Yesterday, I posted on my FB page and on Twitter my first gut reaction to the latest twist in the Cubs v. Rooftops saga that began a long time ago in a galaxy, far, far away (or it just seems that way):
If you go to a rooftop across from Wrigley, or buy a drink in any of the bars they own, we're not friends anymore.
Is that childish and pouty? Absolutely. Do I take it back? Not really.
I'm not really going to disown anyone for going to a rooftop because there are bigger issues in the world to get that bothered about, but I'm not going to pay a nickel to anybody who owns those places and I don't think Cubs fans should either because they are now hurting the teams' ability to survive at Wrigley Field.
But let's take a step back. First, why in the hell do the neighbors even have a say in this?
This is one of the first questions I always get when this topic comes up from people who are baseball fans but not Cubs fans, or from people who like the Cubs, but don't fritter all their time away in the hive of scum and villainy that is Cubs blog world. Most people plain don't understand how this is even a thing.
So let's travel back in time to the early 80s, when the Cubs sucked, the Wrigleys finally sold a team they hadn't given a damn about in decades, Wrigleyville was Latin King territory, and you could tie an onion to your belt (which was the style at the time) and head to Wrigley to sit in the bleachers on the day of the game for a nickel or whatever. It was a time of innocence. A time when only day baseball was played, and hardly any of the players were millionaires. There were also no rooftop seats across the street.
Oh sure, people went up there from time to time, but they were people who lived in the buildings or had friends who lived in the buildings. It was a perk of living there. You had friends over, dragged a grill up top and hung out in the sun, drinking your own beer, and watching the Cubs from a distance. It was pretty cool and hardly anybody was aware of it.
Then the Cubs, under Dallas Green, managed to put together a team that actually made the playoffs. It was 1984. Harry Caray was in the booth, Ryne Sandberg was breaking Cardinals fans hearts, and the Cubs won the division for the first time in almost 40 years. It was a fucking party. The park was jammed full of partying people. This is when the national spotlight hit the rooftops, that were also more jammed than usual because everybody wanted to see the magic at Wrigley. So the TV cameras found the rooftop folks and their friends partying and Cubs fans at home began to think, "Wow, that looks AWESOME. I wish I could do that."
I don't know who did it first and it really doesn't matter, but someone over there got the idea to start selling access to the rooftops. And they had a lot of demand. A lot. So they put up junior high school style bleachers and installed bigger grills. And the TV cameras kept finding them and the demand kept growing.
Meanwhile, the Cubs viewed it as an opportunity to sell themselves. "Look!" They'd say through constant mentions by Harry or camera shots by Arne Harris, "The Cubs are so popular people are jamming onto the rooftops to see us play!"
The rooftops had plenty of business, and this was the first real opportunity the owners of the buildings had to really cash in on the Cubs being right next door since a local ordinance restricted the signage outside the ballpark. The old Budweiser sign in left field and the old Torco sign in right field were grandfathered in and if those signs ever come down, they can't go back up again.
But rooftop seating wasn't restricted and as it became bigger business, they needed all sorts of licensing from the city to operate. The rooftops claim the Cubs never objected. I don't know if they did or not, but they sure seemed happy to build the rooftops into the sun, ivy, baseball-the-way-it-was-meant-to-be mythology that they marketed in the absence of much winning baseball.
Since nobody was telling them otherwise, the rooftops then started heavily investing in their business. Wrigley's high-end amenities were non-existent. Sure, they had skyboxes, but they were tucked back in under the upper deck, and were pretty cramped. The food service sucked throughout the ballpark. So the rooftops started providing real food options and having actual good restaurants cater. They served top-shelf liquor. They had premium beer options and now serve real craft beer. They suddenly became a better option for the wealthy corporate customers that were becoming increasingly important to a baseball team's economics. They started putting additions on the buildings and building multi-level stadium-quality bleachers, with separate access stairs and elevators. They renovated apartments into full-service sports bars. Hell, a couple of those buildings were build for the express purpose of making them into stadium clubs.
All of these mega-complexes were built around a view of games that they did not own.
This was the crux of a lawsuit that the Cubs finally brought against the rooftops in 2002. We'll get back to that.
Meanwhile, the city had started moving on placing landmark status on Wrigley Field, meaning any change to the ballpark would have to go through a landmarks committee.
