PDA

View Full Version : Cubs to play at Cell for season while Wrigley gets facelift?


Demafrost
02-26-2008, 02:04 PM
From a Cubs board:

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46927

WSCR "The Score" just reported on one of their news breaks that talks have already been "broached" (whatever that means) about the Cubs playing at least one season in U.S. Cellular Field while Wrigley Field gets a complete facelift, save the bleachers, scoreboard, and of course, the new playing field. Basically, the same thing the Bears did a few years ago, and the same thing the Yankees did in the early '70s when they played two seasons in Shea Stadium. No official sources were listed, but it was reported that this may happen as soon as the 2010 season.

Oh no, The Cell is going to smell like urine and Cubs fans are going to be peeing the the Cell's sinks thinking they are troughs.

chisoxmike
02-26-2008, 02:09 PM
:?:

I wonder how true this is. I am also interested if the Sox have any say in this.

Madvora
02-26-2008, 02:10 PM
But it's so dangerous around Comiskey. How can these people be safe going to games?

veeter
02-26-2008, 02:10 PM
If this were to happen, about a million yuppies will finally, actually see, the beautiful park they've been bad mouthing for all these years. Their small minds would be changed forever.

soxfan13
02-26-2008, 02:11 PM
:?:

I wonder how true this is. I am also interested if the Sox have any say in this.

I am sure they do and I am sure they are saying bring it on.

Rocky Soprano
02-26-2008, 02:13 PM
I can hear the moron already:

Finally the seats will be filled!

Tekijawa
02-26-2008, 02:14 PM
How are seat prices for both teams going to be affected? Can the Cubs still sell the tickets through their "Broker"? Will a Cubs moron feel stupid when I pay x amount of dollars less for the same seats? Will the Harry statue be moved for the duration of this experiment?

Demafrost
02-26-2008, 02:16 PM
How are seat prices for both teams going to be affected? Can the Cubs still sell the tickets through their "Broker"? Will a Cubs moron feel stupid when I pay x amount of dollars less for the same seats? Will the Harry statue be moved for the duration of this experiment?
And how will the rooftop owners feed their families??

Rocky Soprano
02-26-2008, 02:17 PM
And how will the rooftop owners feed their families??

How will my eyes recover?

sox1970
02-26-2008, 02:19 PM
It would be ironic if the Cubs won a championship the one year they left their dump.

Demafrost
02-26-2008, 02:20 PM
How will my eyes recover?

Only have 42 posts, I obviously haven't gotten the concept of teal yet.

Hokiesox
02-26-2008, 02:21 PM
Who cares? This happens all the time in every sport in the world. I say bring it on, as previously stated, they'll only be forced to see how nice our park is. It'll be good for our neighborhood too and help Grandstand out a whole lot (not that they need the help, but more business doesn't hurt!)

CashMan
02-26-2008, 02:24 PM
:?:

I wonder how true this is. I am also interested if the Sox have any say in this.


Doesn't the city, technically own Comiskey (refuse to call it the Cell) park?

ksimpson14
02-26-2008, 02:26 PM
Ugh, they will treat the park like crap, like when we have a series and our freakin statues get damaged

ksimpson14
02-26-2008, 02:27 PM
:?:

I wonder how true this is. I am also interested if the Sox have any say in this.

I think Reinsdorf is open to it, I remember hearing about when the whole 'falling concrete' thing was happening at Wrigley. Probably some coin in his pocket too (not sure, just assuming)

DumpJerry
02-26-2008, 02:30 PM
Doesn't the city, technically own Comiskey (refuse to call it the Cell) park?
No. The state of Illinois really owns it, no technicality there. The White Sox' lease gives them exclusive control of the place. The White Sox in the past have said they won't let the Cubs play there. I'm sure Bossard does not want all that wear and tear on the field with 162 regular season games played and tons of garbage being tossed on it for 81 of those games.

Why is this a consideration? We're always being told that The Urinal is wonderful and not in need of a gut rehab.....

TDog
02-26-2008, 02:35 PM
The Yankees played in Shea Stadium for a year in the '70s while Yankee Stadium was being renovated and the world didn't stop spinning on its axis. I remember some Sox fans suggesting the Sox play a season at Wrigley to allow for renovation at the old ballpark. Those were the days, though, when the Cubs routinely closed the upper deck for games in April, and games were called because of darkness.

I don't have any inside information, but I am guessing the Sox own the parking around the ballpark, which they lease. They contract for the concessions. The Sox would probably love to have the Cubs play their home schedule on the South Side for a year, although their maintenance and operations costs would increase, perhaps crossing the headache threshold. Many of the people who work at the ballpark live nearby and would get double the work days, although they would have to invest in Cubs gear. But this is all speculation.

I don't know if Cubs fans or Sox fans would be the biggest losers. Sox fans would have to endure the endless whining of Cubs fans complaining of no bars across the street (one of the best features of the Cell in my opinion). And Sox fans also would have to put up with the adoration of the renovated Wrigley Field (perhaps even in the form of a U.N. resolution) that would inevitably follow the Cubs season at the Cell.

As if anything short of demolition would improve the real estate. The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.

ksimpson14
02-26-2008, 02:36 PM
No. The state of Illinois really owns it, no technicality there. The White Sox' lease gives them exclusive control of the place. The White Sox in the past have said they won't let the Cubs play there. I'm sure Bossard does not want all that wear and tear on the field with 162 regular season games played and tons of garbage being tossed on it for 81 of those games.

Why is this a consideration? We're always being told that The Urinal is wonderful and not in need of a gut rehab.....

Yeah really. Tell them to act like a normal team. Start building new now, and tear that ****er down

thomas35forever
02-26-2008, 02:40 PM
I hate to think of fans who bleed Cubbie blue filling our park on a regular basis. I agree with the people who say it might be better off just tearing down Wrigley. The new park would probably be in a different neighborhood though. Cubs fans would switch the argument from their park having more tradition to their park being more modern.

DumpJerry
02-26-2008, 02:40 PM
I don't have any inside information, but I am guessing the Sox own the parking around the ballpark, which they lease.
The State of Illinois owns the parking lots which are included in the lease with the ballpark. The Sox have 100% control over the parking lots, that is why tailgating is allowed. A lawyer/police officer I know is the guy who reviewed the lease to see if the City had to worry about open alcoholic containers in the parking lots. His review said that the Sox control the situation, so if the Sox say no booze, then the cops would have to enforce the city code on open booze bottles in the public way. Since the Sox say "let's party!," the city only has to worry about the sidewalks.

DumpJerry
02-26-2008, 02:41 PM
I hate to think of fans who bleed Cubbie blue filling our park on a regular basis. I agree with the people who say it might be better off just tearing down Wrigley. The new park would probably be in a different neighborhood though. Cubs fans would switch the argument from their park having more tradition to their park being more modern.
Well, while we might smell them the day after a Cubs' game, we won't see them.

C-Dawg
02-26-2008, 02:43 PM
Anybody read that tread linked in the first post? Already there are slams against our attendance.

Myself, I doubt the Cubs would draw more than their core fans to the south side. Sure, some would come for the novelty, but once they realize they can watch the games from the air-conditioned comfort of the Wrigleyville bars, they'll quit making the trip.

TDog
02-26-2008, 02:48 PM
The State of Illinois owns the parking lots which are included in the lease with the ballpark. The Sox have 100% control over the parking lots, that is why tailgating is allowed. A lawyer/police officer I know is the guy who reviewed the lease to see if the City had to worry about open alcoholic containers in the parking lots. His review said that the Sox control the situation, so if the Sox say no booze, then the cops would have to enforce the city code on open booze bottles in the public way. Since the Sox say "let's party!," the city only has to worry about the sidewalks.

So they lease both the ballpark and the parking. I would have figured the real estate interests who own the Sox would have bought the property around the ballpark, but 100 percent control works just as well for purposes of this discussion.

skottyj242
02-26-2008, 02:49 PM
Ummm how can this even be talked about yet when nobody knows who's going to own the team or the stadium in a year from now? This is pure speculation. If Zell sells the naming rights to Wrigley are the people that paid for it going to be happy that they miss a year? What if United pays for the naming rights and Southwest pays to put up the new field? Would they Play at Southwest Field, United Field at Historic Wrigley Field? There are too many what ifs that are going on with the ownership of the team to even be talking about this.

kevin57
02-26-2008, 02:50 PM
I doubt the Cubs would draw more than their core fans to the south side. Sure, some would come for the novelty, but once they realize they can watch the games from the air-conditioned comfort of the Wrigleyville bars, they'll quit making the trip.

I think this is a fascinating point, and I think the Sox should welcome Cubbie fans in because it would lay to rest the notion that Cub fans love their team more than we love ours.

Fenway
02-26-2008, 02:51 PM
Bottom line

JR makes a nice piece of change over this

skottyj242
02-26-2008, 02:51 PM
The State of Illinois owns the parking lots which are included in the lease with the ballpark. The Sox have 100% control over the parking lots, that is why tailgating is allowed. A lawyer/police officer I know is the guy who reviewed the lease to see if the City had to worry about open alcoholic containers in the parking lots. His review said that the Sox control the situation, so if the Sox say no booze, then the cops would have to enforce the city code on open booze bottles in the public way. Since the Sox say "let's party!," the city only has to worry about the sidewalks.


Exactly. That's why when the Bad Guys come if for that weekend series there are always a bunch that get tickets trying to cross the street with an open brewski. That's also why you can't take beers from parking lot to parking lot. Once you step on city property you are busted.

How great would it be if they did have to come to our place for a year and we could tailgate and they couldn't?

twentywontowin
02-26-2008, 02:54 PM
81 more games of parking and concession revenue that helps our team...when can we start?

soxfan13
02-26-2008, 03:03 PM
No. The state of Illinois really owns it, no technicality there. The White Sox' lease gives them exclusive control of the place. The White Sox in the past have said they won't let the Cubs play there. I'm sure Bossard does not want all that wear and tear on the field with 162 regular season games played and tons of garbage being tossed on it for 81 of those games.

Why is this a consideration? We're always being told that The Urinal is wonderful and not in need of a gut rehab.....

Actually I seem to recall the White Sox offering the Cubs the park if they needed play there during renovations if it came to that.

DumpJerry
02-26-2008, 03:05 PM
Exactly. That's why when the Bad Guys come if for that weekend series there are always a bunch that get tickets trying to cross the street with an open brewski. That's also why you can't take beers from parking lot to parking lot. Once you step on city property you are busted.

How great would it be if they did have to come to our place for a year and we could tailgate and they couldn't?
In 2006, towards teh end of the last game before the Cubs game at Comiskey, Ed Farmer was reminding everyone of the "no beer on the sidewalk" rule and that the Police Department issued a press release stating that it would be strictly enforced. Farmio reminded us that the Cub fans are our neighbors at the end of the day. He then said to toss the beer bottles in the garbage can in the parking lots. He said "if you see a Cub fan walking towards the sidewalk with an open beer........just let him keep on walking...."

DumpJerry
02-26-2008, 03:07 PM
The Cub fan in my office does not like the proposal.






No place to drink before and after the game.

Demafrost
02-26-2008, 03:09 PM
Ummm how can this even be talked about yet when nobody knows who's going to own the team or the stadium in a year from now? This is pure speculation. If Zell sells the naming rights to Wrigley are the people that paid for it going to be happy that they miss a year? What if United pays for the naming rights and Southwest pays to put up the new field? Would they Play at Southwest Field, United Field at Historic Wrigley Field? There are too many what ifs that are going on with the ownership of the team to even be talking about this.

All I know is that the idea that Wrigley and the Cubs were going to be sold separately has been known for awhile now. The idea didn't really make sense until now. No prospective owner wants to buy the Cubs and the park and then put up $100 million to rebuild the park. This had to have been the plan all along, and just now its getting out.

