Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 466
  1. #136
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    den-vur
    Posts
    7,041
    vCash
    1500
    nevermind, I found it:


    Cubs, rooftop owners reach agreement
    20-year agreement requires building owners to pay team

    By ALYSON BRODSY | AP Reports
    POSTED AT 12:00 AM ON JAN. 13, 2004


    CHICAGO -- The Chicago Cubs and most owners of rooftop bleachers that overlook Wrigley Field have reached an agreement that would require the owners to pay the team millions of dollars a year, officials said.

    Under the 20-year agreement, owners of 11 buildings have to give the Cubs 17 percent of their gross revenue, Alderman Thomas Tunney said Sunday. With about 1,700 seats on the rooftops, it could cost owners more than $2 million a year.

    Owners for two of the 13 buildings did not agree to the deal and plan to take the issue to trial.

    Calls to the Cubs by The Associated Press were not immediately returned Monday.

    The Cubs had been arguing with the rooftop owners over plans to expand the stadium without obstructing the view from the rooftops. After negotiations broke down, the Cubs sued the owners in December 2002. The lawsuit accused the owners of stealing the team's product, copyright infringement and unjust enrichment at the Cubs' expense.

    "This issue is really between two successful businesses, and I'm glad they can reach an agreement out of court," said Tunney, whose ward includes the ballpark.

    Sources close to the deal told the Chicago Tribune the agreement awaits the parties' signatures and court approval.

    The Cubs' agreement does not affect the team's wish to add about 2,000 bleacher seats. A source close to the rooftop owners' side, however, argued that by taking a large cut on each seat the team essentially is getting an expansion.

    Tunney said if the bleachers are expanded within eight years, the agreement requires the Cubs to compensate rooftop owners whose views are obstructed.

    The Cubs are owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Tribune

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    20 minutes from the field of dreams
    Posts
    1,148
    vCash
    1500
    looks like the 8 years is up!

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jordan
    Posts
    34,207
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah, I can't believe the Cubs would have detailed the renovations if they didn't have an out as far as the rooftops are concerned/

    Chicago Bears #23
    Kyle "Cheetah" Fuller

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    62,744
    vCash
    1500
    I have never sat on the rooftops, but it's a huge waste of money anyways. It would be nice to say "you did it once," but that's about it.

    $200+ a ticket for good games. Sure, it's unlimited drinks and food. But considering you can get a nice seat inside Wrigley for $40, you're not going to spend $160 on alcohol and food.
    CAN you spend that much? Sure, if you want to get absolutely destroyed and not remember a single pitch. If that is your idea of a good time, then just go to a bar and do that for less than $200.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,916
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by {Ron!n} View Post
    Yeah, I can't believe the Cubs would have detailed the renovations if they didn't have an out as far as the rooftops are concerned/
    Their out is that Rahm fully supports it and will shove it down their throats if they don't cooperate.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,057
    vCash
    1500
    put a big jumbotron up and block them all.... make those people pay to get into Wrigley! I don't see how the MLB allows that to happen... or the Cubs.... its just money they are losing

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Waukegan,IL
    Posts
    1,374
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by petrey10 View Post
    put a big jumbotron up and block them all.... make those people pay to get into Wrigley! I don't see how the MLB allows that to happen... or the Cubs.... its just money they are losing
    not really money they are losing..ideally when the Cubs are ready to compete and are good they will sell out each and every home game and in that case the rooftops have to share a percentage of their earning with the Cubs...so the Cubs actually are making out a bit more positively in that scenario. Which certainly isn't bad but it certainly isn't worth the Cubs losing out on all of the sponsorship money in order to appease the rooftops.

    Chicago Blackhawks
    Chicago Bulls
    Chicago Cubs
    Duke Blue Devils
    Minnesota Vikings
    Northwestern Wildcats
    Virginia Tech Hokies

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,950
    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.
    After the first 8 years of the agreement, the Cubs can modify the bleachers if they want. I think that putting up signs may fall into that. Why do you think the rooftop owners are trying to figure something out without the Cubs even knowing about their discussions? They know they don't have a leg to stand on. If they don't fall in line with what the Cubs plan on doing, they are going to lose everything.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    7,915
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by petrey10 View Post
    put a big jumbotron up and block them all.... make those people pay to get into Wrigley! I don't see how the MLB allows that to happen... or the Cubs.... its just money they are losing
    Why do you care so much about **** that really isn't a big deal?