Mayor Daley always had a contentious relationship with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board, but you can't just take revenge on a newspaper that is mean to you if you're a politician. Freedom of speech and all that. But what you CAN do, especially in the seedy world of Chicago politics, is squeeze the baseball team owned by the newspaper, and that was the Cubs. People used to think that Daley only fucked with the Cubs because he was a Sox fan, but after the 1994 strike, he was pretty disillusioned with baseball altogether and really didn't give much of a damn anymore. The fact that it was the Cubs was more icing on the cake than a main motivator. He meant to make the Tribune squirm any way he could and landmarking Wrigley was just the next thing (see also, the Battle of Night Games).
I can't find when it was officially declared for review, but it definitely was under review in the early 2000s when the Cubs and rooftops started really clashing. The Cubs were in a hurry to make changes that wouldn't need to go through 8 billion steps (like we've seen for the current renovations now that the landmark status is officially official), but the changes required building out over the Waveland and Sheffield sidewalks and that got the neighborhood involved. The plans would also obscure the sightlines from the rooftops and so they began fighting the Cubs on the changes.
So there wasn't much, if any, political support for the Cubs against a neighborhood that loves having their property values shoot up because of the stadium, but hates every other part of living near a stadium: people, traffic, noise, etc. Cubs fans, as they are prone to do, were also going apeshit that the Tribune was going to ruin Wrigley Field by making the changes.
Things deteriorated between the rooftops and the Cubs and came to a head when the Cubs sued the rooftops at the end of 2002:
According to the Cubs’ complaint and to Andy MacPhail, President and CEO, as quoted above, the Chicago Cubs have a property right in the performance of the Major League baseball games played at Wrigley Field, and the rooftop owners infringe the Cubs’ copyrights by rebroadcasting the Cubs’ telecasts.
According to the rooftop owners’ answer to the complaint, the Cubs’ allegations are made solely to harass the owners and pressure the community and the City of Chicago to permit the Cubs to fundamentally alter Wrigley Field and the character of the Wrigleyville neighborhood.
So the Cubs were saying, "You don't have a right to sell a view of our product" and the rooftops countered with, "You are just saying that to bully us."
But it ultimately came down to who owned the rights to the view, and it isn't as simple as you might think if you read the article I linked to. Eventually a judge ordered a compromise be made, and the Cubs, who were hellbent on getting their Bleacher expansion before the landmark status was finalized, agreed to a deal where they got the expansion rights over the sidewalks and 17% of the revenues from the rooftops in exchange for a 20 year moratorium on blocking the rooftop views.
Essentially, the Cubs screwed themselves in the long run by being stupidly narrow-minded in their scope of what was a "win" for them. Someone with a longer view might have balked at committing to 20 years of status quo in a ballpark that was already 90 years old at the time. Maybe they could keep challenging and make the rooftops win their argument that they had a right to the view. Maybe they could have just said to hell with the 17%, just give us the rights to the sidewalk space and we'll stay as is for 5 years (or something a hell of a lot shorter than 20 years). I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not a legal expert. But this agreement is now why the current Cubs have their hands tied when trying to renovate the ballpark.
They've cleared all the landmark hurdles, but the revenue-driving signage and jumbotron that will help pay for the non-revenue driving (but essential) changes are in potential violation of that agreement that doesn't expire until 2024.
So this is the Cubs' own damn fault, right? Well, yeah, pretty much, with a helping hand from Daley who helped put them in a position of angst where that deal seemed like a good idea.
But here is the thing, and I've said it before and I will keep saying it until I am blue in the face: The Cubs have a FINITE amount of time where playing at Wrigley Field is viable, from both an economic and safety perspective.
SOMETHING has to change. The Cubs can not compete like a large market team without the revenues that every other baseball team in the world has access to. The Cubs can not compete while asking their players to use equipment that is inferior to many NCAA Division III (non-scholarship) athletic facilties. THERE IS STILL SAFETY NETTING BECAUSE OF CONCRETE THAT STARTED CRUMBLING AND FALLING A DECADE AGO.
It. Can. Not. Continue. Like. This.