Lip Man 1
02-26-2008, 03:10 PM
Dump Jerry is correct. The White Sox have the final say and it has been publicly stated in the past by the Sox organization that they would not allow the Cubs to play there.

Memory is a touch foggy but I think someone in the organization was quoted along the lines of, "they can play in Milwaukee or St. Louis." And no that wasn't in connection with the controversy in 1984 had they made the World Series.

Lip

soxfan13
02-26-2008, 03:25 PM
Dump Jerry is correct. The White Sox have the final say and it has been publicly stated in the past by the Sox organization that they would not allow the Cubs to play there.

Memory is a touch foggy but I think someone in the organization was quoted along the lines of, "they can play in Milwaukee or St. Louis." And no that wasn't in connection with the controversy in 1984 had they made the World Series.

Lip

Actually that was the National League saying that if the Cubs made the playoffs in 86 that they were gonna play their games in St. Louis. Mayor Washington at the time was pissed at the fact the league wouldnt leave them in Chicago to play the night games at Comiskey. Also didnt some article come out last year saying that if the Cubs had made the World Series in 84 the League had already made arrangements and the Cubs were gonna be playing in Comiskey.

soxwon
02-26-2008, 03:29 PM
imagine a cubs-sox world series at us cellular!!!

WizardsofOzzie
02-26-2008, 03:42 PM
On one hand it would be good revenue for the Sox but on the other, that revenue would be put towards fixing the mess those jackass fans make when they stroll into our park and think it's funny to trash the place.

soxfan21
02-26-2008, 03:43 PM
I hope that this does not happen. I know that it might bring money to the Sox and what not, but I cannot stand the thought of having cubs fans at our park 81 days out of the year, let alone listen to people still talking about how "unsafe" the area around the Cell is and, as noted before, the shortage of bars in the area. Let them go north to Milwaukee and play games up there. I also wonder how they would work Sox vs. cubs games should both teams be playing there against each other when it comes to season ticket holders and who gets which games and which seats. Ohh well, I'll start believing this more when I actually see this in writting I guess.

Noneck
02-26-2008, 03:47 PM
81 more games of parking and concession revenue that helps our team...when can we start?

It should be good if the extra revenue is used to improve the club.

Fenway
02-26-2008, 03:47 PM
Just remember the time will come to rebuild USCF and the Sox will have to play at Wrigley ( 25-30 years from now )

jabrch
02-26-2008, 03:48 PM
At the end of the day, I'd be very surprised if this does not happen. The econmic windfall in the short term for the Sox would be huge. But the long term benefits of having a group of fans exposed to USCF and the difference between the two would be awesome.

If the Cubs want to do this, and are willing to pay the price of giving up nearly 100% of an entire season worth of gate/concessions, I can't imagine the Sox not being thrilled to take their money.

jabrch
02-26-2008, 03:50 PM
Just remember the time will come to rebuild USCF and the Sox will have to play at Wrigley ( 25-30 years fron now )

Just like we did when we rebuilt USCF 15 years ago?

Why would we have to play at Wrigley? Unless we plan on rebuilding a 15 year old park that just had 5 years of renovations on the exact same spot, why would you think we couldn't stay where we are?

soxfan13
02-26-2008, 03:55 PM
Just like we did when we rebuilt USCF 15 years ago?

Why would we have to play at Wrigley? Unless we plan on rebuilding a 15 year old park that just had 5 years of renovations on the exact same spot, why would you think we couldn't stay where we are?

If you are talking about when USCF was BUILT , that is a completely different circumstance since it was built while the Sox were still playing at Comiskey.

Nellie_Fox
02-26-2008, 03:57 PM
Actually I seem to recall the White Sox offering the Cubs the park if they needed play there during renovations if it came to that.My memory is the same as Lip's, that the Sox' official position was that the Cubs would not be allowed to play at USCF. I also seem to remember that, when the various options for old Comiskey were being considered, that the word was that the Cubs had said that the Sox could not use Wrigley during any renovation, and that was part of the reason for the final decision to replace, rather than renovate.

162 games a year would be very tough on the field, which is one of, if not the, best in baseball.

Fenway
02-26-2008, 03:57 PM
Just like we did when we rebuilt USCF 15 years ago?

Why would we have to play at Wrigley? Unless we plan on rebuilding a 15 year old park that just had 5 years of renovations on the exact same spot, why would you think we couldn't stay where we are?

There were cosmetic changes...but there will come a time when the USCF will look a little worn around the edges.

Cat Thief
02-26-2008, 04:10 PM
Who cares? This happens all the time in every sport in the world. I say bring it on, as previously stated, they'll only be forced to see how nice our park is. It'll be good for our neighborhood too and help Grandstand out a whole lot (not that they need the help, but more business doesn't hurt!)

Help the Grandstand. LOL.

They have been ripping off Sox fans for years.

Blueprint1
02-26-2008, 04:12 PM
Oh man I went into that linked thread and I was already annoyed with them. One guy said our stadium is in the ghetto and he almost got knifed in our parking lot. I don't know what world some people live in. I walk to US Cellular from my place in the South Loop sometimes during the summer. I have never felt unsafe.

jabrch
02-26-2008, 04:15 PM
There were cosmetic changes...but there will come a time when the USCF will look a little worn around the edges.

They were not "cosmetic". They rebuilt the upper deck. They build an entire OF deck. Not cosmetic at all...these were structural changes.

I don't see any plans in the near future that have the Sox needing to leave the park. This park will last a long time without major structual repairs. You don't see structural repair that requires teams to move out of their park for anything built since the 70s. What teams have had to play elsewhere? And what stadiums are you talking about? Yankee Stadium - sure - it was very old and had major work done. You won't see that with USCF - we will never need to add on the kind of seats that the Yanks did.

kittle42
02-26-2008, 04:17 PM
I actually hope this happens. The short-term benefits to my favorite team would be great.

twsoxfan5
02-26-2008, 04:21 PM
Oh man I went into that linked thread and I was already annoyed with them. One guy said our stadium is in the ghetto and he almost got knifed in our parking lot. I don't know what world some people live in. I walk to US Cellular from my place in the South Loop sometimes during the summer. I have never felt unsafe.

I went in and read the posts there as well. They don't annoy me they just prove what I already know about them. They say the same old things everytime. That the Cell is in a bad neighborhood and that they outdraw us. These are things they always say, you'll notice the actual playing of baseball never comes into question.

itsnotrequired
02-26-2008, 04:22 PM
I went in and read the posts there as well. They don't annoy me they just prove what I already know about them. They say the same old things everytime. That the Cell is in a bad neighborhood and that they outdraw us. These are things they always say, you'll notice the actual playing of baseball never comes into question.

How are those posts any different than the same old things being posted in this thread? The place will smell like pee, blah, blah, blah...

getonbckthr
02-26-2008, 04:25 PM
How much money do the Sox get out of this? How much of it goes to the team and how much fills the onwer's pockets?

Blueprint1
02-26-2008, 04:25 PM
How are those posts any different than the same old things being posted in this thread? The place will smell like pee, blah, blah, blah...

One post said that. I never said anything like that.

tony1972
02-26-2008, 04:28 PM
How are those posts any different than the same old things being posted in this thread? The place will smell like pee, blah, blah, blah...

But what we say is true at least..last summer I went to a Cubs game with a friend of mine....the bases were loaded and fans didn't want to miss an exciting play and this guy stands up in the middle of the aisle and squatted and pooped right then and there !:o:

I really don't want these things happening in our beautiful ballpark..

twentywontowin
02-26-2008, 04:28 PM
But what we say is true at least..last summer I went to a Cubs game with a friend of mine....the bases were loaded and fans didn't want to miss an exciting play and this guy stands up in the middle of the aisle and squatted and pooped right then and there !:o:

I really don't want these things happening in our beautiful ballpark..

You ever see the bathroom facilities there? I would have taken a **** in the aisle too.

itsnotrequired
02-26-2008, 04:29 PM
But what we say is true at least..last summer I went to a Cubs game with a friend of mine....the bases were loaded and fans didn't want to miss an exciting play and this guy stands up in the middle of the aisle and squatted and pooped right then and there !:o:

I once saw a guy get stabbed in the face on the outfield concourse, right by the Fisk statue. If you look closely, you can see a blood stain on the ground.

hi im skot
02-26-2008, 04:30 PM
If you read the thread, you'll see that most of the comments are completely rational and thought-out.

Sure, there's the occasional jackass talking about "how dangerous the neighborhood is", but most of the posters stuck up for the stadium.

It'd be weird, certainly, to have the Cubs playing there...but I think some of us are being far too paranoid about what the nasty Cubs fans would do to our park.

On a side note, I imagine Hangar's head is exploding at the thought of this going through...

spiffie
02-26-2008, 04:31 PM
I once saw a guy get stabbed in the face on the outfield concourse, right by the Fisk statue. If you look closely, you can see a blood stain on the ground.
Obviously a Cubs fan did it. Then he pooped on the statue.

doublem23
02-26-2008, 04:34 PM
We need a few Cub trolls over here and we can redo the great thread we had when there was talk about the Fire playing at the Cell.

CLR01
02-26-2008, 04:42 PM
We need a few Cub trolls over here and we can redo the great thread we had when there was talk about the Fire playing at the Cell.


Dude the state will make the Sox open the stadium. The Sox don't own it and don't have a say...:rolling:

twsoxfan5
02-26-2008, 04:48 PM
How are those posts any different than the same old things being posted in this thread? The place will smell like pee, blah, blah, blah...

My point was that all that post is the same old stuff we always hear from their fans. Just like they hear the same old stuff from our fans.

kba
02-26-2008, 04:49 PM
Just remember the time will come to rebuild USCF and the Sox will have to play at Wrigley ( 25-30 years from now )

Why are you so sure about this? The Red Sox have played 96 years at Fenway without ever having to move out during a "rebuild," and other stadiums (Anaheim, Oakland) have had massive renovations without the team ever having to play elsewhere.

And if USCF ever does become obsolete decades from now, what's to say a new ballpark (Comiskey III?) won't get built for the Sox, rather than a massive rebuild of USCF that would force the team to play at Wrigley?

Hitmen77
02-26-2008, 05:13 PM
If this were to happen, about a million yuppies will finally, actually see, the beautiful park they've been bad mouthing for all these years. Their small minds would be changed forever.

This was my first reaction too. This may happen with a few fans, but the more I think about it, I doubt them playing here for a year would change that many minds or expose that many new people to the Cell.

Many (if not most) of the people at Wrigley are there just for the ballpark. They are tourists who have been sold on the Wrigley hype or they are part of the mass of young affluent people living near Wrigley and go there because it's a cool place to hangout and drink. These people for the most part don't care about baseball and aren't going to bother to go to the Cell to see the Cubs.

The people who would go down to the Cell to see the Cubs are the true Cub fans. But they aren't going to be swayed. It's not like they're going to switch allegiances. They're going to be pre-disposed to hate the enemy's park (just like we are) and they won't see much good about it. After all, Cub fans have been coming down to the Cell for a decade now for the interleague games and I have seen about zero change of hearts about our park by Cub fans. Plus, after this is done, the Cubs will have the benefit of much improved accomodations at their own park.

itsnotrequired
02-26-2008, 05:21 PM
The people who would go down to the Cell to see the Cubs are the true Cub fans. But they aren't going to be swayed. It's not like they're going to switch allegiances. They're going to be pre-disposed to hate the enemy's park (just like we are) and they won't see much good about it. After all, Cub fans have been coming down to the Cell for a decade now for the interleague games and I have seen about zero change of hearts about our park by Cub fans. Plus, after this is done, the Cubs will have the benefit of much improved accomodations at their own park.

Eh, I could see a lot of suburban types making the trip since getting there and parking is relatively painless compared to driving to Wrigley.

