opportunity to show Iowa tourists that your park is a great place to see a ball game. Yeah, what a terrible idea. Let's shoot that sucker down right away.

Sorry, but I'm missing the logic here. Help me out.

I was questioning it myself....granted, the Cubs organization would probably get a huge chunk of that but IF AND ONLY IF the Sox could get a nice chunk of change from allowing the use of their ballpark, I'd be surprised if they'd pass it up.

Disclaimer: I, in no way, would ever want to see the Cubs use US Cellular Field as their "home park". In fact, the thought makes me cringe. I am just trying to be objective here.

LongLiveFisk
04-04-2007, 10:01 PM
The mind boggles at the possibilities here. There is only so far you can go to repair an aging stadium. Even the Yankees know this. The land around Wrigley is terribly expensive. You just couldn't build something new next to Wrigley like the Sox did. Plus the land that Wrigley sits on is very valuable. So here is what I am hoping for. The new Cubs owners decide that it is just not cost effective to keep repairing Wrigley. They sell Wrigley and the land around it to a real estate developer. They move the team to Las Vegas and build a new stadium with the money they got from the sale of Wrigley.:D:

Sounds like a plan to me. :thumbsup:

HotelWhiteSox
04-04-2007, 10:38 PM
I love it.


So I also assume that Paul Sullivan can now criticize the team and not get his ass chewed out and embarrased and then denied any of it happened.

Nellie_Fox
04-05-2007, 12:34 AM
Why NOT? The sox own the parking lots. They will make money even if they give the cubs a cut of the parking revenue.

Why not? The Sox would probably work out a deal to get concessions and parking money. They were talking about it in 2004 as the concrete was falling.

:?:

Let's see, another 81 days of revenue from tickets, concessions, and parking. An opportunity to show Iowa tourists that your park is a great place to see a ball game. Yeah, what a terrible idea. Let's shoot that sucker down right away.

Sorry, but I'm missing the logic here. Help me out.
1. You don't help your competitor (a concept lost on those here who claim to be Sox fans but just can't stop themselves from going to Wrigley Field several times a year.)

2. When it was time to do something about old Comiskey, the Cubs made it quite clear that the Sox would not be welcome to play at Wrigley in order to allow a renovation of Comiskey. What goes around comes around.

3. Playing 162 games on the field instead of 81 would really test the ability of Bossard to keep the field in the magnificent shape it's in.

IndianWhiteSox
04-05-2007, 12:40 AM
finally, someone over there gets it. I am sure he kiss a** in a few days to make up for it though.


Considering the fact that he's no longer working for the owner of the Cubs after this year regardless, I doubt it. If anything expect more of these columns from these writers as they are trying to save their jobs for Zell.

IndianWhiteSox
04-05-2007, 12:45 AM
1. You don't help your competitor (a concept lost on those here who claim to be Sox fans but just can't stop themselves from going to Wrigley Field several times a year.)

2. When it was time to do something about old Comiskey, the Cubs made it quite clear that the Sox would not be welcome to play at Wrigley in order to allow a renovation of Comiskey. What goes around comes around.

3. Playing 162 games on the field instead of 81 would really test the ability of Bossard to keep the field in the magnificent shape it's in.

So helping out your competitor would be taking most of their ticket sales?

I don't get that logic at all. If the Sox can make even more money by having the Cubs play there 81 games a year for one season, then that's not a bad idea. Considering the fact that it would mean more profit for the Sox in that season. Also, it's a state of the art 20th century marvel, come on man if it can't handle an increase of games played for a season, then that's just messed up. I don't know about you, but I like the idea of the White Sox making another 5-10 million(you konw you have to hold them hostage right?), without having to cut payroll.

fusillirob1983
04-05-2007, 01:01 AM
If the Cubs had to go to a much smaller stadium for a season, wouldn't that draw a lot more casual fans to Sox games and
1.) raise Sox attendance
2.)hurt the competition

StillMissOzzie
04-05-2007, 05:11 AM
Didn't the Yankees play a season of home games at Shea Stadium during a prior Yankee Stadium overhaul?

SMO
:?:

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 09:27 AM
The mind boggles at the possibilities here. There is only so far you can go to repair an aging stadium. Even the Yankees know this. The land around Wrigley is terribly expensive. You just couldn't build something new next to Wrigley like the Sox did. Plus the land that Wrigley sits on is very valuable. So here is what I am hoping for. The new Cubs owners decide that it is just not cost effective to keep repairing Wrigley. They sell Wrigley and the land around it to a real estate developer. They move the team to Las Vegas and build a new stadium with the money they got from the sale of Wrigley.:D:the cubs will never leave northeast illinois. get over it

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 09:28 AM
Didn't the Yankees play a season of home games at Shea Stadium during a prior Yankee Stadium overhaul?

