The status quo is not acceptable.
Unfortunately, Tom Ricketts is quickly becoming one of the few people that actually wants Wrigley to be renovated.
The rooftop owners don't want the stadium renovated. They say it's because of partially obstructed views. I believe it is because the renovations will make Wrigley Field a more attractive option than the rooftops.
Last week, a group of residents, with their leader Tom Tunney, demanded that the Cubs provide more parking before they would approve of any renovation plans.
Now residents don't want a parking garage near the ballpark because it will cause too much congestion.
Dave Kaplan has indicated on a couple of occasions now that some in the Ricketts family inner circles are fed up.
Today the Tribune reports that the ballhawks, the people who catch home run balls before and during games on Waveland Avenue, are balking at the renovations plans because the proposed video board in left field would interfere with their collecting of baseballs.
Tom Ricketts repeated on numerous occasions yesterday that he is committed to seeing this stupid renovation thing through. He said that Wrigley is too important to consider any other move.
Wrong. Tom Ricketts needs to stop acting like a fan (and a fan from 15 years ago at that) and consider other options.
Ricketts is the most popular sports owner in this city right now...not because he's doing a good job with the fans and producing a good ballclub. He's popular because people feel sorry for him. He's going to spend $500 million of his own money and no one will allow him to spend it.
Right now the call for moving to a new ballpark is louder than it has ever been. Some less than scientific polls have shown that a large majority of people support building a new ballpark.
Ricketts should seize this opportunity and begin the long process of building a new stadium NOW! Renovations will only patch up this ballpark. Less than 15 years from now this place is going to need work again. Then what? The same crap will happen all over again.
Build a new ballpark. Start the process now! When it's to the point that the goofs who catch home run balls on Waveland are complaining, it's time to go.
Start the process to build a new stadium now...before the seagulls, street musicians, and Ronnie Woo Woo start to protest the renovation.
Stop with this sentimental bullshit. Sentimental feelings have only produced 104 years of losing.
IT'S NOT WORTH IT.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
The rooftops' issue: It's not blocked views
I've made this argument before...and I'm going to make it again.
The rooftop owners do not want Wrigley to be renovated.
It has very little to actually do with partially blocked views from the rooftops. People who sit on the rooftops already expect a partially obstructed view. People who sit on the rooftops for games are there, for the most part, to eat, drink and socialize. The rooftops are the corporate suites that the Cubs lack. The game on the field, whether you believe it or not, is really secondary to most of these people. If their views from the game are hindered a bit more than they already are, they aren't going to give that big of a fuss about it. If the people really wanted to see the game as their main focus, they could get tickets inside the ballpark.
If the Cubs put up more ads in the outfield or even a video board, it really isn't going to affect the attendance on the rooftops. Their argument is bullshit.
But the rooftop owners are fighting this anyway. Why?
Because the truth is, they want to block any renovation of Wrigley Field.
Why?
Quite simply, its the renovation that will eat into the rooftop attendance.
We've all seen the renderings of what the Cubs want to do to the ballpark. They want to add restaurants, clubs, lounges, new food options...all inside the ballpark. These are all things that right now the rooftops have but Wrigley Field really doesn't.
The renovations are being done to fix the deficiencies that Wrigley Field has as far as fan amenities. Those deficiencies are currently filled by the rooftops.
A deal will be reached between the Cubs and Tom Tunney and the Cubs will get their advertising and video board. The rooftops will be defeated...but then they will move onto some other issue to try to obstruct the renovation from moving forward. The battle between the Cubs and the rooftops will not end until the rooftop owners have been forced to sell their buildings to the Ricketts family.
It's just not worth the time, stress and effort.
The Ricketts family should move and build a modern version of Wrigley, with rooftops and all...and build it outside of Wrigleyville. The continued bickering is a distraction which pulls focus away from what the goal for this organization should be...winning the World Series.
The rooftop owners do not want Wrigley to be renovated.
It has very little to actually do with partially blocked views from the rooftops. People who sit on the rooftops already expect a partially obstructed view. People who sit on the rooftops for games are there, for the most part, to eat, drink and socialize. The rooftops are the corporate suites that the Cubs lack. The game on the field, whether you believe it or not, is really secondary to most of these people. If their views from the game are hindered a bit more than they already are, they aren't going to give that big of a fuss about it. If the people really wanted to see the game as their main focus, they could get tickets inside the ballpark.