So, do the rooftops have a very serious case that their agreement is being violated? Yeah, they might (as GBTS has stated in the comments in earlier posts, this is also not crystal clear because it depends on the language of a contract we don't have access to, and depends on how a judge interprets that language). But the thing is, their end game makes the Cubs staying at Wrigley unviable. Their obstruction of the plans means that the Cubs will have NO OTHER CHOICE but to find someplace else to play. It can't continue like this until 2024, and if they somehow win and block the Cubs from making the changes, then they'll be signing their own businesses' death certificates.
It doesn't matter that Cubs fans will be pissed. There will be no other choice.
It doesn't matter that their brand will be damaged by moving away from the iconic Wrigley. There will be no other choice.
It doesn't matter that there has yet to be a real location floated as an option. There will be no other choice.
I don't understand why Cubs fans don't see this and I certainly don't understand why the rooftops don't see this. They seem to be operating under the impression that all they have to do is beat the Cubs in this battle and they can go back to raking in money like always. This isn't the Braves moving out of a 15 year old stadium. Wrigley is 100 years old and can't function in the modern era anymore.
The renovations won't destroy the rooftop businesses. They'll have less of a view than before, but they'll still have a view, and that means they'll still have a business. And if I'm the Cubs, I tell the rooftops that in exchange for dropping all this bullshit and letting the plans go, they can reduce the 17% payments or extend the contract so that further changes won't be permitted. Maybe both.
But for any settlement to actually take hold that doesn't end in more litigation that holds up the changes, the rooftops have to come to their senses and realize that they have no business at all if they force the Cubs to move. Perhaps a boycott of the rooftops and their bars would give them a taste of what life without the Cubs would be like and might prompt some movement. Because I honestly don't think that will ever happen without someone forcing the issue, and the city doesn't seem inclined to do so (Surprise!).
In my opinion, supporting the rooftops is giving financial approval of their methods to hold the Cubs back from becoming a real major market team and that is all I care about. The rooftop owners (legally or not) are willfully pushing the Cubs to a scenario where they will have to vacate Wrigley Field in order to grow as a franchise, and believe it or not, by the time a move would be made, the Cubs will probably be pretty good and people would go to watch them in a dome if it came to it. The Cubs are about 3 years away from serious contention, and if they started on finding an alternate location right now, they could probably move in right around that time frame.
New team, new stadium, new tradition. It brands itself.
The rooftops are destroying the chances of seeing our potential best seasons ever as Cubs fans in the venue we all (mostly) want them to be in when it happens.
So while it may not be "fair" since the Cubs (and Crane Kenney) are major culprits in coming to this point, my choice is to not support the rooftop owners because their end game is the least desirable to me as a Cubs fan.
Things can not continue like this.
Comments
good stuff
dylanjQuote Reply
I think the Cubs fans get it. They seem to be in favor overwhelmingly of a move out of Wrigley. Get a modern facility with ample parking and people will come in droves I think the only one that really does’t get it is T Ricketts. He’s got to stop being a fanboy and grow up. As owner of the Cub’s, he has leverage He should use it.
sleepyQuote Reply
…and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ’em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you’d say.
Nicely done all around, BTW.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it too. That’s the real issue. Ricketts doesn’t want to gut the place as far as I’m aware and turn into a 20th century ballpark. The Cubs don’t want to do this quick and easy (eg one year at the Cell), instead drawing this out over half a decade. You’ve nailed the folly of the rooftop owners (though I get where they’re coming from at least).
OtterQuote Reply
I’m fine with then moving out either way.
joshQuote Reply
Great article, though I’m not sure who is to blame for what. The economics of the game today are considerably different than they were just 5 years ago. They were different then than 5 years before that and back in the 1980s when nobody attended? The Cubs probably lost money on an annual basis and earning the kind of money they can now seemed like a foolish dream.
It was mentioned in another thread (I think by GW) that the economics of the game can and probably will change again by the time the Cubs tv contract is up. Could be for the better, but it’s hard to imagine that at this point. I’m guessing the Cubs miss out on those massive earnings that the Dodgers found.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Bravo.
Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro)Quote Reply
great piece.
GWQuote Reply
I wonder how many fans have actually been up on the rooftops. It’s never even occurred to me to go, but I’m not from Chicago. It also hasn’t occurred to me to go to Wrigley in a long while so maybe that’s the problem.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/cairo_projects_masahiro_tanaka_for_2014
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Really great piece. I loved getting the whole history, because I didn’t move to Chicago until 2004.
