Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 31 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 460
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    It's not a credible threat. Nobody would buy it.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    62,744
    vCash
    1500
    I don't agree with the people saying the Cubs would lose attendance if they moved out of wrigleyville. No way that is true at all. Like someone else mentioned, take a look at the road games and look at all the Cubs fans in the crowd. People are attending games because of the Cubs, not because of Wrigley Field. Sure, you have the tourists in the summer, but majority of the fans inside Wrigley are there for the team.

    Also, getting to wrigley is a nightmare. Getting out is even worse. It doesn't mean you have to build a stadium in the middle of nowhere. If you build wrigley elsewhere, you can still surround it by bars/restaurants/ etc. And you can make it so thousands of people can park within a 2 minute walk, too.

    People go to stadiums so they can say "they've been there." But if you goto the stadium more than once, then you are going there to watch the Cubs, not to just be at Wrigley Field.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Suburbs Of Chicago
    Posts
    9,013
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    It's not a credible threat. Nobody would buy it.
    WMDs
    BUTTERFLIES AND RAINBOWS!!!!! JP611 Just called me an ecstasy user!!!! WTF!!!

    Welcome Tyler Kolek or Brady Aiken or Carlos Rodon if not one of them say hello To Alex Jackson.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,966
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by croce_99 View Post
    I don't agree with the people saying the Cubs would lose attendance if they moved out of wrigleyville. No way that is true at all. Like someone else mentioned, take a look at the road games and look at all the Cubs fans in the crowd. People are attending games because of the Cubs, not because of Wrigley Field. Sure, you have the tourists in the summer, but majority of the fans inside Wrigley are there for the team.

    Also, getting to wrigley is a nightmare. Getting out is even worse. It doesn't mean you have to build a stadium in the middle of nowhere. If you build wrigley elsewhere, you can still surround it by bars/restaurants/ etc. And you can make it so thousands of people can park within a 2 minute walk, too.

    People go to stadiums so they can say "they've been there." But if you goto the stadium more than once, then you are going there to watch the Cubs, not to just be at Wrigley Field.
    Couldn't disagree more. Now, that is not the reason I go to the game. I couldn't care less about Wrigley. But I also know there are a lot of people at the Cubs game because of the ballpark and Wrigleyville. And I think the FO fears if they moved they would lose attendance. Why else would they stay there and put up with the nonsense they put up with? If they thought a new ballpark would not hurt there attendance they would build it.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,461
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Couldn't disagree more. Now, that is not the reason I go to the game. I couldn't care less about Wrigley. But I also know there are a lot of people at the Cubs game because of the ballpark and Wrigleyville. And I think the FO fears if they moved they would lose attendance. Why else would they stay there and put up with the nonsense they put up with? If they thought a new ballpark would not hurt there attendance they would build it.
    Yeah you really cant use road attendance as a basis for this argument. Displaced Chicagoans get maybe 6 games a year at an outside market, not 80. The suburbs would kill their attendance.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,349
    vCash
    1500
    By Fran Spielman of the Chicago Sun-Times:

    Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he’s ready to play ball now that the Cubs have offered to bankroll a $300 million renovation of Wrigley Field without a taxpayer subsidy — and the first pitch could come as early as next month with an ordinance authorizing more night games.

    “I asked all the parties involved to finish this up,” said Emanuel, who had a productive conversation with Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts this week, their first since the pre-election controversy over the conservative politics of Ricketts’ billionaire father, Joe.

    “We’re at a point where there will be no taxpayer subsidies for a private entity. That said, Wrigley is important to the neighborhood and to the city … and I want to ensure that it continues. … We all have a stake in getting it done. It is not done until all the parts fall in place. ... There are 1,200 jobs at stake in building and refurbishing Wrigley.”

    City Hall sources said the mayor is prepared to lift the 30-game-per-season ceiling on the number of night games to the 37-to-44 range, with some of the dates reserved for concerts. Additional 3:05 p.m. starts could also be part of the mix.

    The night game piece must come first because of the scheduling demands of Major League Baseball.

    That will be followed by a move to lift the restrictions on outfield signs and open Sheffield Avenue for street fairs on game days, but probably not every game as the Cubs have requested.