If the Cubs put up more ads in the outfield or even a video board, it really isn't going to affect the attendance on the rooftops. Their argument is bullshit.
But the rooftop owners are fighting this anyway. Why?
Because the truth is, they want to block any renovation of Wrigley Field.
Why?
Quite simply, its the renovation that will eat into the rooftop attendance.
We've all seen the renderings of what the Cubs want to do to the ballpark. They want to add restaurants, clubs, lounges, new food options...all inside the ballpark. These are all things that right now the rooftops have but Wrigley Field really doesn't.
The renovations are being done to fix the deficiencies that Wrigley Field has as far as fan amenities. Those deficiencies are currently filled by the rooftops.
A deal will be reached between the Cubs and Tom Tunney and the Cubs will get their advertising and video board. The rooftops will be defeated...but then they will move onto some other issue to try to obstruct the renovation from moving forward. The battle between the Cubs and the rooftops will not end until the rooftop owners have been forced to sell their buildings to the Ricketts family.
It's just not worth the time, stress and effort.
The Ricketts family should move and build a modern version of Wrigley, with rooftops and all...and build it outside of Wrigleyville. The continued bickering is a distraction which pulls focus away from what the goal for this organization should be...winning the World Series.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
A week before the deadline...the rooftops' desperate pitch
With a week before the supposed April 1st deadline to get a deal for the Wrigley Field renovations, we should be expecting a lot of noise being made by all 4 parties involved in these talks: The Ricketts family, the rooftop owners, Tom Tunney and City Hall.
Today, the rooftops did not let us down.
The Wrigleyville Rooftops Organization...the cartel of owners of the buildings around Wrigley Field...released a press statement to try to rebuild some of their destroyed public perception.
I do not have a copy of the press statement, but I did write the key highlights of it as it was read out loud on the radio. The statement contained five points which they claim were corrections to some of the inaccurate information they claim the Cubs have thrown out in this process. (Interestingly enough, I haven't heard the Cubs mention anything specifically about the rooftops...most of what has been said has been by the media...so take that as you may.)
Point 1: The 2004 between the Cubs and the rooftop owners is not a hindrance for the Cubs to move forward on renovation plans.
While there is some validity to this, it really is not looking at the big picture of Wrigley Field renovation. First off, the Cubs could very well do major parts of this renovation without the approval of the rooftops owners...especially the early parts of the renovations that would focus more on the player facilities. The problem with doing this without a deal in place is two-fold. First, you don't guarantee that you will actually be able to finish the renovations as needed. If the Cubs spend the first $100 million on the renovations and then are not allowed to do the rest, the team will likely be forced to move and will have wasted a lot of money in the process. Second, and most importantly, without a deal in place, the Cubs don't have a way to finance the renovations. This disagreement is not about being allowed to do the renovations...it's about financing the renovations through increased advertising around the ballpark.
Point 2: When the Ricketts family bought the club, they knew what they were getting into and knew about the agreement with the rooftop owners that runs until 2024.
There isn't much to argue about this. At the same time, I don't think the Ricketts family thought the rooftop owners were going to be such pricks about every little thing that went on around the ballpark. The Ricketts family has done a lot to earn goodwill in the neighborhood. I think they thought the rooftop owners would be as appreciative as the rest of the neighborhood has been. They were wrong.
Point 3: The Ricketts family tried to buy 5 of the rooftop buildings a few years ago with the intention of adding a video board and advertising on the rooftops, similar to what the rooftops proposed a couple months ago.
Can't deny that fact. As the same time, the Ricketts family would have had more control of all that if they had owned the buildings. On top of that, it seems to me that the Ricketts family found a more effective way of advertising...by putting the ads inside the ballpark. Why didn't the deals for those rooftops happen? Nothing has been made public as to why...but it very well could be that Ricketts family pulled out because they didn't think it was a good investment. (Considering the poor financial condition of many of the rooftops right now...it was probably a smart move.)
Point 4: The Ricketts family is about to get a ton of money with a new TV deal. At the same time, they are trying to bleed everyone else for money.
Yes and no. First off, the new TV deal has to do with the WGN contract expiring. The Cubs will still be under contract to show games on CSN. They will not be getting nearly as big of a TV contract as many other clubs have been getting...at least not until the CSN deal is over (which is not for a number of years to come). This is a gross exaggeration on the rooftop owner's part.