Hitmen77
02-26-2008, 05:23 PM
Just remember the time will come to rebuild USCF and the Sox will have to play at Wrigley ( 25-30 years from now )

Dodger Stadium is approaching 50 years old. Angel Stadium is over 40 yrs old. They both have had renovations, but neither team has had to vacate their stadium for renovations and I haven't heard any talk about them possibly doing so in the future.

Regardless, letting the Cubs play at the Cell now won't count for squat in 30 years if the tables were ever turned in the future. By then, just about everyone involved with the Sox and Cubs today would either be dead or long retired.

Hitmen77
02-26-2008, 05:29 PM
Eh, I could see a lot of suburban types making the trip since getting there and parking is relatively painless compared to driving to Wrigley.

No doubt there would be that kind of draw for the Cubs. I just think that it won't turn all that many of them into return customers if they are already Cub fans.

Plus, I bet we're already drawing more "unaligned" or "loosely-aligned" suburban fans to our park than in the past for the very reason you cite - without having to host the Cubs here. :smile:

Noneck
02-26-2008, 05:32 PM
They were not "cosmetic". They rebuilt the upper deck. They build an entire OF deck. Not cosmetic at all...these were structural changes.

I don't see any plans in the near future that have the Sox needing to leave the park. This park will last a long time without major structual repairs. You don't see structural repair that requires teams to move out of their park for anything built since the 70s. What teams have had to play elsewhere? And what stadiums are you talking about? Yankee Stadium - sure - it was very old and had major work done. You won't see that with USCF - we will never need to add on the kind of seats that the Yanks did.

You are correct and if for some reason the Sox can't play at the Cell, I'd bet the Sox would rent Miller for a few games.

guillen4life13
02-26-2008, 06:05 PM
If the Cell were ever in such desperate need for renovations, the Sox will either play in Wrigley (unlikely), or a new park will be build where the current parking lot is. Right where old Comiskey once stood. That would be nice.

dickallen15
02-26-2008, 06:47 PM
Dude the state will make the Sox open the stadium. The Sox don't own it and don't have a say...:rolling:
I think the White Sox do have a say per their lease. When the concrete started falling at Wrigley JR quickly said the Cubs wouldn't be at USCF.

JB98
02-26-2008, 07:03 PM
Oh man I went into that linked thread and I was already annoyed with them. One guy said our stadium is in the ghetto and he almost got knifed in our parking lot. I don't know what world some people live in. I walk to US Cellular from my place in the South Loop sometimes during the summer. I have never felt unsafe.

You have to remember, Cubs fans are very arrogant. They are always calling attention to themselves and trying to pick fights with those who disagree with them. I'm sure a lot of Cubs fans have been in altercations at or around our park. Their own behavior is the cause.

As Sox fans, we aren't there to cause trouble. We're there to support our team. As a result, we've attended hundreds of Sox games in the "bad neighborhood" without incident.

TDog
02-26-2008, 07:12 PM
Dodger Stadium is approaching 50 years old. Angel Stadium is over 40 yrs old. They both have had renovations, but neither team has had to vacate their stadium for renovations and I haven't heard any talk about them possibly doing so in the future. ...

Although the Angels had to play in Wrigley Field before they got a ballpark in Anaheim.

In 1947, there were two teams (out of 16) that permanently shared baseball parks with the city's team from the other league, in St. Louis and Philadelphia. I don't think it's been done since the American League teams in those cities relocated. As for a temporary home to accommodate renovations, I can only think of the Yankees playing two years at Shea (1974 and 1975 -- I looked it up). The Cubs, of course, played their 1918 World Series home games at Old Comiskey because their North Side park wasn't good enough to host a World Series, but that's another issue.

You don't vacate your home to play games elsewhere unless your place is literally (not figuratively) falling apart and there is an imperative to renovate it -- such as history.

misty60481
02-26-2008, 07:16 PM
I got an idea, the Sox have a 3 game homestand vs. K.C. on July 18-20, it is starting to get to boring time of year. Why dont we play our 3 games in Wrigley and on Aug. 1-3 the Cubs play against Pittsburg, let them play 3 games at the Cell. It might be something different to break up the year. If K.C. and Pitts. went for it could it happen ?

I know the first year season ticket holders would complain but if we scheduled one series each year it might be fun.

kittle42
02-26-2008, 07:37 PM
I got an idea, the Sox have a 3 game homestand vs. K.C. on July 18-20, it is starting to get to boring time of year. Why dont we play our 3 games in Wrigley and on Aug. 1-3 the Cubs play against Pittsburg, let them play 3 games at the Cell. It might be something different to break up the year. If K.C. and Pitts. went for it could it happen ?

I know the first year season ticket holders would complain but if we scheduled one series each year it might be fun.

I'm not sure that's a precedent MLB wants to get into.

Lip Man 1
02-26-2008, 07:44 PM
CLR01:

Read Dump Jerry's post early in this thread. They DO have a say and it's the final one.

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-26-2008, 07:48 PM
Soxfan 13:

My recollection had nothing to do with either 84 or 86 whenever it was. It was during the time period, I believe, when the concrete starting falling and they may have had to do some serious repairs. That would have been this decade when the Sox person said this.

Based on what I know and what I've been told, the "official" Sox position for the moment, is 'no Cubs."

Lip

Brian26
02-26-2008, 07:56 PM
Help the Grandstand. LOL.

They have been ripping off Sox fans for years.

Very true.

Viva Medias B's
02-26-2008, 09:10 PM
Could Uncle Bud exercise the "better interests of baseball" clause and make the Sox accept the Cubs at USCF?

itsnotrequired
02-26-2008, 09:21 PM
Could Uncle Bud exercise the "better interests of baseball" clause and make the Sox accept the Cubs at USCF?

JR and Bud are bros. No way he would stick it to his boy.

jcw218
02-26-2008, 09:24 PM
Could Uncle Bud exercise the "better interests of baseball" clause and make the Sox accept the Cubs at USCF?

He could try. I know that USCF is owned by the ISFA and the Sox have final say as to any event that happens there per their lease. I do not know if Bud's "authority" would override that of the state's.

mwc44
02-26-2008, 09:55 PM
It would be ironic if the Cubs won a championship the one year they left their dump.
imagine a cubs-sox world series at us cellular!!!

"The Cubs finally bring the big prize home... to USCF!" Yep, that would be ironic. BUT... imagine them making it to the World Series and LOSING it at USCF! :D:

There were cosmetic changes...but there will come a time when the USCF will look a little worn around the edges.

It already did... it was called 1996. :redneck

moochpuppy
02-26-2008, 10:19 PM
I can hear the moron already:

Finally the seats will be filled!

Quite the contrary...I believe the Cub fans will show up for games but the Wrigley fans and out of towners will stay away. Finally the Sox will again out draw the Wrigley Field Cubs.

misty60481
02-26-2008, 10:36 PM
JR and Bud are bros. No way he would stick it to his boy.
__________________

Lets get serious if JR could see $$$$ coming in he would let anybody play and lead the singing of " Take me out to ballgame" ion 7th inning./

kaufsox
02-27-2008, 12:14 AM
If this were to happen, about a million yuppies will finally, actually see, the beautiful park they've been bad mouthing for all these years. Their small minds would be changed forever.

can small minds change? isn't that the hallmark of a simpleton, an inability to change one's thinking despite evidence to the contrary?

itsnotrequired
02-27-2008, 07:02 AM
JR and Bud are bros. No way he would stick it to his boy.
__________________

Lets get serious if JR could see $$$$ coming in he would let anybody play and lead the singing of " Take me out to ballgame" ion 7th inning./

:rolling:

bigsoxfan420
02-27-2008, 07:55 AM
I think it would be funny to see how many Cubs "fans" would actually come to the Cell. Since it seems in my experience, at the few games at Wrigley I've been to, that the most of the attendees are either tourists that come to see the ball park or college aged folks that live close to the park. I am sure the teams actual fans would make the "long" drive down south, but I doubt the previously mentioned ones will. And listening to the media debate over this theoretical scenario would be entertaining as well.

turners56
02-27-2008, 08:17 AM
This actually wouldn't be bad for the Sox (can get rid of the noob Cub fan perseption that the Cell sucks...because it is truly a good ballpark). But, it would be so weird to play the Cubs six times each year at the same park O_o.

white sox bill
02-27-2008, 08:25 AM
Couldn't said renovations be done in annual "segemnts" therefore eliminating any kind of temporary moving for a season? Thats the way the Sox did it when US Cellular bought naming rights. This would go for not only the northsiders remodeling but also when the time comes for us to give the Cell a facedlift.

Frater Perdurabo
02-27-2008, 08:49 AM
Couldn't said renovations be done in annual "segemnts" therefore eliminating any kind of temporary moving for a season? Thats the way the Sox did it when US Cellular bought naming rights. This would go for not only the northsiders remodeling but also when the time comes for us to give the Cell a facedlift.

It seems like there is just too much heavy demolition and construction to do at the Urinal.

At the Cell, the renovations generally have been cosmetic, not structural.

At the Urinal, the very structure (other than the bleachers) is what needs to be replaced.

skottyj242
02-27-2008, 09:52 AM
I once saw a guy get stabbed in the face on the outfield concourse, right by the Fisk statue. If you look closely, you can see a blood stain on the ground.

I'm still awaiting trial. We're not supposed to talk about that.

skottyj242
02-27-2008, 09:58 AM
I think it would be funny to see how many Cubs "fans" would actually come to the Cell. Since it seems in my experience, at the few games at Wrigley I've been to, that the most of the attendees are either tourists that come to see the ball park or college aged folks that live close to the park. I am sure the teams actual fans would make the "long" drive down south, but I doubt the previously mentioned ones will. And listening to the media debate over this theoretical scenario would be entertaining as well.

What college kids can afford to live up there?

kittle42
02-27-2008, 11:00 AM
What college kids can afford to live up there?

Good question, unless "college aged" now means "under 30."

CLR01
02-27-2008, 11:34 AM
I think the White Sox do have a say per their lease. When the concrete started falling at Wrigley JR quickly said the Cubs wouldn't be at USCF.

CLR01:

Read Dump Jerry's post early in this thread. They DO have a say and it's the final one.

Lip

Yes, I know.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5625&highlight=renovation

We break out the daily memory exercises when the season starts. :rolleyes:

soxfan13
02-27-2008, 11:34 AM
What college kids can afford to live up there?

It can be done, has been done and will always be done, its not the Gold Coast.

Taliesinrk
02-27-2008, 11:40 AM
What college kids can afford to live up there?

I know a number of college aged kids that live in that area. It can definitely be done.

Frontman
02-27-2008, 11:42 AM
Good question, unless "college aged" now means "under 30."

It does, or haven't you heard of "Graduate Assistants?"

:wink:

Let 'em come. Don't matter to me, because they still could lose the Series at USCF.


When the Sox beat them.

champagne030
02-27-2008, 11:50 AM
What college kids can afford to live up there?

Good question, unless "college aged" now means "under 30."

Ever hear of DePaul?

bridgeportcopper
02-27-2008, 12:26 PM
The thought of fireworks going off in the Cell for a Cubs home run or victory makes me sick!

It's Time
02-27-2008, 12:48 PM
Where will Cubs fans go before and after the game?:scratch:

Mr.1Dog
02-27-2008, 12:49 PM
Where will Cubs fans go before and after the game?:scratch:

And by after the game you mean after beer sales end...

It's Time
02-27-2008, 12:52 PM
And by after the game you mean after beer sales end...

Cubs fans do not drink!

C-Dawg
02-27-2008, 01:01 PM
The thought of fireworks going off in the Cell for a Cubs home run or victory makes me sick!