    Sources said Emanuel is trying to broker an elusive agreement between the Cubs and the owners of 17 rooftop clubs overlooking Wrigley that could pave the way for at least some of the new signs to be placed on top of the rooftops, instead of inside the stadium blocking the rooftops’ bird’s-eye view.

    To appease club owners who have invested millions to meet city standards, sources said the mayor’s office is prepared to support giving the rooftops “a little bit” of the advertising revenue from new signs.

    The compromise could also extend under the same terms an agreement with ten more years to run that requires the rooftops to share 17 percent of their revenues with the Cubs. Additional capacity beyond the current, 200-seats-per-club limit, is also a possibility.

    So far, the rooftops have adopted a hard line, emboldened by local Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), who has received at least $171,356 in direct campaign contributions from rooftop club owners and another $15,675 to the alderman’s 44th Ward Democratic Organization.

    But, sources said time is running out for the rooftops to get on board.

    “We’re not trying to screw them at all. But, we’ve seen this movie before,” said a City Hall source familiar with the negotiations.

    “They like delay and the status quo. But, the ship is sailing. You need to find a way to be a constructive partner. There’s no reason why this can’t get done in a matter of weeks. [But, if it doesn’t], I don’t think the rooftops will appreciate the alternative.”

    Pressed on whether City Hall was prepared to side with the Cubs over the rooftops and Tunney, the City Hall source said, “We are, but I don’t think it’ll come to that. There is a path to give both sides what they’re looking for.”

    Tunney issued a statement saying “no formal, final plan has been presented to me,” but he reiterated that his priorities include a 10-year extension of an ordinance that would include limits on night games and concerts, “a dedicated police detail unit for all Wrigley events,”street and traffic infrastructure improvements, limits on Sheffield or Waveland closures for Cubs street festivals, a long-term agreement between the Cubs and the rooftop owners over advertising inside and outside the ballpark.

    He also called for development of the so-called Triangle building and plaza on Clark Street north of Addison. “This development should include space for public and community events like farmer’s markets and ice skating,” he said.

    “The Cubs say they no longer are committed to building the parking structure they agreed to build in return for approval of stadium expansion in 2005,” Tunney said. “But, as a condition of allowing renovations at Wrigley Field, a strong majority of residents support requiring Wrigley Field to use neighboring land owned by the Cubs to provide parking for at least twenty percent of their capacity, such as building a multi-story parking garage.

    “The positions I have taken in my discussions with the Cubs closely mirror those of my constituents. All of us involved in the negotiations should be concentrating our efforts on a plan that takes all of Wrigley Field’s and Lakeview’s unique qualities into perspective.”

    Rooftop owners adamantly opposed to the Cubs’ plan refused to comment.

    Last weekend, Ricketts abruptly ended his multi-year quest for a public subsidy to help bankroll a sorely-needed renovation of 99-year-old Wrigley.

    He offered to go it alone — and build a $200 million hotel development on McDonald’s property across the street from the stadium — provided the city lift restrictions on outfield signs and night games and opens Sheffield Avenue for street fairs on game days.

    The Cubs’ offer was music to the mayor’s ears.

    “When I first started this discussion, the Cubs wanted 200 million in taxpayer dollars. I said, `no.’ Then, they said they said we’d like 150 million taxpayer dollars and I said, ‘no.’ Then, they asked if they could have 100 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies and I said ‘no.’ Then, they asked about 55 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies. I said ‘no.’ The good news is after fifteen months, they’ve heard the word, ‘no,’” the mayor said Wednesday.

    Emanuel refused to say whether he was willing to give the Cubs carte blanche to put up revenue-generating signs — even if it means blocking the bird’s-eye views of rooftop clubs.

    Asked whether Tunney deserves “veto power,” the mayor said, “Tom and I have been working on this for over a year. ... Tom has been a constructive and productive person in the negotiations. But he, too, will agree it’s important to see this through to the end.”