Point 5: Many of the rooftop owners have lived in Wrigleyville for over 30 years and entered into a fair contract with the Cubs that has made both sides a lot of money. It is unfair that the Cubs are trying to back out of that deal. And many of these rooftop owners have invested a huge amount of money in their businesses.
The business models that were created by these people starting around 20 years ago revolved around stealing another business's product. On top of that, the Cubs have been there for 100 years. No matter what you say, the Cubs were there first. Here is the thing...if the rooftop owners are so upset about the Cubs backing out of the deal...SUE THEM! Why won't they? I think because they are in a situation where they probably cannot win. On top of that, many of these rooftop owners are already in financial trouble and aren't likely to be able to adequately defend themselves. For the Cubs, the money they receive from the rooftops on a yearly basis is really minimal...probably on the order of $3 to $4 million a year (of which some rooftops have, in the past, been reluctant to pay up). The Ricketts family does not really have much incentive to continue the relationship with them...especially with the fact that a single ad sign in the outfield could probably cover the cost of breaking the deal with the rooftops.
**********************************************
This site is dedicated to getting the Cubs to move out of Wrigley Field. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to deal with these people any more? Even if a renovation deal is reached in the next week or so, the Ricketts family will have to butt heads with this group again. It's going to happen. Something new will come up.
It's not worth it.
This whole argument should be about how to allow the Cubs to win more ballgames. As long as the rooftops are out there, they will continue to distract the Cubs from this goal. The rooftops help the Cubs in no way...not even close.
Move!
Oh...and to the rooftop owners...you should probably get a different PR firm because the one you are using really is not doing a good job at making your case. Or maybe you just do not have a case to make.
Today, the rooftops did not let us down.
The Wrigleyville Rooftops Organization...the cartel of owners of the buildings around Wrigley Field...released a press statement to try to rebuild some of their destroyed public perception.
I do not have a copy of the press statement, but I did write the key highlights of it as it was read out loud on the radio. The statement contained five points which they claim were corrections to some of the inaccurate information they claim the Cubs have thrown out in this process. (Interestingly enough, I haven't heard the Cubs mention anything specifically about the rooftops...most of what has been said has been by the media...so take that as you may.)
Point 1: The 2004 between the Cubs and the rooftop owners is not a hindrance for the Cubs to move forward on renovation plans.
While there is some validity to this, it really is not looking at the big picture of Wrigley Field renovation. First off, the Cubs could very well do major parts of this renovation without the approval of the rooftops owners...especially the early parts of the renovations that would focus more on the player facilities. The problem with doing this without a deal in place is two-fold. First, you don't guarantee that you will actually be able to finish the renovations as needed. If the Cubs spend the first $100 million on the renovations and then are not allowed to do the rest, the team will likely be forced to move and will have wasted a lot of money in the process. Second, and most importantly, without a deal in place, the Cubs don't have a way to finance the renovations. This disagreement is not about being allowed to do the renovations...it's about financing the renovations through increased advertising around the ballpark.
Point 2: When the Ricketts family bought the club, they knew what they were getting into and knew about the agreement with the rooftop owners that runs until 2024.
There isn't much to argue about this. At the same time, I don't think the Ricketts family thought the rooftop owners were going to be such pricks about every little thing that went on around the ballpark. The Ricketts family has done a lot to earn goodwill in the neighborhood. I think they thought the rooftop owners would be as appreciative as the rest of the neighborhood has been. They were wrong.
Point 3: The Ricketts family tried to buy 5 of the rooftop buildings a few years ago with the intention of adding a video board and advertising on the rooftops, similar to what the rooftops proposed a couple months ago.
Can't deny that fact. As the same time, the Ricketts family would have had more control of all that if they had owned the buildings. On top of that, it seems to me that the Ricketts family found a more effective way of advertising...by putting the ads inside the ballpark. Why didn't the deals for those rooftops happen? Nothing has been made public as to why...but it very well could be that Ricketts family pulled out because they didn't think it was a good investment. (Considering the poor financial condition of many of the rooftops right now...it was probably a smart move.)
Point 4: The Ricketts family is about to get a ton of money with a new TV deal. At the same time, they are trying to bleed everyone else for money.