I’m amused to see all of these TOM MUV TEH TEAM ALREADY comments on other boards.
They’re the CHICAGO Cubs. The team belongs in Chicago, not in some strip-mall laden, cookie cutter suburb. Suburbs are for minor league clubs. If you want parking, go to the mall. If you want to go to a baseball game, take the damned train. The Yankees do just fine with their baseball stadium in the middle of an urban neighborhood. So do the Red Sox.
It’s not complicated – Theo and Ricketts are trying to follow the same model Boston did. The condition of the team is way worse than that of the Red Sox when Theo took over, and the political process of getting the stadium approval is slower. That doesn’t mean it can’t work. It means it’s going to take more time. The Red Sox didn’t have to move to the suburbs to be consistently competitive. Neither did the Yankees. In fact, name 1 team that has moved from an urban center to a suburb in the last 30 years and had success. Anyone? In fact, the trend has been to move INTO city centers, like SF moving from Candlestick to their park on the water and in the city. Oh yeah, they won a world series too.
Other stadiums built in recent era:
Washington – not suburb
Minnesota – not suburb
Miami – not suburb (although they fought very hard to have it built on the waterfront downtown, it now sits in the Little Havana neighborhood)
NYY – not suburb
Seriously, get over your MUV TEH TEAM!!! bs. It’s not going to happen, Ricketts doesn’t want it to happen, and it’s not even a proven model for success. If the team ever leaves Wrigleyville, it’ll probably be one mile east to a lakefront stadium, not 25 miles west to Schaumburg or some other god-forsaken place.
26.2cubfanQuote Reply
26.2cubfan wrote:
That may well be, but Wrigley as it stands can not continue. And even moving one mile puts the current rooftop owners out of business.
They can’t stay with the park in the condition it’s in and daddy isn’t going to pay to fix it unless the revenue ends up making him a profit in the future.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Great article.
There is a Facebook page, Boycott Wrigleyville Rooftops, stop by and give it a Like.
Jim LQuote Reply
I would argue that revenue has had little to do with the Cubs’ lack of success over the years and that it has been incompetent management. While I understand the reluctance to allow rooftoppers to persist and diminish team revenue, the likelihood of that revenue becoming wins has, historically, been low.
JumboQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
It’s good that the Cubs didn’t sign him. If we did, his line would probably look like:
G GS W L IP H R ER HR BB HBP SO RA ERA FIP RAR WAR
19 19 7 7 125 132 67 60 19 29 4 89 4.84 4.30 4.33 10 1.0
But lucky for him, we didn’t, so he’ll pitch like:
G GS W L IP H R ER HR BB HBP SO RA ERA FIP RAR WAR
33 33 15 9 215 187 82 72 18 32 1 188 3.45 3.01 2.83 51 5.1
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Jumbo:
I agree 100%. The Yankees had the top payroll every year from 2001 through last season, but won only one World Series in that span. And of the 10 teams with the highest payrolls last season, five did not even make the playoffs. It would be interesting to see though how often a team in the top quartile of payrolls made the world series.
I do think however that due to changes of the CBA that it is going to be crucial to be able to spend more money.
WaLiQuote Reply
Jumbo wrote:
The Cubs have historically had restrictions on payroll that handicapped the front office (which was also woefully understaffed). If you think this front office and any front office the Cubs have ever had are similar in any way other than that they are the Cubs, then I’m not quite sure what to say.
Aisle424Quote Reply
The revenue of one team does not equal more wins in any one year, but revenue, in general, equals wins. It costs money to buy wins and therefore teams with more money will, in general, have more wins.
It’s using selective end points to say that the Yankees have won only one championship over the last decade. Another example of selective endpoints is that they’ve won 4 since 1996. They’ve not had a losing season since 1995. Since 1992 they’ve won over 100 games in a season 5 times. They’ve won fewer than 90 just 3 times since 1996. They won 89 once, 87 another and 85 in the other. They’ve won the toughest divivision in baseball a million times over that span. There is not a single person who could reasonably argue that any team other than the New York Yankees has been the best team in baseball over the last 20 seasons.