To make the place seem more "authentic", there will be no fireworks. And no jumbotron. Heck, might as well close up about half the bathrooms and food vendors so the lines will be Wrigleylike.

raven1
02-27-2008, 01:47 PM
To make the place seem more "authentic", there will be no fireworks. And no jumbotron. Heck, might as well close up about half the bathrooms and food vendors so the lines will be Wrigleylike.
To help Cubs fans feel at home they could install troughs in the bathroom to make them feel at home, and cover up the World Series banner since the Cubs have never played home games at a stadium with one.

Seriously, the only legitimate issue I see with this is the wear and tear on the playing field. The stadiums are only 8 miles apart, so not letting the Cubs play in Chicago for a season would just make the Sox look petty & foolish, especially when there is revenue to be made from it. Concerns about Cubs fan conduct are overblown - the lack of nearby bars & adequate security should control this. Fans will show up - even from the north side the door-to-door commute to USCellular is considerably shorter than to Wrigley Field - I drive from the Northwest suburbs on I-90 and it takes me about an hour to get to Sox games but 90+ minutes to get to Wrigley Field. Since anyone who says USC is in bad neighborhood obviously hasn't been anywhere near there lately, people will get to see for themselves how much it's improved.

kittle42
02-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Ever hear of DePaul?

Unfortunately.

asg2003ws2005
02-27-2008, 02:38 PM
The Yankees played in Shea Stadium for a year in the '70s while Yankee Stadium was being renovated and the world didn't stop spinning on its axis. I remember some Sox fans suggesting the Sox play a season at Wrigley to allow for renovation at the old ballpark. Those were the days, though, when the Cubs routinely closed the upper deck for games in April, and games were called because of darkness.

I don't have any inside information, but I am guessing the Sox own the parking around the ballpark, which they lease. They contract for the concessions. The Sox would probably love to have the Cubs play their home schedule on the South Side for a year, although their maintenance and operations costs would increase, perhaps crossing the headache threshold. Many of the people who work at the ballpark live nearby and would get double the work days, although they would have to invest in Cubs gear. But this is all speculation.

I don't know if Cubs fans or Sox fans would be the biggest losers. Sox fans would have to endure the endless whining of Cubs fans complaining of no bars across the street (one of the best features of the Cell in my opinion). And Sox fans also would have to put up with the adoration of the renovated Wrigley Field (perhaps even in the form of a U.N. resolution) that would inevitably follow the Cubs season at the Cell.

As if anything short of demolition would improve the real estate. The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind. there's quite a few day of game workers that work both parks anyways. they already have that gear

#1swisher
02-27-2008, 02:43 PM
If this were to happen, about a million yuppies will finally, actually see, the beautiful park they've been bad mouthing for all these years. Their small minds would be changed forever.
the million yuppie cub fans that you speak of would never leave the bars along clark street

ksimpson14
02-27-2008, 02:57 PM
Yes, I know.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5625&highlight=renovation

We break out the daily memory exercises when the season starts. :rolleyes:

That Fire fan sounded like a little bitch. When you truthfully point out that the European leagues are better (and this was what, 7 years ago?), he gets all pissy and throws out 'Eurosnob' like all the defensive MLS fans do, but it's okay for him to not like English or Italian soccer. Which it is, but he's a hypocrite

santo=dorf
02-27-2008, 10:33 PM
Where will Cubs fans go before and after the game?:scratch:
Why Jimbo's of course. I'm sure the owner would sell out quicker than the iPhone to turn it into a Cubs bar for a year (hopefully it'd be to their grave.)

EDIT: That Chicago Fire thread is a hoot.

TheOldRoman
02-27-2008, 11:11 PM
I agree with Nellie here. The Cubs made it clear the Sox couldn't play there if they decided to renovate/rebuild Comiskey, and we can do the same. The Cubs can go **** themselves. The Sox should not assist the Cubs in getting a new park built. They shouldn't assist them in making a park that will undoubtedly be state of the art, and even further overshadow the Sox in terms of media perception and coverage. If they are going to rebuild, let them work it out themselves; don't make it easy on them.

I think people are greatly overestimating the money the Sox would get from this. There is no way the Cubs agree to give the Sox the entire gate for the year. They might get a lot of money, but it won't even be close to half. The Cubs would much rather go to Milwaukee and keep much more of the loot. It is further, but no games will get rained out, and Milwaukee would be more than happy to get a little more back on that investment. Also, Miller's field is in terrible shape as it is, and they have talked about getting FieldTurf in the past. Maybe they would do that and make it easier for two teams to play there. The Sox don't have the best field in baseball. What they do have is by far the best field for the climate they play in. Our field is great, but there is no way we could come close to the fields grown in California. We don't need the extra wear and tear.

asg2003ws2005
02-28-2008, 08:10 AM
I can see LIMITED "home" games at comiskey, with the cubs playing some home serie sin St Louis and Milwaukee. There's NO WAY, they'd be allowed to be a true travel team. The union wouldnt allow it.

whitem0nkey
02-28-2008, 11:07 AM
my biggest question is how much money would the sox get out of this, does any one have the numbers for when the Yankees did this?
I will Google around and post anything i find.
but it would be nice to know, because if it 10% I'm not for it and if its 50% sure lets do it. im just tossing random numbers around.

Lip Man 1
03-07-2008, 08:08 PM
Here's the latest:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080307-chicago-cubs-wrigley-field-us-cellular,1,1861313.story

For what it may be worth it's my understanding that the Sox by contract have the final say on who uses U.S. Cellular (even through it's technically owned by the IFSA)

I do recall in the past (I'm sorry I don't specifically know the time frame) that Jerry Reinsdorf was quoted directly as stating he would not allow the Cubs to ever play at the Sox facility. That may have changed of course, but I'm sure I heard or read this direct comment.

I can also tell you that in the past I've kicked this around with some of my friends in the organization and they've basically told me (paraphrasing) 'not no, but hell no...they can play their home games in Milwaukee or St. Louis.'

Like I said take it for what it's worth.

Lip

Fenway
03-07-2008, 08:21 PM
Where on earth did Crane Kenney come from?

I was amused at his candor when he said the old Tribune was arrogant.

One thing still escapes me. If Zell is selling the team why is the naming rights so important to him since he is also selling the park. In theory the new owners of the park get the income not Zell. Something isn't kosher the way this being presented.

IlliniSox4Life
03-07-2008, 09:03 PM
I'm all for it. Some reasons, in no particular order:

1) Cubs fans get to see actually how nice our Park is.
2) Cubs fans no longer get to call their park "historic"
3) Extra money coming into the stadium (and hopefully this would mean the state would make improvements).
4) 3 extra "home" games a year when we play them in their home crosstown classic.
5) All the reports of visiting players from the NL saying how much nicer the amenities are at the Cell than Wrigley.
6) Extra money coming into Jerry's pockets from parking (and hopefully reinvested into the team).
7) There would probably be more money/improvements made in the surrounding communities.

My only concern that comes to mind would be our players sharing space with theirs. Is there enough room to build extra lockers? How would they manage that?

ilsox7
03-07-2008, 09:06 PM
One thing still escapes me. If Zell is selling the team why is the naming rights so important to him since he is also selling the park. In theory the new owners of the park get the income not Zell. Something isn't kosher the way this being presented.

Simple: the park is worth more with another big revenue stream attached to it.

IlliniSox4Life
03-07-2008, 09:10 PM
I agree with Nellie here. The Cubs made it clear the Sox couldn't play there if they decided to renovate/rebuild Comiskey, and we can do the same. The Cubs can go **** themselves. The Sox should not assist the Cubs in getting a new park built. They shouldn't assist them in making a park that will undoubtedly be state of the art, and even further overshadow the Sox in terms of media perception and coverage. If they are going to rebuild, let them work it out themselves; don't make it easy on them.

I think people are greatly overestimating the money the Sox would get from this. There is no way the Cubs agree to give the Sox the entire gate for the year. They might get a lot of money, but it won't even be close to half. The Cubs would much rather go to Milwaukee and keep much more of the loot. It is further, but no games will get rained out, and Milwaukee would be more than happy to get a little more back on that investment. Also, Miller's field is in terrible shape as it is, and they have talked about getting FieldTurf in the past. Maybe they would do that and make it easier for two teams to play there. The Sox don't have the best field in baseball. What they do have is by far the best field for the climate they play in. Our field is great, but there is no way we could come close to the fields grown in California. We don't need the extra wear and tear.

I was too young to follow the Sox that much when the new park was being built, but if this is true, than I take back my previous statement about being "all for it". I wouldn't be completely against it, but I would definitely force them to pay out the ass to play at the Cell. Set the price high and tell them to take it or leave it. If they feel X amount is too much, they can play in Milwaukee or Saint Louis and give one of their division rivals a bunch of extra home games.

guillen4life13
03-07-2008, 09:45 PM
I would say if it were to happen, the Sox get the 3B dugout as their home dugout, the Cubs get the 1B dugout/clubhouse as their home clubhouse so that there's no confusion. One section of each clubhouse has to be set aside for visiting teams.

cws05champ
03-07-2008, 10:02 PM
I just don't want our field torn up by 162 games played in Comisky in the year. Also, more importantly, I don't want to see a shred of Cub blue anywhere in the stadium. Not even a removeable banner over the dugout!! Call me Flubsessed but I just don't like the idea after the Cubs would not do the Sox the same favor before.

Lip Man 1
03-07-2008, 11:54 PM
There are a few issues that could come into play over this:

1. If Reinsdorf has the final say, and by contract I believe he does, then who owns the Cubs is very important. If it's still Sam Zell, a friend of Jerry's who was / is a minority owner of the White Sox, he might very well change his mind and say yes. If it's a stranger or a major company in competition with JR's business interests, he'll probably say no.

2. How much cut of the gate the Sox get will be a major factor. That money (plus concessions, parking ect..) could go back to the Sox in on field talent and beat the Cubs at their own game.

3. But will that gate outweigh the cost of damage done to the field itself through continuous use? It takes money to re-sod and work on a field of that magnitude, a lot of it.

Personally I hope this doesn't happen. Not because I fear Cub fans, actually I pity them for their overall baseball stupidity, but because I'm concerned about the damage that will be done to the field itself, with little or no time to recover and get worked on before another game has to be played.

Also to the earlier poster, when the Yankees played at Shea Stadium, nothing was done to the field or structure to make it appear to be the Yankees "home." I don't think you'll have to worry about blue walls, or banners or blue colored dugouts. They'll remain exactly as they are when the Sox play and the Cubs will learn to live with it.

Lip

Huisj
03-08-2008, 12:51 AM
I just don't want our field torn up by 162 games played in Comisky in the year. Also, more importantly, I don't want to see a shred of Cub blue anywhere in the stadium. Not even a removeable banner over the dugout!! Call me Flubsessed but I just don't like the idea after the Cubs would not do the Sox the same favor before.

I hear they're going to take out the new seats and put the old blue ones back in just for the cubs! :D:

#1swisher
03-08-2008, 10:38 AM
I hear they're going to take out the new seats and put the old blue ones back in just for the cubs! :D:
finally someone making sense.

Frater Perdurabo
03-08-2008, 11:05 AM
Personally I hope this doesn't happen. Not because I fear Cub fans, actually I pity them for their overall baseball stupidity, but because I'm concerned about the damage that will be done to the field itself, with little or no time to recover and get worked on before another game has to be played.

Lip

Regarding the field conditions, couldn't they conceivably come to some sort of compromise where the Cubs played, say, half of their home schedule at the Cell and half at Milwaukee? I know it's still not ideal to have that many games played on the field, but 121 games is better than 162, and would leave 40-41 dates for the Bossard family to work their magic. It also would give the Sox that revenue boost.

In the long-term, I think having the Cubs play at the Cell for even just 40 games in one season would help debunk the media-created negative myth about the neighborhood around the Cell.

Law11
03-08-2008, 11:15 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-08-cubs-chicago-spring-trainmar08,0,5084542.story

This makes me ill.
The thought of the frat parade at our place...:shocked:

chisox77
03-08-2008, 11:55 AM
I have thought about this for a while prior to posting.