SMO
:?:
2 WHOLE seasons at Shea. 1974 and 1975.

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 09:28 AM
If the Cubs had to go to a much smaller stadium for a season, wouldn't that draw a lot more casual fans to Sox games and
1.) raise Sox attendance
2.)hurt the competitionThey'll play at miller park before they have to play in a minor league park. Although I could see them in Ryan Field or Norte Dame stadium.

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 09:31 AM
1. You don't help your competitor (a concept lost on those here who claim to be Sox fans but just can't stop themselves from going to Wrigley Field several times a year.)

2. When it was time to do something about old Comiskey, the Cubs made it quite clear that the Sox would not be welcome to play at Wrigley in order to allow a renovation of Comiskey. What goes around comes around.

3. Playing 162 games on the field instead of 81 would really test the ability of Bossard to keep the field in the magnificent shape it's in.

Mor elikely they'll play half a season at comiskey and half at miller park. But still, why NOT help them? Especially if you can make money off thier fan base. the parking money alone is worth it.

jortafan
04-05-2007, 09:53 AM
IIRC, the Sox have veto power over any non-White Sox activities taking place there. I can't imagine them approving the Cubs playing there.

Oh please. The White Sox would love to have the Cubs playing their games in their building for a season or two.

Of course, the Sox would have to get a substantial cut of the gate receipts and concessions, and let's not forget the parking. There'd probably also have to be some way of making the Cubs publicly admit they are playing all of their games in a White Sox building. The Sox would love to have the upper hand over the Cubs for a time.

And if you think I'm exaggerating just how petty this would get, keep in mind that part of the reason George Steinbrenner gets so irrational when it comes to dealing with the Mets is because of the perception by the Yankees organization that the Mets screwed with them during the two years in the 1970s that the Yankees had to play at Shea Stadium.

Do you really doubt that Jerry Reinsdorf would be capable of the same behavior?

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 10:51 AM
Oh please. The White Sox would love to have the Cubs playing their games in their building for a season or two.

Of course, the Sox would have to get a substantial cut of the gate receipts and concessions, and let's not forget the parking. There'd probably also have to be some way of making the Cubs publicly admit they are playing all of their games in a White Sox building. The Sox would love to have the upper hand over the Cubs for a time.

And if you think I'm exaggerating just how petty this would get, keep in mind that part of the reason George Steinbrenner gets so irrational when it comes to dealing with the Mets is because of the perception by the Yankees organization that the Mets screwed with them during the two years in the 1970s that the Yankees had to play at Shea Stadium.

Do you really doubt that Jerry Reinsdorf would be capable of the same behavior?I think Jerry has more class than any yankee or met exec, but I do see him "enjoying" the moment. Especially as it benefits his bottom line.

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 11:25 AM
The current tennant has a right to not allow that.

And I bet they will.
although, if there's public money involved, dont be suprised if the current tennat has no say in teh matter

Nellie_Fox
04-05-2007, 12:25 PM
although, if there's public money involved, dont be suprised if the current tennat has no say in teh matterBut they do. The Sox have the right to veto anything not White Sox at US Cellular.

Fenway
04-05-2007, 12:29 PM
parking, concessions for 81 games? The White Sox are not going to let a windfall profit like that escape. JR is JR ( and Jacobs as the concession person would really apply pressure)

ewokpelts
04-05-2007, 01:56 PM
parking, concessions for 81 games? The White Sox are not going to let a windfall profit like that escape. JR is JR ( and Jacobs as the concession person would really apply pressure)
:reinsy

Me Likey Money!

PalehosePlanet
04-05-2007, 02:05 PM
The Cubs would be dead without Wrigley. No longer would they be able to draw the transplant, casual "cub" fan (my estimation is that about 60% of Lakeview is now transplants, with 40 - 50% of them being from Michigan.) In fact if they were to move to Wheeling or Buffalo Grove or some other cultural strip-mall wasteland in the burbs and the Devil Rays moved into Wrigley, the Rays would out-draw the cubs.

ws05champs
04-05-2007, 07:40 PM
the cubs will never leave northeast illinois. get over it

The Cubs would be dead without Wrigley. No longer would they be able to draw the transplant, casual "cub" fan (my estimation is that about 60% of Lakeview is now transplants, with 40 - 50% of them being from Michigan.) In fact if they were to move to Wheeling or Buffalo Grove or some other cultural strip-mall wasteland in the burbs and the Devil Rays moved into Wrigley, the Rays would out-draw the cubs.