The reason for this? They developed a lot of talent at the same time and they spent a shitload of money. It’s not really arguable that spending money won’t in general, translate to more wins. It won’t always work, but on average it will.
Spending money on amateur talent will, also, lead to more talented players.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Larger sample please. One year does not mean a whole lot. There’s a reason that the Oakland A’s were forced to find inefficiencies in order to succeed. They could not compete with the larger markets without it.
People with enough money to purchase sports teams are usually fairly smart people and even if that was all the information we have, we could safely say that money is hugely important to winning. Otherwise, these fairly smart people would not spend any money at all on players.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
http://www.85percentsports.com/blog/2012/01/15/payroll-vs-playoffs-an-analysis-of-twelve-seasons/
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
same article
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
I’ve had a few opportunities / invites to go to rooftop parties but I never went – it doesn’t strike me as something I would like although I guess if it was the right group of people I might go. I did go to maybe a dozen or so games in the mid-80’s at one of the rooftops in right field when it was lawn chairs and a grill. That was pretty cool but not the same as going to the game itself although the view was better than I expected and it was fun hanging out.
Even though it will never happen, I’d like to see a gutting / re-build of Wrigley in its present spot even if it means playing at the State of Illinois / Cell for a year or a year and a half. Moving to the suburbs might end up working but that’s a huge risk and I don’t think Ricketts will do that.
I don’t think a lakefront location is feasible – the political opposition would make the current refurb battle look like a water gun fight. There just aren’t a whole lot of options for a new park on the north side although I could be wrong on that since I don’t spend that much time in the city any more.
This was a really good take on the whole issue by Aisle424, btw.
cwolf, older than dirtQuote Reply
Strange to see people in favor of moving out – clearly the work of trolling sox fans.
I don’t know a single cubs fan (or rational business owner) who would support this. It would destroy 1/2 their brand value. Good luck selling 40k tickets to see the Schaumburg cubs on a Tuesday night in May. Renovations are needed – but they can easily fund these without having to add singage – 4th largest revenue in baseball.
This being said I thought the proposed renovations were great – am looking forward to this being settled so they can make progress again.
BudQuote Reply
Bud wrote:
Yeah, a $300-$400M investment should just be out-of-pocket. That’s totally realistic to expect.
And where did I ever say they need to move to the suburbs? Out of Wrigley does not necessarily equal out of the city.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Jumbo:
Considering the Cubs said they were 5th in MLB in revenue (in spit of them dropping their attendance further with the past 2 years’ abominations)at the Convention, I’d say they’re doing just fine in that regard
BrocktoonQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
It would be interesting to see how many teams in the bottom 5 of payroll went to the playoffs considering that’s where Ricketts has taken the Cubs.
BrocktoonQuote Reply
@ Brocktoon:
you mean OAK, TB, and PIT?
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
@ Brocktoon:
3/5 went to playoffs (dying laughing)
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
I had a dream last night that I was at Wrigley on opening day and George Batan hit a home run for the Cubs. (I had no idea who any of the Cubs’ players were, so it was a realistic dream (dying laughing).) I started wondering if Baez was in the lineup and then I woke up.
Anyway, this is a great writeup Aisley. Although I do come to a slightly different conclusion about moving out; it seems to me that there is probably some way to renovate Wrigley to the point of being sustainable in the long-term, and I agree with Bud and 26.2 that otherwise it will be very hard to replace the value that Wrigley adds. The trick, as often with an asset like that, is to realize its value without ruining it (Clark).
I do agree though that the rooftop owners went from part-of-the-experience to ruthless-exploiters a long time ago. Sucks that the Trib caved into them as much as they did.
fang2415Quote Reply
While we’re at it – shouldn’t Murphy’s be added to the boycott?
what other businesses are affiliated with the rooftops?
Let’s really be effective and damn them all!
sychophantQuote Reply
Recalcitrant Blogger Nate wrote:
Big deal, that’s barely over half.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I don’t care where the Cubs move. Suburbs, city, whatever. I find it hard to believe there isn’t a location in the city that the Cubs could find to build a ballpark. If that’s what’s best, do it. I think a new ballpark would do better than a renovated one with slightly less stinky toilets.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
New Shit
http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/cubs-put-7-in-mlb-com-top-100-prospects.html
MylesQuote Reply
The current situation was spawned by bad decisions made long ago.