Personally, I don't like the idea of the Cubs using our park for any reason, other than playing the White Sox.

Few, if any Cub fans respect our organization, our traditions, our place in Chicago, our perspective, much less our ballpark (they are most critical of it, so let them play elsewhere).

Therefore, no. No Cubs at the Cell, unless JR can get away with jacking up the rent to the point where the Cubs would be forced to look elsewhere.



:cool:

sox1970
03-08-2008, 12:07 PM
I don't care if the Cubs play at the Cell for a year, as long as when I go to Sox games that year, I don't see any evidence that the Cubs play there too.

I have to admit, it would be kinda funny if the Cubs won it all the one year they didn't play at there beloved shrine.

Fenway
03-08-2008, 12:18 PM
I have thought about this for a while prior to posting.

Personally, I don't like the idea of the Cubs using our park for any reason, other than playing the White Sox.

Few, if any Cub fans respect our organization, our traditions, our place in Chicago, our perspective, much less our ballpark (they are most critical of it, so let them play elsewhere).

Therefore, no. No Cubs at the Cell, unless JR can get away with jacking up the rent to the point where the Cubs would be forced to look elsewhere.



:cool:

You have to look at the total picture. The public relations backlash against JR and the White Sox would be astronomical is they refused the Cubs a Chicago alternative. There would also be a corporate backlash as well as companies based in the Loop would not be thrilled about seats 90 miles away in Milwaukee. These are companies that also control many Bulls and White Sox tickets and they might be inclined to screw JR by dropping those seats.

You think the hotel industry is going to allow those downstate and Iowa fans to be renting rooms in Milwaukee instead of Chicago? They will be screaming at Daley and JR doesn't want that headache.

It will happen but JR will get the best deal possible.

Lip Man 1
03-08-2008, 12:38 PM
Fenway:

Based on the folks that I've spoken with, this will NOT happen.

Take it for what it's worth.

Jerry Reinsdorf has never cared one wit about what people think or say. I'm not saying that to knock him, just a statement of fact. He's wealthy enough so that the only opinion that matters is his.

The sponsors who have ties to the White Sox are not going to turn away because JR said no to the Cubs, that's absurd. And it's not going to impact future negotiations because certain companies want to be a part of the Cubs network and some the Sox. There are very few if any, who have ties to both.

There are plenty of companies in the area that would give their eye teeth to be a part of the Sox sponsors, if it benefits their company, they have ZERO care what the Sox do to the Cubs and visa versa.

Bottom line thinking, if it helps their organization, they'll sign on with the Sox.

With respect....please stop!

Lip

rocky biddle
03-08-2008, 01:06 PM
My biggest concern would be the damage to the field. Other than that, it doesn't really concern me. With the media's love affair with the Cubs, maybe the extra attention will translate into a change of attitude about the Cell.

I'm sure there would be safeguards in place to protect the ballpark; like a lot of extra security. And hopefully there'd be a provision in the contract that if Cub fans are causing excessive damage, the deal is off. That way if people want to act like animals, the Cubs will have to find another place to play; and everyone will know why.

Fenway
03-08-2008, 01:11 PM
Lip

There is too much outside the ballpark income at stake.

Hotels would scream, restaurants and bars would scream as would car rental companies. Tax dollars that go to Chicago, Illinois and Cook County going to Wisconsin? No way given the economic bind the city and state are in.

JR is rich and powerful but is not an idiot. If Mayor Daley calls and suggests this would be a good idea you think he will tell the Mayor no?

If JR did that you can be assured that the property tax assessment of the United Center would change. Costs of CPD police details would change and who knows what else City Halll could do.

That is how Chicago works. Always has and always will.

Seriously JR might not be happy about it but city and state officials will demand it.


Fenway:

Based on the folks that I've spoken with, this will NOT happen.

Take it for what it's worth.

Jerry Reinsdorf has never cared one wit about what people think or say. I'm not saying that to knock him, just a statement of fact. He's wealthy enough so that the only opinion that matters is his.

The sponsors who have ties to the White Sox are not going to turn away because JR said no to the Cubs, that's absurd. And it's not going to impact future negotiations because certain companies want to be a part of the Cubs network and some the Sox. There are very few if any, who have ties to both.

There are plenty of companies in the area that would give their eye teeth to be a part of the Sox sponsors, if it benefits their company, they have ZERO care what the Sox do to the Cubs and visa versa.

Bottom line thinking, if it helps their organization, they'll sign on with the Sox.

With respect....please stop!

Lip

Lip Man 1
03-08-2008, 01:49 PM
Care to make a friendly wager?

JR has his friends in the city as well including public officials, not the least of which is Daley.

So the city would demand it eh? Just like they demanded that the Sox build a new stadium right? (Additional income, hotels ect...) The Sox had to threaten to move to Florida for that to happen.

The income is not as much as you are making it out to be. We're not talking for as long as the Yankees played in Shea right? Boy I bet New York screamed over all that "lost" income going to Flushing right?

Sorry not buying your argument.

JR has as many friends in high places as the Cubs do. They won't risk PO'ing him either. (You forgot about that unpleasant result.)

Lip

Fenway
03-08-2008, 02:09 PM
Lip Flushing is part of the City of New York. No tax dollars were lost by the city.

I will take the wager as for one season everybody will try to get along.



Care to make a friendly wager?

JR has his friends in the city as well including public officials, not the least of which is Daley.

So the city would demand it eh? Just like they demanded that the Sox build a new stadium right? (Additional income, hotels ect...) The Sox had to threaten to move to Florida for that to happen.

The income is not as much as you are making it out to be. We're not talking for as long as the Yankees played in Shea right? Boy I bet New York screamed over all that "lost" income going to Flushing right?

Sorry not buying your argument.

JR has as many friends in high places as the Cubs do. They won't risk PO'ing him either. (You forgot about that unpleasant result.)

Lip

Lip Man 1
03-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Done...e-mail me and let me know what you'd like to risk.

Lip

Fenway
03-08-2008, 10:07 PM
Done...e-mail me and let me know what you'd like to risk.

Lip

:duel:

Soxfanspcu11
03-08-2008, 10:22 PM
I actually like this idea!

As long as scrub fans do not damage the Park in any way, then let's get to it!!

It will bring in even more revenue for the Sox. Money that can be spent on making the team better and better!! LET'S GET TO WORK!!!!!:gulp:

TomBradley72
03-09-2008, 12:09 AM
I don't really care. If this was old Comiskey Park...I would. But this facility was funded by the taxpayers (primarily hotel and rental car taxes if I recall).

If this keeps revenue inside the state and the city, then the taxpayers deserve to have it utilized while the Cubs complete the Wrigley project.

As long as the field stays in decent shape...I don't care...I'm never at The Cell unless the White Sox are playing...so I won't be anywhere near the place when the Cubs are playing there.

I'm so tired of the "mirage" that is the whole Cub thing...I think it would really expose how mediocre their whol culture is when you remove the ivy and all the other bull**** from the equation.

Lip Man 1
03-09-2008, 01:09 AM
Soxfan11:

It all depends on how much the Sox cut is (as I stated earlier in the thread)... will it cover the damage done to the field by continuous use?

How much would have to go back in to maintenance?

If it's not a sizable cut then why should the Sox even take that risk.

Lip

Nellie_Fox
03-09-2008, 01:56 AM
There's a name for trading your virtue for money.

Soxfanspcu11
03-09-2008, 03:11 AM
Soxfan11:

It all depends on how much the Sox cut is (as I stated earlier in the thread)... will it cover the damage done to the field by continuous use?

How much would have to go back in to maintenance?

If it's not a sizable cut then why should the Sox even take that risk.

Lip


Oh, Absolutely! I think that that goes without saying though.

If it is too much of a hassle and the Sox don't get enough out of it to make it worth while, then to hell with it!

If it's not worth it, make the scrubs play in the stadium for the Schaumburgh Flyers or the Gary Railcats!! Now THAT would be sweet!!!:D:

asg2003ws2005
03-09-2008, 07:15 AM
You have to look at the total picture. The public relations backlash against JR and the White Sox would be astronomical is they refused the Cubs a Chicago alternative. There would also be a corporate backlash as well as companies based in the Loop would not be thrilled about seats 90 miles away in Milwaukee. These are companies that also control many Bulls and White Sox tickets and they might be inclined to screw JR by dropping those seats.

You think the hotel industry is going to allow those downstate and Iowa fans to be renting rooms in Milwaukee instead of Chicago? They will be screaming at Daley and JR doesn't want that headache.

It will happen but JR will get the best deal possible.
the cubs likely would not force st holders to buy tix that year. a la the bears when they were in champaign.

asg2003ws2005
03-09-2008, 07:18 AM
Care to make a friendly wager?

JR has his friends in the city as well including public officials, not the least of which is Daley.

So the city would demand it eh? Just like they demanded that the Sox build a new stadium right? (Additional income, hotels ect...) The Sox had to threaten to move to Florida for that to happen.

The income is not as much as you are making it out to be. We're not talking for as long as the Yankees played in Shea right? Boy I bet New York screamed over all that "lost" income going to Flushing right?

Sorry not buying your argument.

JR has as many friends in high places as the Cubs do. They won't risk PO'ing him either. (You forgot about that unpleasant result.)

LipFlushing is IN New York. In fact, it's in the Borough of Queens.

asg2003ws2005
03-09-2008, 07:23 AM
There's a name for trading your virtue for money. Yeah.
U.S. Cellular Field.

White Sox baseball presented by US Cellular.

2005 World Series Trophy Tour presented by US Cellular

United Scout Seats

Pontiac Fundamentals

Plumbing Council Centerfield Shower

Miller Lite Extra Base

Miller Lite Bullpen Sports Bar

Lasalle Bank Thome Ticker

Jim Beam Club

Need Some More?

Frater Perdurabo
03-09-2008, 08:41 AM
I suppose the Cubs could just play all road games the year that Wrigley gets rebuilt.

Kind of like that basketball team that's travels around all over the country, that's more about the show than the game itself. I can't remember what they're called, though.

Oh, that's right! The Cubs can be the Washington Generals for a year since they both share a wonderful tradition of losing!

:)

A.T. Money
03-09-2008, 12:00 PM
There would be lost revenue. The Cubs and their fans wouldn't be in the Chicago for the majority if not all season. So now you go from a two-team town to one team, and the Cubs are a bigger bank roll. That IS a big deal. Especially when the Cubs have a lot of fans from out of town who travel in to see their team.

JR will benefit in some capacity if the Cubs play there. Also, I'm sure many Cubs fans will change their mind on USCF. They may actually think it's a nice ballpark.

dickallen15
03-09-2008, 12:14 PM
I don't think JR wants the Cubs at USCF, but I do think he will get a sweetheart deal to OK it, at least for part of a season. What is being missed here is the fact that it is now being admitted Wrigley Field is in dire need of a $400 million facelift. They are now admitting the place is a dump.

soxwon
03-09-2008, 12:27 PM
The prick marrioti loves it, saying the cubs will outdraw us in our own park.
Do you think this would happen?
I cant see every game sold out-no way. I see alot of fans not Wanting to come down here. Thats the best hope for us.

TommyJohn
03-09-2008, 01:05 PM
The prick marrioti loves it, saying the cubs will outdraw us in our own park.
Do you think this would happen?
I cant see every game sold out-no way. I see alot of fans not Wanting to come down here. Thats the best hope for us.

They don't call him the evil dwarf ****tard for nothing.

It's Dankerific
03-09-2008, 01:47 PM
IF what the posters have been saying, that the cubs would not let us play games at wrigley when old comiskey renovation would have been an option, (and thus took it off the table). Then I hope JR and friends will Do EVERYTHING possible to keep them out of OUR park.

If the rebuilding decision was seperate, then I think we should just milk as much cash out of the idea as possible, while preserving our grass.