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    24,469
    vCash
    1500
    Seems like the Cubs should get more than 38% of the revenues from the rooftops. Without the Cubs the rooftops aren't worth more than the house.
    Our forums:
    Blues Cardinals Rams

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    24,469
    vCash
    1500
    As far as attendance in a new ballpark, I'd imagine the attendance would probably still be good. Chicago is so large that attendance would probably be okay, even if the Cubs weren't good at the time. A new ballpark, in most cases, increases attendance for a few years anyway.

    Would the Cubs lose attendance if they left Wrigley? Maybe, but you would have to balance that with not having to keep updating an aging stadium. Plus, the Cubs could control more with their own stadium, like having night games and not having to appease the rooftop owners.

    You could still keep Wrigley around for a while as a museum or something. That's part of what it is right now.

    I like old buildings and advocate their continued use or reuse in almost any circumstances, but realistically it might be better to start from scratch. Will Wrigley become a money pit as it ages? Will it be able to keep up with what newer ballparks have?

    Obviously a new ballpark would bring pros and cons.
    Last edited by redbird89; 01-27-2013 at 01:35 AM.
    Our forums:
    Blues Cardinals Rams

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hometown of Gary Gaetti
    Posts
    9,760
    vCash
    1500
    I couldn't care less about the rooftops. I guess the thing that is going to interesting is that they are probably only going to block some of the rooftops views. So since the rooftop owners are in this together, what happens to them? Do some of them just get lucky or?

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,829
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    After the first 8 years of the agreement, the Cubs can modify the bleachers if they want. I think that putting up signs may fall into that. Why do you think the rooftop owners are trying to figure something out without the Cubs even knowing about their discussions? They know they don't have a leg to stand on. If they don't fall in line with what the Cubs plan on doing, they are going to lose everything.
    There is still the issue of the landmark status that needs to be changed or they can't modify Wrigley. They also have the issue of adding night games and additional concert dates. Then add in the wanting to make Sheffield into a block party on game days. Do the Cubs want to sell beer & food along with selling souvenirs on Sheffield ?

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,348
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1972 Cubs View Post
    There is still the issue of the landmark status that needs to be changed or they can't modify Wrigley. They also have the issue of adding night games and additional concert dates. Then add in the wanting to make Sheffield into a block party on game days. Do the Cubs want to sell beer & food along with selling souvenirs on Sheffield ?
    None of these 'issues' have changed since the Rickett's purchased the team and it's assets- these are problems they've been attempting to eliminate behind closed doors since day 1. They have a very firm grasp on the situation- and are much further along with the majority then most seem to believe... At this point, the Mayors office and 80-85% of surrounding businesses have signed off on just about everything- from my understanding they won't even need to carry a majority within the residential community for these things to pass. There is a substancial amount of red tape to cut through, however these things are going to happen.

    Interesting side note; the Rickett's canned the famed 'Triangle building' project due to the amount of resistance from Wrigleyville- now in typical fashion, the 'community' is insisting that said project be included in any project. Good ole Chicago politics at it's finest...
    Ombudsman

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,916
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ABTY7 View Post
    None of these 'issues' have changed since the Rickett's purchased the team and it's assets- these are problems they've been attempting to eliminate behind closed doors since day 1. They have a very firm grasp on the situation- and are much further along with the majority then most seem to believe... At this point, the Mayors office and 80-85% of surrounding businesses have signed off on just about everything- from my understanding they won't even need to carry a majority within the residential community for these things to pass. There is a substancial amount of red tape to cut through, however these things are going to happen.

    Interesting side note; the Rickett's canned the famed 'Triangle building' project due to the amount of resistance from Wrigleyville- now in typical fashion, the 'community' is insisting that said project be included in any project. Good ole Chicago politics at it's finest...
    Yea. I thought it was odd that they mentioned the neighborhood's concerns about having the congestion from a parking lot near that intersection at the convention and then a few days later, Tunney is complaining about how they hadn't backed up their promise to build the triangle building.


    Somewhat of a sidenote, is there anything you can tell us about the status of a potential all star bid? You had seemed to imply that the clubhouses were being addressed before anything else for this reason.

    Also, do you know anything about their TV network plans and what they might do when the WGN deal is up (considering there are still 5 years left on the CSN deal, it'll be really interesting to see how it's handled).

Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... 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
  •