First, the original rooftop litigation was meritless on both sides of the argument. Since the founding of this state, no property owner had a right to a view, air or light. So the rooftop owners had no property right to see into a neighbor’s property. But under the law, anyone has a the right to see anything in the public view. On the flip side, the neighbor (the Cubs) do not have a right, under zoning and landmark laws, to build obstructions.
Second, the Cubs claim that the rooftop owners were infringing on their copyrighted
baseball game was also meritless. In fact, a case involving the Tribune, the owner of the Cubs, clearly held that a public event, such as a parade, is not copyrightable. It is only the tangible form of the event (film or videotape) that is subject to copyright protection.
So both sides had dubious claims in the federal court proceeding. Clearly, the Cubs wanted to end the rooftop owners businesses but had no legal right to do so. The rooftop owners had no right to demand unobstructed views if the Cubs were in compliance with local zoning and landmark laws. Out of this morass, the court fashioned a settlement which kept the status quo for 20 years – – – and gave the Cubs revenue from the rooftops which it would not have received but for the settlement agreement.
If you move forward in time to the Tribune sale of the Cubs, this is where the Ricketts current fiscal and revenue woes were born. It was absolutely clear that the Tribune had deferred Wrigley maintenance for decades. The media reported that the Tribune and Zell were seeking up to $300 million in public financing to fix Wrigley Field. Every bidder for the club knew or should have known the condition of Wrigley Field and the cost to repair it. And just as any buyer of a residential home that does a home inspection that finds a major repair issue, the buyer would demand that the Seller a) fix the problem or b) give the buyer a credit against the purchase price for the cost of repairs. In Ricketts case, he did neither.
In addition, the bidders were aware of the existing zoning, building and landmark restrictions of Wrigley. They would have also known about the city Triangle construction ordinance which was part of the bleacher expansion which the Tribune had defaulted on. They would have also known of the Cubs current TV-Radio and cable television contracts. A proper due diligence would have had a buyer demand to “renegotiate” the WGN deals to current fair market value as a condition of sale. In Ricketts case, he did not do so.
The real constraint on the new ownership was that it overpaid for the Cubs by approximately $300 million. Ricketts bought the team at its peak attendance, peak revenue, peak beer sales without looking at whether those resources were viable in the long run. As such he was under the false assumption that people would come to Wrigley to party, win or lose. The local favorite bid group, backed by Selig, allegedly only bid $525 million. The Ricketts accepted Zell’s plan to play $845 million, with $745 million in new debt, as an alleged means to save income taxes for the Tribune for the sale (even though the Tribune would file for bankruptcy protection with massive losses). This new high debt burden put the Cubs on the MLB watch list. Commercial loan agreements have restrictive covenants on revenue and collateral use by the debtor. What is interesting to note is that $300 million price difference between bids does equate to the costs the Wrigley renovations and/or bad broadcast deals. A lower purchase price would have dramatically improved the team’s cash flow because of less bank debt. Crane Kenney made a telling statement at the convention that the rooftops revenue of $20 million (which he inferred should be the Cubs revenue) was significantly hurting the baseball operations. If that is true, then the Cubs finances are not as rosy as reported in the financial press.
It is clear that team management believes that the rooftop owners are parasites that need to be squashed in order to the Cubs to capture all the revenue, direct or indirect, associated with Wrigley Field. The rooftop owners, who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to create their businesses, understand that their businesses will end in 2023 so they will fight to maintain the contract rights. This has the story line of a rich cattle baron coming to a new territory to try to force out the sheep herding homesteaders. A contract is a contract and both sides should live with its terms.
There is also another dynamic at play. The Ricketts vision of Wrigley Field is now as a 365 day/year theme park. They plan to have restaurants and bars open all year round. They want to have more non-baseball events, all year round. This is direct competition to the other business owners in the neighborhood. This is the free market, but existing taverns and restaurants don’t want to roll over and lose their livelihoods. This also expands the neighborhood issues such as traffic, parking, noise, drunk patrons, etc. What has flown under the radar is the dense commercial use proposed for the McDonald’s block. This is where most of the Wrigley “rehab” dollars will be spent. In any other part of the city or any suburb, the high density use of a hotel, health club, restaurant, bars, commercial/retail spaces in a small block area with no real parking to support the new businesses would not have been approved by any city council. The Cubs have gotten just about everything from the city they asked for, including changing the plans after approval to get for free parts of the sidewalks and streets for their building expansion.