Brian26
03-09-2008, 02:42 PM
The prick marrioti loves it

Classy.

ws05champs
03-09-2008, 03:03 PM
In a way I kind of like the idea. Cubs fans would come to realize that the South Side is not such an evil, scary place afterall. They would learn that their beloved Wrigley field is really just a big urinal compared to the Cell. Some may even decide that being a Cubs fan because of "beautiful Wrigley Field" is not worth it and become Sox fans. The business around Wrigley would suffer while it would help the businesses and community around the Cell.

I do cringe at the thought of my season's ticked seat being contaminated by the ass of some Cubs fan. I would probably have to spray it with Lysol before every game.

itsnotrequired
03-09-2008, 03:38 PM
I do cringe at the thought of my season's ticked seat being contaminated by the ass of some Cubs fan. I would probably have to spray it with Lysol before every game.

I don't even leave my house for FEAR I will come in contact with a CUB SHEEP.

ND_Sox_Fan
03-09-2008, 07:18 PM
I do cringe at the thought of my season's ticked seat being contaminated by the ass of some Cubs fan. I would probably have to spray it with Lysol before every game.

You may want to look into one of these, and I am sure the Sox would also need plenty of them to clean up the park.
http://powermate.com/img/products/2007/10/16/300x300/pic_bab29975.jpg

itsnotrequired
03-09-2008, 07:23 PM
You may want to look into one of these, and I am sure the Sox would also need plenty of them to clean up the park.
http://powermate.com/img/products/2007/10/16/300x300/pic_bab29975.jpg

Chips puked on my seat last year. I could have used that thing.

Nellie_Fox
03-10-2008, 02:16 AM
Yeah.
U.S. Cellular Field.

White Sox baseball presented by US Cellular.

2005 World Series Trophy Tour presented by US Cellular

United Scout Seats

Pontiac Fundamentals

Plumbing Council Centerfield Shower

Miller Lite Extra Base

Miller Lite Bullpen Sports Bar

Lasalle Bank Thome Ticker

Jim Beam Club

Need Some More?And none of those approach the level of pimping yourself out that letting the Cubs play at USCF just for the money would be. Helping the Cubs hurts the Sox in the long run. None of the above does.

Soxfanspcu11
03-10-2008, 02:23 AM
There would be lost revenue. The Cubs and their fans wouldn't be in the Chicago for the majority if not all season. So now you go from a two-team town to one team, and the Cubs are a bigger bank roll. That IS a big deal. Especially when the Cubs have a lot of fans from out of town who travel in to see their team.

JR will benefit in some capacity if the Cubs play there. Also, I'm sure many Cubs fans will change their mind on USCF. They may actually think it's a nice ballpark.

:?:


I do cringe at the thought of my season's ticked seat being contaminated by the ass of some Cubs fan. I would probably have to spray it with Lysol before every game.

:rolling::moonwalk:

asg2003ws2005
03-10-2008, 04:28 AM
And none of those approach the level of pimping yourself out that letting the Cubs play at USCF just for the money would be. Helping the Cubs hurts the Sox in the long run. None of the above does.

I think selling out your history for a buck is akin to pimping yourself out.
The sox have time and time again shown us that anything can be bought and sold.
Letting the cubs play at "Insert Corporate Name here" Field for any length of a season is NOT that much of a stretch. And, as others have noted, the state OWNS the park. Why let the tennats of one state owned facility(assuming they do buy wrigley) play in Wisconsin or Missouri when they can play in another state owned facility?

C-Dawg
03-10-2008, 08:55 AM
I cant see every game sold out-no way. I see alot of fans not Wanting to come down here. Thats the best hope for us.

The architecture buffs and tourists who go to Wrigley because its, well, a "baseball mecca" certainly won't go to USCF.

Nellie_Fox
03-10-2008, 03:32 PM
...And, as others have noted, the state OWNS the park. Why let the tennats of one state owned facility(assuming they do buy wrigley) play in Wisconsin or Missouri when they can play in another state owned facility?Because, as others have also pointed out, the Sox have the right to veto any other use of the park. So, it's not up to the state.

asg2003ws2005
03-10-2008, 05:23 PM
Because, as others have also pointed out, the Sox have the right to veto any other use of the park. So, it's not up to the state. The fact remains. The Sox sold out long ago. Letting the Cubs play in their corporate name/logo festooned stadiumfor 20-50 games aint gunna be the end of the sox.

ws05champs
03-10-2008, 06:28 PM
You may want to look into one of these, and I am sure the Sox would also need plenty of them to clean up the park.
http://powermate.com/img/products/2007/10/16/300x300/pic_bab29975.jpg
Just imagine what the clean up crew at the Cell would have to go through after a Cubs game:
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/NBC/NBC.pics/Decontam.suit.cropped.jpg

Brian26
03-10-2008, 07:11 PM
The fact remains. The Sox sold out long ago. Letting the Cubs play in their corporate name/logo festooned stadiumfor 20-50 games aint gunna be the end of the sox.

Letting the Sox play at Wrigley before the Sox "sold out" and built their "corporate name/logo festooned" park wouldn't have killed the Cubs either, but the Cubs didn't allow that to happen.

Maybe you should do some homework on Chicago baseball history while you're sitting in the Bud Light Bleachers at Wrigley Field watching opponents pound Ted Lilly for doubles off the Under Armour outfield ads.

GeoffNotBlum
03-10-2008, 09:00 PM
The last time the four-letter National league team tried to play home games on the South Side (1918 World Series), all three teams--Chicago NL, Sox, and those Boston people--got so cursed up that it took over 80 years for any of them to win the World Series again. (Anyone else think that Wrigley Field itself might be the cause of the curse?)

If the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor one week later, light construction has already begun at Wrigley Field (Dec. 8, 1941; the steel was already in the stands*), and they probably have lights by the end of the '46 season. As such, Wrigley is just an old park, and not the only ballpark without lights for so many years. The Cubs have no more sentimental attachment to it than the Tigers have to their old park.

Didn't the American League President, back when there still was one, order the Sox to move out of the Old Roman's Diamond Palace back in the '80s? Why can't that owner-turned-commissioner currently in office do the same thing to the Cubs and Weeghman Park (as its original team called it)?

The Bears left Chicago for a year and it didn't kill them. The Packers played through renovations at Lambeau during that same year. Before the McGwire trade, the A's played through renovations in their ballpark. The Lakers and Clippers both play their home games at the Staples Center in LA (but wood is not grass).

In the Early 1990s, the Cubs were complaining about all the movies that were being made on their infield. Too bad they had just torn down equally historic Comiskey Park.

Maybe the Cubs could play home games in Des Moines or tour the Midwest League. Or perhaps Soldier Field could be modified for baseball, as was suggested for the third Major League during the 1981 strike.

*source: So you think you're a die-hard Cubs Fan, which I won by answering a trivia question on Coppock's show before an '85 Sox game.

Nellie_Fox
03-11-2008, 12:48 AM
The fact remains. The Sox sold out long ago. Letting the Cubs play in their corporate name/logo festooned stadium for 20-50 games ain't gonna be the end of the sox.And the fact remains that you still don't address the fact that the Sox are not in direct competition with all of those corporations whose logos "festoon" the stadium. They are, however, in direct financial competition with the Cubs.

There are degrees of "selling out." Giving your competition long-term benefits for a short-term financial gain is on the high end of the scale.

Soxfanspcu11
03-11-2008, 03:07 AM
The last time the four-letter National league team tried to play home games on the South Side (1918 World Series), all three teams--Chicago NL, Sox, and those Boston people--got so cursed up that it took over 80 years for any of them to win the World Series again. (Anyone else think that Wrigley Field itself might be the cause of the curse?)

If the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor one week later, light construction has already begun at Wrigley Field (Dec. 8, 1941; the steel was already in the stands*), and they probably have lights by the end of the '46 season. As such, Wrigley is just an old park, and not the only ballpark without lights for so many years. The Cubs have no more sentimental attachment to it than the Tigers have to their old park.

Didn't the American League President, back when there still was one, order the Sox to move out of the Old Roman's Diamond Palace back in the '80s? Why can't that owner-turned-commissioner currently in office do the same thing to the Cubs and Weeghman Park (as its original team called it)?

The Bears left Chicago for a year and it didn't kill them. The Packers played through renovations at Lambeau during that same year. Before the McGwire trade, the A's played through renovations in their ballpark. The Lakers and Clippers both play their home games at the Staples Center in LA (but wood is not grass).

In the Early 1990s, the Cubs were complaining about all the movies that were being made on their infield. Too bad they had just torn down equally historic Comiskey Park.

Maybe the Cubs could play home games in Des Moines or tour the Midwest League. Or perhaps Soldier Field could be modified for baseball, as was suggested for the third Major League during the 1981 strike.

*source: So you think you're a die-hard Cubs Fan, which I won by answering a trivia question on Coppock's show before an '85 Sox game.


:o:

:scratch:

I see that you are a new member and this is your first post but WOW!

You list some interesting facts and topics but Geez dude! You are ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!!!

I read and re-read your post several times and it is really hard to follow what you are trying to say. Perhaps you should explain your opinion a little better.

TDog
03-11-2008, 07:58 AM
...
The Bears left Chicago for a year and it didn't kill them. The Packers played through renovations at Lambeau during that same year. Before the McGwire trade, the A's played through renovations in their ballpark. The Lakers and Clippers both play their home games at the Staples Center in LA (but wood is not grass). ....

Don't compare football to baseball. Don't basketball to baseball. The Bulls historically had to share Chicago Stadium with the Black Hawks. There were probably a few other events thrown into most winter sports seasons. Baseball is different.

Football is only a matter of about seven or eight home games, never more than once a week. Inconveniencing fans less than 10 times a year is quite different from playing an entire home schedule in a city almost 100 miles away. Baseball is the soundtrack of summer, with teams playing just about every day. A team can play a few of their home games in a different city (as the White Sox did in Milwaukee in 1968 and 1969, for better or worse), bur a summer with the Cubs playing in Milwaukee would be a summer without Chicago Cubs baseball.

It isn't going to happen. It isn't going to happen in Milwaukee (which isn't a very good place to watch a baseball game anyway). It certainly isn't going to happen in St. Louis.

I don't think the Cubs will play a season of home games in the Cell either.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-11-2008, 12:23 PM
If Wrigley is purchased/taken over by the state, I could see this happening for a partial season. Will I like it? No. But, since the state owns the Cell, while JR can piss and moan about it, it's revenue and they'll likely offset any rents the White Sox pay that season by sharing the park.

Stupid as this may sound, the part that concerns me has to do with the park being trashed. It took one crosstown game for someone to damage Minoso's statue - what will 30+ games do to the park? Not the playing surface, but the amenities?

Also - no use of the fireworks or jumbotron either. That belongs to us. When they install it at Wrigley, then they can use it for their "home" games. Otherwise, **** them - it belongs to the White Sox.

It's Time
03-11-2008, 12:33 PM
My take on this is this:

It's like letting an enemy into your home, someone who you know dislikes you, letting them trash the place, use the shower and kitchen, sleep in your bed, eat your food and then laugh at you in the process as they are buidling new digs and trashing your place at the same time.

:o:

Lip Man 1
03-11-2008, 12:37 PM
Red Head:

Again just for the record, the decision is not the state's to make, JR has the final say by contract.

Lip

soxfan21
03-11-2008, 12:42 PM
If Wrigley is purchased/taken over by the state, I could see this happening for a partial season. Will I like it? No. But, since the state owns the Cell, while JR can piss and moan about it, it's revenue and they'll likely offset any rents the White Sox pay that season by sharing the park.

Stupid as this may sound, the part that concerns me has to do with the park being trashed. It took one crosstown game for someone to damage Minoso's statue - what will 30+ games do to the park? Not the playing surface, but the amenities?

Also - no use of the fireworks or jumbotron either. That belongs to us. When they install it at Wrigley, then they can use it for their "home" games. Otherwise, **** them - it belongs to the White Sox.

I totally agree with you about the park being trashed, the jumbotron, and the fireworks. I know that our park is better than theirs, and I remember very well what took place last year with the statues in the outfield. It would be a shame if more of the park went to hell because of some drunks fans trying to deface our park.

Hopefully they do not use our main scoreboard at all, no pre-game highlights, in game highlights, not even any adds. If they like how nostalgic their park is becuase of the scoreboard and the ivy and everything then they can sit there between innings and stare at a blank scoreboard then.

As for the fireworks, I doubt that they would actually use these for their games, so I guess this does not bother me that much. They are use to nothing after their homers are hit so why bother trying to set them off at all at the Cell.

I would really hate to see the cubs at OUR park even if it is just for a week of home games. But, this seems like it is becoming more and more inevitable because of all of the money that is involved. I could not really see them using Soldier Field either just because of how odd the demensions would be. I still say that if they want to update their park then do it in segments. It worked out for us and didn't really inconvienence us too much. So we had two tone seats during our World Series run, I, along with many other Sox fans, could probably care less about this because we won the whole thing.

It's Time
03-11-2008, 12:53 PM
Red Head:

Again just for the record, the decision is not the state's to make, JR has the final say by contract.

Lip

Bull****!

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/john_donovan/06/08/giambi/t1_selig.jpg
"I have the final say".

itsnotrequired
03-11-2008, 01:06 PM
I can't believe people are still worked up about this.

:superman:

Frontman
03-11-2008, 01:12 PM
I can't believe people are still worked up about this.

:superman:

I can though. Wrigley Field is a dump because the fans have treated as such, no matter how much spin the media makes about it being a "shrine" or "holy ground" of baseball.

There are enough Cubs fans who would come to the Cell, just to damage it. That's not to say the Sox fanbase are a bunch of angels; but during the crosstown series someone actually damaged the statue of Minnie. That would be the equivalent of one of us damaging Ernie's statue when it goes up, and I would find that deplorable.

There's something to be said about crosstown rivalry; but the problem lies in the morons who take it way, way too far. Damaging a statue of a great Chicago athlete is too far; no matter when they were Good Guy black and white, or Cubbie white and blue.

itsnotrequired
03-11-2008, 01:15 PM
I can though. Wrigley Field is a dump because the fans have treated as such, no matter how much spin the media makes about it being a "shrine" or "holy ground" of baseball.

There are enough Cubs fans who would come to the Cell, just to damage it. That's not to say the Sox fanbase are a bunch of angels; but during the crosstown series someone actually damaged the statue of Minnie. That would be the equivalent of one of us damaging Ernie's statue when it goes up, and I would find that deplorable.

There's something to be said about crosstown rivalry; but the problem lies in the morons who take it way, way too far. Damaging a statue of a great Chicago athlete is too far; no matter when they were Good Guy black and white, or Cubbie white and blue.

Does anyone know for certain that a Cub fan damaged the statue?

kittle42
03-11-2008, 01:25 PM
Does anyone know for certain that a Cub fan damaged the statue?

With about the same certainity that a Sox fan "ruined the ivy."

This stuff is childish and petty. If Wrigley gets refurbished, the Cubs will play at the Cell. The Cubs will probably still outdraw the Sox, and the media will be flooded with inane comments about it. Everyone just get over it now and serve yourselves better for the future.

soxfan13
03-11-2008, 02:19 PM
Red Head:

Again just for the record, the decision is not the state's to make, JR has the final say by contract.

Lip

Can you please find that provision because everything I have read about this in the papers give the FINAL decision to the state. And if JR really does have the power to veto it I cant see Selig sitting back and saying ok. I would think he would invoke some "for the good of baseball" clause and force JR's hand.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-11-2008, 02:20 PM
Red Head:

Again just for the record, the decision is not the state's to make, JR has the final say by contract.

Lip

Lip - I understand your point completely. However, MLB and the city will not let this come to pass if a feasible solution at 35th St exists. Remember, time stopped in IL to get the Sox to stay. JR will be "taken care of" should this need come to light.

Lip Man 1
03-11-2008, 02:38 PM
I have asked some in the organization if they could please clarify this for me. I'll get back to you when I hear something.

Lip

soxfan13
03-11-2008, 02:41 PM
I have asked some in the organization if they could please clarify this for me. I'll get back to you when I hear something.

Lip

with proof!!!:wink::gulp:

It's Time
03-11-2008, 03:10 PM
http://www.triumphbooks.com/filebin/FullsizeS07/cubs%20fans%20guide%20happiness300px_wi%20NEW.jpg"Here we come"

Jaffar
03-11-2008, 03:33 PM
I have asked some in the organization if they could please clarify this for me. I'll get back to you when I hear something.

Lip

JR was on Mike North this morning so you can probably find the interview online but he basically said he was open to letting the Cubs use US Cellular but that he has yet to see a proposal for doing so pretty much saying it was his decision.

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 04:45 PM
Letting the Sox play at Wrigley before the Sox "sold out" and built their "corporate name/logo festooned" park wouldn't have killed the Cubs either, but the Cubs didn't allow that to happen.

Maybe you should do some homework on Chicago baseball history while you're sitting in the Bud Light Bleachers at Wrigley Field watching opponents pound Ted Lilly for doubles off the Under Armour outfield ads. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Nellie's comments.
The sox have NO dignity. Yeah, the cubs dont either, but that's not the point here. He's saying the sox should sell out thier dignity for a few bucks.
They are worse than a 47th street hooker when it comes to thier dignity.
I say take the money and shut up. It's what they're good at.

Nellie_Fox
03-11-2008, 04:49 PM
They are worse than a 47th street hooker when it comes to their dignity.
I say take the money and shut up. It's what they're good at.
:dtroll: :whatever:

Mr.1Dog
03-11-2008, 04:50 PM
:popcorn:

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 04:56 PM
And the fact remains that you still don't address the fact that the Sox are not in direct competition with all of those corporations whose logos "festoon" the stadium. They are, however, in direct financial competition with the Cubs.

There are degrees of "selling out." Giving your competition long-term benefits for a short-term financial gain is on the high end of the scale.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

One of my company's divisions uses heavy machinery. The same machinery that it's DIRECT rivals uses.
When it breaks down, and the company have no immediate solution from our service contractor, a call is made out to the DIRECT RIVALS. Who have helped if possible. When thye're equipment goes down, and again, no immediate solution from the service contractor, my company is asked to help out.

Not that hard.

Now, look at the current situation.

IF Jerry can squeeze direct compensation, or a reduced rent/cailities fees payment, wouldn't it HELP the sox, even if it was short term?

Tthe state is NOT going to want to lose all the tax revenue from the loss of 81 games cuz the sox hare having a hissy fit.

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 04:59 PM
Bull****!

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/john_donovan/06/08/giambi/t1_selig.jpg
"I have the final say".
Yeah, but this guy would rather help out HIS team, the Brewers. Yeah, he sold them, but he still goes to pretty much every game.

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 05:05 PM
:dtroll: :whatever: Nice comeback.

Again, As I've stated before, Having a cell phone company replace the name of the founding family of the White sox, and by extension, the American League, is worse than letting Woo Woo and his frat boy buddies invade the park for a part of a season.

Frontman
03-11-2008, 05:07 PM
Does anyone know for certain that a Cub fan damaged the statue?

Does anyone know for certain that Wrigley is falling apart and is treated as a dump by its own fanbase?

That would be yes.

Do we know for certain that it was a Cubs fan who damaged the statue? No, nothing is certain.

Other than the fact that Wrigley is in as poor of shape as it is because its fans don't care about the park. Don't change it, don't do anything with it, but if they cared about their ballpark they wouldn't shut down games for minutes at a time when garbage is strewn onto the field. It wouldn't smell like it does, and it certainly wouldn't need to be completely shut down for over a year to make renovations. They should do what the Sox did, make a 5 year plan and fix the flamin' thing in stages. If that can't be done; maybe they should consider LEVELING it as it probably would be better to start from scratch.

I know at least one Cubs fan who would gladly deface all of the statues on the concourse; her hatred of the Sox run that deep. I can't stand we do the stupid "Crosstown Series" because of fans like her.

Frontman
03-11-2008, 05:10 PM
Nice comeback.

Again, As I've stated before, Having a cell phone company replace the name of the founding family of the White sox, and by extension, the American League, is worse than letting Woo Woo and his frat boy buddies invade the park for a part of a season.

Uh-huh. You do know Wrigley was named by the family to sell more of their product too; right?

And yeah, its horrendous to sell naming rights. It's never been done in the history of sports prior to the Sox doing it.

Don't expect to be treated with any intelligence when you compare selling naming rights that the MAJORITY OF SPORT FRANCHISES HAVE DONE ALREADY to allowing the Cubs to use Sox park after THEIR refusal to do the same for us.

KenBerryGrab
03-11-2008, 05:13 PM
Again, As I've stated before, Having a cell phone company replace the name of the founding family of the White sox, and by extension, the American League, is worse than letting Woo Woo and his frat boy buddies invade the park for a part of a season.

Well, thanks to that money, the park is much more hospitable, kids have more reason to become fans and the whole Sox experience has gotten better. I don't think the Cubs using the park will accomplish anything close to that.

Frontman
03-11-2008, 05:16 PM
Well, thanks to that money, the park is much more hospitable, kids have more reason to become fans and the whole Sox experience has gotten better. I don't think the Cubs using the park will accomplish anything close to that.

Also, with the naming rights; funds used previously for upkeep to the park went elsewhere. I stand by that the funds used by the naming rights sale gave more resources for the franchise to use, thus allowing the 2005 club to be put together.

If it only was that simple, I would have them re-name the park every few years.

Oh, and that Cubs fan I mentioned? Also said she would rather have another 100 years of no championships, so her beloved Wrigley would never change.

Yes, there are that stupid of Cubs fans out there.

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 05:17 PM
Uh-huh. You do know Wrigley was named by the family to sell more of their product too; right?

And yeah, its horrendous to sell naming rights. It's never been done in the history of sports prior to the Sox doing it.

Don't expect to be treated with any intelligence when you compare selling naming rights that the MAJORITY OF SPORT FRANCHISES HAVE DONE ALREADY to allowing the Cubs to use Sox park after THEIR refusal to do the same for us.
we're NOT talking about other teams, we're talking about the SOX.

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 05:19 PM
Also, with the naming rights; funds used previously for upkeep to the park went elsewhere. I stand by that the funds used by the naming rights sale gave more resources for the franchise to use, thus allowing the 2005 club to be put together.

If it only was that simple, I would have them re-name the park every few years.

Oh, and that Cubs fan I mentioned? Also said she would rather have another 100 years of no championships, so her beloved Wrigley would never change.

Yes, there are that stupid of Cubs fans out there.The maintence budget is still spent on maintence. Naming rights money went to making the park less of an anitseptic eyesore.

Frontman
03-11-2008, 05:21 PM
The maintence budget is still spent on maintence. Naming rights money went to making the park less of an anitseptic eyesore.

Good thing you ignored the fact that quite a few other teams are also "whore-ish" in nature in selling their naming rights/building new facilities. Don't make the Sox into being scum by rebuilding and renaming a ballpark; when other teams in all major sports have done so.

But hey, that might not support your comparision on insulting the Sox franchise.

BRDSR
03-11-2008, 05:58 PM
I do cringe at the thought of my season's ticked seat being contaminated by the ass of some Cubs fan. I would probably have to spray it with Lysol before every game.

The Sox could do some interesting promotional days. How about signing some monster contract with Lysol and making every first day of a homestand Lysol Day. "First 20,000 fans receive a Lysol keychain, complete with a tiny can of aerosol spray for your seat!" That's the kind of promotion that makes national headlines and everybody gets fat and happy (except the Cubs and their fans, who are the butt of the joke). In fact, I may apply for that trademark just in case.

As far as letting the Cubs play at USCF...I'd be for it at the right price. The reasons have already been stated.

ilsox7
03-11-2008, 06:34 PM
The Sox could do some interesting promotional days. How about signing some monster contract with Lysol and making every first day of a homestand Lysol Day. "First 20,000 fans receive a Lysol keychain, complete with a tiny can of aerosol spray for your seat!" That's the kind of promotion that makes national headlines and everybody gets fat and happy (except the Cubs and their fans, who are the butt of the joke). In fact, I may apply for that trademark just in case.

As far as letting the Cubs play at USCF...I'd be for it at the right price. The reasons have already been stated.

Screw that. I say they just put up a ticker in right field that tracks how much money the Cubs have put into the Sox's pockets.

cub killer
03-11-2008, 06:36 PM
Also, with the naming rights; funds used previously for upkeep to the park went elsewhere. I stand by that the funds used by the naming rights sale gave more resources for the franchise to use, thus allowing the 2005 club to be put together.

If it only was that simple, I would have them re-name the park every few years.

Oh, and that Cubs fan I mentioned? Also said she would rather have another 100 years of no championships, so her beloved Wrigley would never change.

Yes, there are that stupid of Cubs fans out there.

typical scrub fan: feminine, attracted to guys and doesn't know a DAMN thing about baseball!!!!!! and says stupid, inane, nonsensical comments such as that. that's why i hate that team for other reasons in addition to them being from the other side of town.

for wrestling fans out there, the scrubs are like John Cena. Only clueless kids and women root for them. No true men ever do. We know better

ilsox7
03-11-2008, 06:41 PM
typical scrub fan: feminine, attracted to guys and doesn't know a DAMN thing about baseball!!!!!! and says stupid, inane, nonsensical comments such as that. that's why i hate that team for other reasons in addition to them being from the other side of town.

for wrestling fans out there, the scrubs are like John Cena. Only clueless kids and women root for them. No true men ever do. We know better

Do you realize this is whitesoxinteractive.com and not anticubsinteractive.com?

Cuck the Fubs
03-11-2008, 06:42 PM
Screw that. I say they just put up a ticker in right field that tracks how much money the Cubs have put into the Sox's pockets.

:bandance: I love the sound of that one :bandance:

BRDSR
03-11-2008, 06:57 PM
typical scrub fan: feminine, attracted to guys and doesn't know a DAMN thing about baseball!!!!!!

So...are we talking about men or women here? If men, there's really no reason to denigrate the homosexual community by equating them with Cubs fans.

Also, love the idea of putting a ticket up with the amount the Sox have pocketed because the Cubs are playing at USCF. There are just so many good ideas like these that could come out of this.

kittle42
03-11-2008, 06:59 PM
typical scrub fan: feminine, attracted to guys and doesn't know a DAMN thing about baseball!!!!!! and says stupid, inane, nonsensical comments such as that. that's why i hate that team for other reasons in addition to them being from the other side of town.

for wrestling fans out there, the scrubs are like John Cena. Only clueless kids and women root for them. No true men ever do. We know better

Thanks for (1) getting this thread Roadhoused; and (2) proving my claim earlier that you are Flubsessed.

Oh, and nice classless, very thinly-veiled homosexual bashing. Congrats on the classiness of your first 27 posts!

ilsox7
03-11-2008, 07:00 PM
Thanks for (1) getting this thread Roadhoused; and (2) proving my claim earlier that you are Flubsessed.

What gave it away? His/her name or his/her incessant, Cub-hating posts? :D:

asg2003ws2005
03-11-2008, 07:18 PM
Good thing you ignored the fact that quite a few other teams are also "whore-ish" in nature in selling their naming rights/building new facilities. Don't make the Sox into being scum by rebuilding and renaming a ballpark; when other teams in all major sports have done so.

But hey, that might not support your comparision on insulting the Sox franchise.we could argue all day about this.

point it, i dont care if the cubs play at the cell. let them, and let jerry get free money for doing so.
and if a cubs fan tries to chortle about thier "bigger attendance in the same park", i can still retort with " well, if the tribsters actually cards about staying there for the long term, there would have been no need for a prolonged rennovation/wrigley closing.

Frontman
03-11-2008, 07:34 PM
Screw that. I say they just put up a ticker in right field that tracks how much money the Cubs have put into the Sox's pockets.

I like this. They could even put up a sign reading, "Money spent by Cubs fans to support winning baseball."

ChiSoxGirl
03-11-2008, 10:12 PM
Does anyone know for certain that a Cub fan damaged the statue?

I started this (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52951&page=2) thread in 2005, and this (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=746105&postcount=25) post confirms that the statue was damaged by Cub fans. Take it for what it's worth.... :dunno:

itsnotrequired
03-11-2008, 10:16 PM
I started this (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52951&page=2) thread in 2005, and this (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=746105&postcount=25) post confirms that the statue was damaged by Cub fans. Take it for what it's worth.... :dunno:

Alas, I don't take it for much. All that fado "confirmed" is that the bat was broken, the guys got away, the Sox recovered the bat and it would be repaired. It never said they were Cub fans.

I'm not saying there is some kind of conspiracy here or anything like that but I've seen Sox "fans" doing some things at the park that would make you think they rooted for another team.

:shrug:

kittle42
03-11-2008, 10:37 PM
I'm not saying there is some kind of conspiracy here or anything like that but I've seen Sox "fans" doing some things at the park that would make you think they rooted for another team.

:shrug:

Amen. Stupid people are stupid people. A LOT of people at sporting events act stupid.

itsnotrequired
03-11-2008, 10:44 PM
Amen. Stupid people are stupid people. A LOT of people at sporting events act stupid.

I'm only going to wear Packer gear to the games this year.

Jerko
03-11-2008, 11:00 PM
I'm kinda torn on this. the team I follow closest after the Sox are the Reds, so I can see myself going to a few Cub-Red games. A lot of people here like the Brew Crew, the Cards, etc. On the other hand, I see images of Wrigley getting trashed every time there is a bad call, and those people supposedly love that place. How would they act in a place they don't care for??? I'm not worried about them damaging the Cell or destroying the neigborhood, but it would probably suck going to a Cub home game there. I guess if the Sox make out financially, go for it. I'll just do what I do now, avoid Cub home games if it comes to that.

soxfan21
03-11-2008, 11:08 PM
I would just wonder about ticket prices should this scenario take place. Would the cubs just use the current Sox ticket prices, or would their prices be higher, just as they are at Wrigley right now? Or,would the Sox raise their ticket prices to match that of the cubs? I know that this would take some ironing out to figure out how much to charge and what not, but I just hope that should this take place that Sox ticket prices do not sky rocket overnight.

whitem0nkey
03-12-2008, 01:29 AM
I like the idea of being able to see some more NL games. I would not cheer against the cubs or for those teams, but I would be able to see some stars that I respect as a baseball fan but would normally not have a chance of seeing. and it is nice to know doing this would also put $$$ in the sox pockets.

Soxfanspcu11
03-12-2008, 04:34 AM
What gave it away? His/her name or his/her incessant, Cub-hating posts? :D:


That's exactly what I was thinking!

No Offense Kittle, but you MUST have known just by reading his name!

BRDSR
03-12-2008, 11:33 AM
That's exactly what I was thinking!

No Offense Kittle, but you MUST have known just by reading his name!

He could have thought it was a Carlos Lee reference...

asg2003ws2005
03-12-2008, 01:16 PM
I like the idea of being able to see some more NL games. I would not cheer against the cubs or for those teams, but I would be able to see some stars that I respect as a baseball fan but would normally not have a chance of seeing. and it is nice to know doing this would also put $$$ in the sox pockets.how much harder is it NOW? the cubs play 8 miles north of the sox.

Frontman
03-13-2008, 08:46 AM
how much harder is it NOW? the cubs play 8 miles north of the sox.

You do realize how hard it is to get tickets for Wrigley, right?

whitem0nkey
03-13-2008, 09:35 AM
how much harder is it NOW? the cubs play 8 miles north of the sox.

1 point is what frontman said.

and lets say last minute I decided to go to a game on a Wednesday.

I work in Westmont, so when I get off at 5:00 i have enough time to by tickets at work, drive to my house in riverside, change and make it to the park by 6:30-6:45 while picking up a friend.

I could not do that if I wanted to catch a game on the north side.

and I know there are a lot of others that have been in the same situation

hi im skot
03-13-2008, 12:04 PM
typical scrub fan: feminine, attracted to guys and doesn't know a DAMN thing about baseball!!!!!! and says stupid, inane, nonsensical comments such as that. that's why i hate that team for other reasons in addition to them being from the other side of town.


Are you ****ing serious?

Dumbass.

wdelaney72
03-13-2008, 12:10 PM
Uncle Jerry was on North's show this week and North brought this very subject up. All Jerry said was that he hasn't seen any offers yet and he couldn't say anything about it until he did. In other words, it is an option for the right price.... and this is the correct reply.
Jerry's no dummy. He'll allow it, but not without making them pay.

kittle42
03-13-2008, 01:48 PM
1 point is what frontman said.

and lets say last minute I decided to go to a game on a Wednesday.

I work in Westmont, so when I get off at 5:00 i have enough time to by tickets at work, drive to my house in riverside, change and make it to the park by 6:30-6:45 while picking up a friend.

I could not do that if I wanted to catch a game on the north side.

and I know there are a lot of others that have been in the same situation

Move out of the sticks. :cool:

kittle42
03-13-2008, 01:49 PM
Are you ****ing serious?

Dumbass.

Yes he is and yes he is.

jenn2080
03-13-2008, 01:51 PM
You do realize how hard it is to get tickets for Wrigley, right?


You walk up to the stadium around the first pitch and you can get your ticket for face.

KenBerryGrab
03-13-2008, 03:29 PM
Nice line from Ozzie on the subject:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/840100,CST-SPT-soxnt13.article

asg2003ws2005
03-13-2008, 03:48 PM
You do realize how hard it is to get tickets for Wrigley, right?aside from redsox or yankees at wrigley. i'v eneve rhad aproblem getting tix to a cubs game.

Frontman
03-13-2008, 05:51 PM
aside from redsox or yankees at wrigley. i'v eneve rhad aproblem getting tix to a cubs game.

Ok, let me re-state my opinion.

Do you realize how hard it is to get Cubs tickets without paying over-inflated prices in advance?

My friend had his bachelor party at Wrigley. To get tickets through a broker for a weekend summer game, non-Sox/RedSox/Yankee series, it was twice the face value through a broker. I can't afford that. I can afford White Sox tickets; and told him he should have the party at the Cell. He didn't.

This was the summer of 2005. (This is also the same guy who is from Minnesota, so he really doubly was kicking himself after the season was over.)

And I'm sorry, I'm not traveling to a ballpark to buy a ticket outside for "face value" after the first pitch. I enjoy the whole game, not missing part of the game, even a batter or two; at the beginning.

asg2003ws2005
03-13-2008, 06:22 PM
Ok, let me re-state my opinion.

Do you realize how hard it is to get Cubs tickets without paying over-inflated prices in advance?

My friend had his bachelor party at Wrigley. To get tickets through a broker for a weekend summer game, non-Sox/RedSox/Yankee series, it was twice the face value through a broker. I can't afford that. I can afford White Sox tickets; and told him he should have the party at the Cell. He didn't.

This was the summer of 2005. (This is also the same guy who is from Minnesota, so he really doubly was kicking himself after the season was over.)

And I'm sorry, I'm not traveling to a ballpark to buy a ticket outside for "face value" after the first pitch. I enjoy the whole game, not missing part of the game, even a batter or two; at the beginning.Point is, you can get them.