:(: You're right about the Cubs not leaving Northeast Illinois. But it is nice to dream. As far as moving to the Northwest suburbs, I think that would be their only alternative when Wrigley does have to be torn down. They would loose a lot of the tourist fans but their "real" fans would follow them there. That would mean they would actually have to become a good ball club. The Chicago Cubs of Unicorporated McHenry County Illinois has a nice ring to it.

HotelWhiteSox
04-05-2007, 09:49 PM
It sounded like Jiggets was pretty mad at this column with the way he was talking to Morrisey about it on the Tribune Live show today. Jiggets reasoning always came back to 'how come it's okay for the 3 mill to go'. Hey Jiggs, weren't you the same guy who told another radio station you couldn't keep a sports radio show in town because the fans here are idiots?

lakeviewsoxfan
04-05-2007, 10:59 PM
The Cubs would be dead without Wrigley. No longer would they be able to draw the transplant, casual "cub" fan (my estimation is that about 60% of Lakeview is now transplants, with 40 - 50% of them being from Michigan.) In fact if they were to move to Wheeling or Buffalo Grove or some other cultural strip-mall wasteland in the burbs and the Devil Rays moved into Wrigley, the Rays would out-draw the cubs.


60% is low ball, I would bet at least 70% of the residents in Lakeview are from the surrounding states, the economies of our neighboring are in such a poor state the recent college grads move to Chicago, in particular the north side.

tebman
04-06-2007, 08:48 AM
Just to confirm what we've always said, this article (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=24495) in Crain's Chicago Business says that people genuinely interested in buying the Cubs say that it's got to include Wrigley Field. In other words, nobody wants the team; what they want is the ballpark and its frat-boy & tourist magnetism.

Here's a significant quote:

Whatever the price, [Tom Begel, founder and chairman of Chicago-based private-equity firm TMB Industries] said the ballpark must be part of the deal.

"There's no way they're going to sell the Cubs without selling Wrigley Field (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/relatedStories.pl?type=company&id=958&news_id=24495)," said Begel. He declined to discuss price.

DumpJerry
04-06-2007, 09:17 AM
:?:

Let's see, another 81 days of revenue from tickets, concessions, and parking. An opportunity to show Iowa tourists that your park is a great place to see a ball game. Yeah, what a terrible idea. Let's shoot that sucker down right away.

Sorry, but I'm missing the logic here. Help me out.

I was questioning it myself....granted, the Cubs organization would probably get a huge chunk of that but IF AND ONLY IF the Sox could get a nice chunk of change from allowing the use of their ballpark, I'd be surprised if they'd pass it up.

Disclaimer: I, in no way, would ever want to see the Cubs use US Cellular Field as their "home park". In fact, the thought makes me cringe. I am just trying to be objective here.

1. You don't help your competitor (a concept lost on those here who claim to be Sox fans but just can't stop themselves from going to Wrigley Field several times a year.)

2. When it was time to do something about old Comiskey, the Cubs made it quite clear that the Sox would not be welcome to play at Wrigley in order to allow a renovation of Comiskey. What goes around comes around.

3. Playing 162 games on the field instead of 81 would really test the ability of Bossard to keep the field in the magnificent shape it's in.

Nellie got it right. Wear and tear on the grass is a major reason. Not to mention there would be no down time during Sox road trips to perform minor repairs on stadium wear and tear.

although, if there's public money involved, dont be suprised if the current tennat has no say in teh matter
The White Sox have 100% control over stadium operations under the lease with the Illinois Sports Facility Authority. This is why we can tailgate. The Sox' control extends to the parking lots and the team has deemed that it is ok to have alcohol in the lots.

Luke
04-06-2007, 09:19 AM
Those guys are smart to say that the ball park must be part of the deal,.Like with free agent signings, it's the dumb ones that make money for you. Zell only needs one ownership group to get a little silly and put seperate offers out there.

This sure is going to be fun to watch.

wdelaney72
04-06-2007, 09:19 AM
Just to confirm what we've always said, this article (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=24495) in Crain's Chicago Business says that people genuinely interested in buying the Cubs say that it's got to include Wrigley Field. In other words, nobody wants the team; what they want is the ballpark and its frat-boy & tourist magnetism.

Here's a significant quote:

I agree 100%. Zell is blowing smoke to raise the value of both. I don't think anyone who has that kind of money is stupid to buy either one independently.

ewokpelts
04-06-2007, 09:34 AM
Those guys are smart to say that the ball park must be part of the deal,.Like with free agent signings, it's the dumb ones that make money for you. Zell only needs one ownership group to get a little silly and put seperate offers out there.

This sure is going to be fun to watch.

I agree 100%. Zell is blowing smoke to raise the value of both. I don't think anyone who has that kind of money is stupid to buy either one independently.