    Ricketts was thrilled with the mayor’s response. After years of swinging and missing, he can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

    “The Ricketts family shares the mayor’s vision for a $500 million project to create 1,200 new jobs and hundreds of construction jobs,” said Dennis Culloton, a spokesman for the billionaire family that owns the Cubs.

    “We look forward to working with the mayor and the city of Chicago to save Wrigley Field, build a new hotel [on McDonald’s property across the street from the stadium] and boost tourism. A Wrigley renovation not only preserves a great tourist attract. It will provide important new resources for the baseball operation to build a championship team.”

    Earlier this week, Tunney said he was willing to help the Cubs with additional night games “sooner than required” by an agreement that expires in 2016.

    But, he said, “I’m not a supporter of putting up signs that block the view of rooftops into the ballpark.”

    The aldermen then referred to the laundry list of requests that Tom Ricketts made at last weekend’s the Cubs convention.

    “What is he offering the community? That would be the question. More of this. More of that. More of everything. But, what about the community and what is the parking plan” now that the Cubs have scrapped a so-called “triangle” building that was supposed to a include a 400-space parking garage, Tunney said.

    Beth Murphy, owner of Murphy’s Bleachers, echoed the alderman’s sentiments in a statement that called the rooftops “a fabric of the experience” at Wrigley.

    “Any relaxation of the landmark ordinance that blocks our views violates our current 20-year contract with the Cubs and would jeopardize the tremendous economic contribution rooftops make to Chicago as businesses, taxpayers and members of the community. Destroying one business to benefit the other shouldn’t be the answer — we believe a better solution exists,” she said.


    I heard you were looking for me.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    10
    vCash
    1500
    Those rooftop owners are pieces of work. I especially like the "fabric of the experience" line. It wasn't that long ago that the rooftops were just a few guys standing up there drinking beers. Any notion that they are somehow integral to the overall experience is just a self-serving contrivance. They should thank their lucky stars the Cubs didn't simply shut them out from the beginning for stealing product.

    The "destroying one business to benefit the other" bit is a total joke, since their lazy venture is totally and completely dependent on the Cubs, and the fact that they have enjoyed the success that they have is due in huge part to the generosity of the franchise. Murphy has a lot of chutzpah, I'll give her that.

    It's good to hear City Hall will fall on the Cubs' side if it comes to that.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    481
    vCash
    1500
    Man, I'm just picturing what Wrigleyville will be like with all these improvements in a couple years with people flocking to the neighborhood to watch the 1st place Cubs wrap up the division.

    I hope Theo, Jed, Ricketts, and the like, plan works out because the experience in that stadium and in that neighborhood would be like nothing in professional sports with all this stuff and a great product on the field.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,140
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by The Masked Unit View Post
    Those rooftop owners are pieces of work. I especially like the "fabric of the experience" line. It wasn't that long ago that the rooftops were just a few guys standing up there drinking beers. Any notion that they are somehow integral to the overall experience is just a self-serving contrivance. They should thank their lucky stars the Cubs didn't simply shut them out from the beginning for stealing product.

    The "destroying one business to benefit the other" bit is a total joke, since their lazy venture is totally and completely dependent on the Cubs, and the fact that they have enjoyed the success that they have is due in huge part to the generosity of the franchise. Murphy has a lot of chutzpah, I'll give her that.

    It's good to hear City Hall will fall on the Cubs' side if it comes to that.
    Not to mention some of those rooftops are just an eyesore. The metal bleachers look like ****. Some of them are nice but I heard a lot of those places that spent a ton of money on renovations are losing their ***** now that nobody wants to pay $150 to sit on roof top and watch a bad team play from a mile away.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hometown of Jerry Hairston
    Posts
    52,397
    vCash
    1500
    The rooftop owners are out of their damn minds.

    The rooftop clubs outside Wrigley Field unveiled a plan Friday to put digital signs on their buildings and give the revenue to the Chicago Cubs.

    Representatives of the clubs said it is a better alternative to the team's plan to put up signs in the outfield that could potentially block the views from the rooftops and hurt their businesses.

    "We believe this is common sense plan is a win-win for the community, rooftops, City Hall and the Cubs," said Beth Murphy, owner of Murphy's Rooftop.