But the real issue that few grasp is this: the rooftop issue of the jumbotron and OF sign has NOTHING TO DO with Ricketts grand real estate development projects outside of Wrigley, including the Triangle and McDonald’s block. The rooftops have nothing to do with the proposed internal improvements inside Wrigley like new restrooms, new clubhouse, new weight room, etc. Ricketts could have starting digging those projects last year. The real question in all the blame on the neighborhood is WHY has Ricketts decided NOT to go forward with those non-OF signage issues? The cost of construction is going to go UP the longer you delay.
One would want to begin work on construction projects as soon as possible. The Cubs said they had a five year construction plan in place. But they now refuse to go forward without everything Ricketts wants locked down. No one has pressed the Cubs on why that HAS to happen.
And if the whole scheme depends upon the advertising revenue of a jumbotron and beer sign – – – then why isn’t anyone asking Ricketts about that? Have the Cubs run out of money for any capital improvements?
It seems the falling attendance (which the team admits is the major source of revenue for the team) is a major factor in the Cubs frantic grasps to find immediate new revenue sources. Destroying the rooftop businesses does not mean that the Cubs will immediate see millions in new ballpark ticket sales. But one has to take what the team executives have to say or don’t say about revenue.
In the zoning application, it was clear that the Cubs baseball team is merely a tenant at Wrigley Field. A different legal entity owns Wrigley, and another legal entities own the real estate development properties. When Epstein fails to answer the question on how these new revenue sources will impact the baseball operations, the reason is probably because those new developments are going spin off revenue to different business enterprises. There is no legal tie that binds the Wrigley Field and adjacent property development profits with more revenue for the baseball operations. At best, the Cubs may get some percentage of revenue sharing of new signage inside the ball park, but even that is not guaranteed since the club does not own Wrigley Field. If all the real estate developments go through, with new debt service, the Cubs baseball team may have to survive just on its gate, concessions and broadcast rights revenues.
Cubs fans should not be concerned with the politics of the real estate development projects in and around Wrigley Field. Cub fans should not be concerned with the litigation between the team and the rooftop owners. Cubs fans should be concerned that through all the smoke and mirrors stories, Ricketts are being fiscally haunted by the bad business deal when they purchased the Cubs. Ricketts did not have the foresight to run a major league baseball team during a downturn in the economy and in the team’s performance. Financially, he has to have buyer’s remorse. And his current actions are an attempt to unravel those bad decisions. Adding to the distress, it seems that the Ricketts family’s primary focus now is becoming a Lakeview real estate baron than fielding a competitive baseball team.
And one final observation: does it make any business sense to invest $300-500 million in a location in which the community objects to the size, scope and operations of your business? For that amount of money, you could build an exact replica of Wrigley Field, with all the new amenities, in Rosemont, Arlington Heights, Itasca or any other suburb in America. If the analysts are correct, and the business model for baseball teams is the Dodgers broadcast deal as being more important than attendance or merchandising, then it would not matter where the Cubs played their games.
TheStealthGMQuote Reply
@ TheStealthGM:
Some excellent points here. I’m going to link to think in the thread that Myles posted so others make sure to read it.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
This is a really enlightening article. End result is the Cubs can’t compete with other teams because of this nonsense…Get ready to move and do it now.
Al BigQuote Reply
I’o one have asked this a few times in the Twittersphere and no one has responded. Does there exist (or can someone pretty easily compile) a listing that shows what bars in Wrigleyville any and all of the rooftop owners own?
I bought a multi-game pack again this year and don’t want to spend one dime in any of there bars.
Hopefully this info is out there (I can’t imagine that it isn’t) or will be easy to pull together.
Thanks!
Hacks21Quote Reply
I’ve asked… and …their bars., that is.
Hacks21Quote Reply
A very thoughtful, fair, and thoroughly researched piece, Tim. Well done.
Rewdy9Quote Reply
@ Hacks21:
You could skip the bars and buy all your liquor within Wrigley Field.
FrankSQuote Reply