:reinsy
Me and Sammy are like peas in a pod. a pod that likes to make money.

peeonwrigley
04-06-2007, 10:29 AM
60% is low ball, I would bet at least 70% of the residents in Lakeview are from the surrounding states, the economies of our neighboring are in such a poor state the recent college grads move to Chicago, in particular the north side.

This is very true. Kids from Michigan that didn't want to live/work in Detroit are all over the north side. They probably go to Cub games in Tigers hats (barf).

Mr.1Dog
04-06-2007, 10:47 AM
This is very true. Kids from Michigan that didn't want to live/work in Detroit are all over the north side. They probably go to Cub games in Tigers hats (barf).

That can go either way really. I work with a kid from Detroit and he is a huge Tigers fan and went to Wrigley last summer and hated it. He thought it was revolting and only went because his friends had free tickets.

maurice
04-06-2007, 12:35 PM
Hey Jiggs, weren't you the same guy who told another radio station you couldn't keep a sports radio show in town because the fans here are idiots?

He also likes to say that people who disagree with him prove that Chicago is a cow town.
:dtroll:

RadioheadRocks
04-10-2007, 06:30 PM
Apparently Mr. Morrissey is doing an about-face. Witness this slop from his most recent column:

"And that stuff I wrote about Wrigley being a dump? Temporary insanity."
:rolleyes:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070409morrissey,1,2054935.column?coll=chi-sportscolumnistfront-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

DrCrawdad
04-10-2007, 06:57 PM
Apparently Mr. Morrissey is doing an about-face. Witness this slop from his most recent column:

"And that stuff I wrote about Wrigley being a dump? Temporary insanity."
:rolleyes:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070409morrissey,1,2054935.column?coll=chi-sportscolumnistfront-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true




I think Morrissey's whole column was sarcastic, and in reality he's not backing away from the former column (as you may remember he said that he'd written that Wrigley is dump before). I took this column as, 'They're saying everything is different this year. It's all about winning. I believe they're right. Oh, and my comments about Wrigley being a dump were the result of insanity...' He should have used teal.

MarySwiss
04-10-2007, 07:03 PM
I think Morrissey's whole column was sarcastic, and in reality he's not backing away from the former column (as you may remember he said that he'd written that Wrigley is dump before). I took this column as, 'They're saying everything is different this year. It's all about winning. I believe they're right. Oh, and my comments about Wrigley being a dump were the result of insanity...' He should have used teal.

Agree. There's a similar thread running in the roadhouse, about the Windsock, which addresses this issue. In it, I wrote that I think this was tongue-in-cheek and that Morrissey, earlier in the column, when asked if he's a Cubs fan, says "No."

RadioheadRocks
04-10-2007, 09:07 PM
I think Morrissey's whole column was sarcastic, and in reality he's not backing away from the former column (as you may remember he said that he'd written that Wrigley is dump before). I took this column as, 'They're saying everything is different this year. It's all about winning. I believe they're right. Oh, and my comments about Wrigley being a dump were the result of insanity...' He should have used teal.

Agree. There's a similar thread running in the roadhouse, about the Windsock, which addresses this issue. In it, I wrote that I think this was tongue-in-cheek and that Morrissey, earlier in the column, when asked if he's a Cubs fan, says "No."


Mother told me about taking everything I read at face value, but mother Never told me about Ultra Brite! :D:

I'm really aging myself here, aren't I?

MarySwiss
04-10-2007, 09:18 PM
Mother told me about taking everything I read at face value, but mother Never told me about Ultra Brite! :D:

I'm really aging myself here, aren't I?

No; if you really want to age yourself, you'll start talking about Ipana! :D:

Or (sheesh!) Speedy Alka-Seltzer.

Mullet Master
04-11-2007, 09:45 AM
Like said in a post earlier in the thread, you know how crappy the flubs fans would leave The Cell, you know that there would be alot of stupid drunk flubs fans doing whatever they could to disgrace The Cell while their craphole gets renovated or rebuilt. Plus playing 162 games on the field, then also there would probably be scheduling conficts. I just don't want them to bring the urinal from the northside down to the southside. Money isn't everything guys and gals. Send the flubs to take over where the Schaumburg Flyers play or the Kane County Cougars.

DoItForDanPasqua
04-13-2007, 07:05 PM
Wait, what would Morrissey know about baseball?

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/morrissey%20you%20have%20killed%20me%20video.jpeg

monkeypants
04-13-2007, 09:56 PM
Wait, what would Morrissey know about baseball?

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/morrissey%20you%20have%20killed%20me%20video.jpeg

He knows that baseballs are made of cowhide and to him that's murder.