    The rooftop owners said they expect their businesses to contribute more than $185 million to the local economy in the next 20 years, $70 million of which would be earmarked for the Cubs. A sign detailing their estimates ended with the words, "Destroying one business to benefit another is not the answer."

    Dennis Culloton, a spokesman for the Ricketts family, said that the rooftop owners should discuss their plan with the team "instead of holding press conferences."

    A representative of the team, Cubs marketing specialist Kevin Saghy, tried to attend the press conference but was asked to leave the room during the video presentation of the rooftop plan. Saghy brought a tape recorder but did not wear any credentials to indicate he was a Cubs representative.

    "A deadline is fast approaching for the team and the city of Chicago to move forward," Culloton said.

    Culloton also said the team would bring in more money from advertising atop the back wall of the bleachers than ads on the rooftop buildings.

    "Inside the ballpark is going to be infinitely more valuable than advertising outside the ballpark," Culloton said.

    Culloton also reiterated the call of Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts for the city to free up the team to run the ballpark without a slew of restrictions.

    "The Ricketts family and the Chicago Cubs want the right to run their business so they can continue to be good stewards of Wrigley Field and in doing so save the beloved ballpark for future generations," he said.

    Ryan McLaughlin, a spokesman for the rooftop owners, said Cubs representatives were familiar with the general outline of the plan before today's press conference. Murphy presented it a community meeting Wednesday with Ald. Thomas Tunney, 44th, neighborhood groups and Cubs representatives present, he said.

    Tunney suggested Friday the rooftop plan could be a part of the overall effort to rehab Wrigley.

    "The advertising proposal from the rooftops can be part of the larger picture for preserving Wrigley," Tunney said in a prepared statement.

    "I remain committed to working with the Cubs and small businesses in the neighborhood. Most importantly, we will continue to engage our residents in discussions concerning Wrigley Field and their quality of life."
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6430722.story

    Hopefully Ricketts gives them a big **** you.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,461
    vCash
    1500
    So The Cubs only get $70 mil of the $180 mil generated? Yeah right. Cubs should at least get 75% of those proceeds. This is gonna end poorly for rooftop owners if they don't change their act on this issue.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jordan
    Posts
    34,079
    vCash
    1500
    Ricketts response:
    “The Ricketts family and the Chicago Cubs want the right to run their business so they can continue to be good stewards of Wrigley Field and save the beloved ballpark for future generations. They also want to invest $500 million dollars and create nearly 2,000 construction and permanent jobs in Wrigley Field and the neighborhood. None of this is possible with continued restrictions and outside business interests blocking the Cubs from generating revenue being realized by every other team in pro sports.”
    The proposal is ridiculous. The Cubs shouldn't have someone else controlling their revenues. They can easily optimize their billboard and ads way better than the rooftop owners can. Its their team. They should be able to build a damn dome if they want to.

    Chicago Bears #23
    Kyle "Cheetah" Fuller

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jordan
    Posts
    34,079
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by TimbrH2001 View Post
    So The Cubs only get $70 mil of the $180 mil generated? Yeah right. Cubs should at least get 75% of those proceeds. This is gonna end poorly for rooftop owners if they don't change their act on this issue.
    Cubs should realistically get 100% of any proceeds. Its their stadium, team and they're footing the bill for the renovations. They should get exactly what they would if they put stuff inside the stadium.

    Chicago Bears #23
    Kyle "Cheetah" Fuller

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,817
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by {Ron!n} View Post
    Ricketts response:


    The proposal is ridiculous. The Cubs shouldn't have someone else controlling their revenues. They can easily optimize their billboard and ads way better than the rooftop owners can. Its their team. They should be able to build a damn dome if they want to.
    The Cubs signed a 20 year deal with the roof top owners so they are partners with them and can not do whatever they want.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    den-vur
    Posts
    7,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1972 Cubs View Post
    The Cubs signed a 20 year deal with the roof top owners so they are partners with them and can not do whatever they want.
    Isnt that contract specifically for the finanical part of them selling tickets??
    Last edited by MrPoon; 01-25-2013 at 03:42 PM.

Page 9 of 31 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •