It's funny how the media takes these "offers" seriously. If a team owns, outright, its stadium, why would it move? Don't these clown understand the economics of it? Teams move when their stadium deal is no longer attractive either because the rent went up or someone else is offering a better rental package.
The pay ZERO RENT for their stadium. If they move to Rosemont, DuPage County, County Cork Ireland or whereever, they will still own Wrigley and will have to pay the associated expenses. Why, then, would they move to a new stadium while still owning one that will no longer be used to its maximum revenue potential?
The Cubs aren't moving. Nobody will buy Wrigley from them to let them move (what would a buyer do with Wrigley, its annual expenses are very high and the buyer's ability to generate appropriate revenues is limited).
All hail The Rick