Yes and no. First off, the new TV deal has to do with the WGN contract expiring. The Cubs will still be under contract to show games on CSN. They will not be getting nearly as big of a TV contract as many other clubs have been getting...at least not until the CSN deal is over (which is not for a number of years to come). This is a gross exaggeration on the rooftop owner's part.
Point 5: Many of the rooftop owners have lived in Wrigleyville for over 30 years and entered into a fair contract with the Cubs that has made both sides a lot of money. It is unfair that the Cubs are trying to back out of that deal. And many of these rooftop owners have invested a huge amount of money in their businesses.
The business models that were created by these people starting around 20 years ago revolved around stealing another business's product. On top of that, the Cubs have been there for 100 years. No matter what you say, the Cubs were there first. Here is the thing...if the rooftop owners are so upset about the Cubs backing out of the deal...SUE THEM! Why won't they? I think because they are in a situation where they probably cannot win. On top of that, many of these rooftop owners are already in financial trouble and aren't likely to be able to adequately defend themselves. For the Cubs, the money they receive from the rooftops on a yearly basis is really minimal...probably on the order of $3 to $4 million a year (of which some rooftops have, in the past, been reluctant to pay up). The Ricketts family does not really have much incentive to continue the relationship with them...especially with the fact that a single ad sign in the outfield could probably cover the cost of breaking the deal with the rooftops.
**********************************************
This site is dedicated to getting the Cubs to move out of Wrigley Field. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to deal with these people any more? Even if a renovation deal is reached in the next week or so, the Ricketts family will have to butt heads with this group again. It's going to happen. Something new will come up.
It's not worth it.
This whole argument should be about how to allow the Cubs to win more ballgames. As long as the rooftops are out there, they will continue to distract the Cubs from this goal. The rooftops help the Cubs in no way...not even close.
Move!
Oh...and to the rooftop owners...you should probably get a different PR firm because the one you are using really is not doing a good job at making your case. Or maybe you just do not have a case to make.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Tunney's crazy ideas.
Tom Tunney, the number one enemy in most people's minds when it comes to Wrigley Field renovations, spoke out yesterday saying that the Cubs, in order to increase revenues, should replace the iconic center field scoreboard and replace it with a video board that they can put all sorts of advertising on and make it as big as they want.
While I'm not nearly as supportive of the center field scoreboard as most fans are, this is possibly the stupidest idea this lunatic has come up with yet to try to resolve this standoff.
As one of the tools to help push his case for rooftop protection he has often used the historic status protections of Wrigley Field. One of those protections is the preservation of the center field scoreboard...which is actually one of the protections that the Cubs and the Ricketts family probably has no problem with.
So, Tom Tunney, which is it going to be? Should Wrigley Field be preserved as is? Or should drastic modifications be made?
Oh...I suppose the only protections that matter are the ones that protect the people who fund your campaigns.
To steal from the Boars and Bernstein bit...
Tom Tunney, who ya crappin?
While I'm not nearly as supportive of the center field scoreboard as most fans are, this is possibly the stupidest idea this lunatic has come up with yet to try to resolve this standoff.
As one of the tools to help push his case for rooftop protection he has often used the historic status protections of Wrigley Field. One of those protections is the preservation of the center field scoreboard...which is actually one of the protections that the Cubs and the Ricketts family probably has no problem with.
So, Tom Tunney, which is it going to be? Should Wrigley Field be preserved as is? Or should drastic modifications be made?
Oh...I suppose the only protections that matter are the ones that protect the people who fund your campaigns.
To steal from the Boars and Bernstein bit...
Tom Tunney, who ya crappin?
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Hello
I've decided that most of my attention lately has focused around the Wrigley Field renovations...so why not just have a blog dedicated to that?
Well, it's more than just the renovations. I'm promoting that the Cubs leave Wrigley Field and build an entirely new ballpark.
The likelihood that this will happen at any point in the next 20 years is virtually zero, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and also that it isn't the best option for the Cubs in the long run.
So enjoy.
-Doc
Well, it's more than just the renovations. I'm promoting that the Cubs leave Wrigley Field and build an entirely new ballpark.
The likelihood that this will happen at any point in the next 20 years is virtually zero, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and also that it isn't the best option for the Cubs in the long run.
So enjoy.
-Doc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)