CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Neuman

Compared to every other stadium in Baseball Wrigley Field is a drag on this baseball franchises revenues. The only reason they gross the revenues they do is because of the extremely high cost of tickets. If the team was on par with other teams in regards to stadium advertising, naming rights, modern amenities like stadium clubs and sky boxes and the not the strained attempt at Wrigley the Cubs would have the financial resource available that only a few teams in professional sports have.

I think you're making my point for me. Cubs can't charge the prices they do sans Wrigley.

But to repeat myself, the team is one of the most profitable in all of baseball while having the 4th highest revenue stream. That revenue stream will jump once their WGN contract ends in one year.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Neuman

Yeah, the piss poor city of Chicago is going to pay several hundreds of millions to buy yet another white elephant (Soldier Field, U.S Cellular) so that they can then reinvest several more hundreds of millions into a structure that is 100 years old so that we can host high school baseball games and a handfull of concerts.

If the Cubs leave the stadium it will be torn down whether or not it is landmarked. Do you think an abandoned stadium will remain in the middle of Lakeview as it slowly falls further into disrepair?

You think Tom would hold on to the stadium and the costs associated with holding onto an empty stadium? He's not going anywhere and if he did he would be highly motivated to unload the stadium at pennies on the dollar. Wouldn't be such a smart business move.

If Wrigley did become public space, it wouldn't need to be profitable, although ballpark as "open-space" could offset many of its costs through concerts, collegiate sporting events and other revenue raising functions.

[Neuman]

Originally Posted by alex1

I think you're making my point for me. Cubs can't charge the prices they do sans Wrigley.

But to repeat myself, the team is one of the most profitable in all of baseball while having the 4th highest revenue stream. That revenue stream will jump once their WGN contract ends in one year.

They wouldn't have to charge the highest ticket fee's they make up the difference on the 15 other things they'd be making money on that they currently don't in addition to additional television fee rights.

And they are nowhere near the most profitable teams in baseball. The Forbes number does not include the massive debt service on the $600 million used to buy the team. Operating Profit is just a number that measure operating efficiency, it is not a measure of actual profit. Lump another $500 million on for stadium renovations or a new stadium and the team will be operating in the red for quite some time even with new revenues.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Neuman

They wouldn't have to charge the highest ticket fee's they make up the difference on the 15 other things they'd be making money on that they currently don't in addition to additional television fee rights. .

They charge the ticket fees they do only because they can. It's that simple. As long as they can fill the park at a threshold price that is most profitable they will.

What they receive from TV money, beer sales, or ad signage is completely unrelated. If you think they will give their customers a break or do the fans a solid simple because they have revenue from elsewhere rolling in then I think it is you who is most naive.

And they are nowhere near the most profitable teams in baseball. The Forbes number does not include the massive debt service on the $600 million used to buy the team. Operating Profit is just a number that measure operating efficiency, it is not a measure of actual profit. Lump another $500 million on for stadium renovations or a new stadium and the team will be operating in the red for quite some time even with new revenues.

So Tom Ricketts getting not accounting for the actual running of the team in order to buy it is the city of Chicago's problem? All because he presumed that he could change the landmarking dynamics and the revenue streams by bastandarizing Wrigley (it looks like he will get his way but the city or the neighborhood really haven't played up their leverage unfortunately).

More then that you are not taking into account other teams debt burden. You don't think the Yankees have bills to pay due to new Yankee Stadium? Or the Red Sox for their new renovation? Or the new Dodgers ownership with their 2 billion price tag?!

And lets not overestimate the money poured into the new stadium for renovations. It amounts to around 300 million (I'm suspect that amount will be spend) while the other 200 million will be spent on a revenue generation (hopefully) hotel.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

So Tom Ricketts getting not accounting for the actual running of the team in order to buy it is the city of Chicago's problem? All because he presumed that he could change the landmarking dynamics and the revenue streams by bastandarizing Wrigley (it looks like he will get his way but the city or the neighborhood really haven't played up their leverage unfortunately).

Wait, what leverage? What can the neighborhood or city do to stop Ricketts's plan to ruin the outfield?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Neuman

And they are nowhere near the most profitable teams in baseball. The Forbes number does not include the massive debt service on the $600 million used to buy the team. Operating Profit is just a number that measure operating efficiency, it is not a measure of actual profit. Lump another $500 million on for stadium renovations or a new stadium and the team will be operating in the red for quite some time even with new revenues.

They totally are one of the most profitable teams in baseball. Just the tax abatement (worth $10m-$15m per season) is a massive win for the club's owners. Getting an extra $10m-$50m after the WGN deal expires is another huge win. Buying the Cubs is one of the least risky investments out there. In fact, the club could bankroll nearly half a billion dollars of renovations with absolutely no increased revenues and still operate in the black. Not to mention that the real money is made when selling the club 10-15 years down the road (when the tax benefits are about to expire).

[Tom Servo]

I'm sitting in my car across the street from Wrigley right now...
Regarding the huge development across the street:
I wanna go on record as saying I'm on board with the development on the Addison side. I've thought about it and changed my mind; there's nothing that I see about the Starbucks building that would be a huge loss IMO. After seeing this, I'm on board:



However, I'm still worried about the overall scale of the first floor retail. It's so big that I'm afraid it'll be too imposing and out of scale with what's there now. This isn't the North and Clybourn area, and I really wish the ground floor was scaled down so as to minimize it's impact on the street.



lakeview.patch.com

Also, I'm still vehemently opposed to the Clark street side of the project. I stand by my original complaint. I just can't imagine Clark without all the character that exists there now. Goose Island and the Red Ivy building are both really nice, but more importantly, they feel natural and add character and warmth to the street. What I see here is an oppressively big WALL of monotonous and sterile brick and glass. And it's disturbingly out of scale. It's a 3 story monster that abruptly starts and then stops with zero consideration or attention given to its neighbors. Like I said before, I have no problem with the apartments behind it, but the idea of this ruining Clark St depresses me. I really feel like more pressure should have been put on the developer to redesign the Clark street wall in a more appropriate scale!

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Wait, what leverage? What can the neighborhood or city do to stop Ricketts's plan to ruin the outfield?

They could actually adhere to the standing of the land marking of the bleachers and outfield that prohibits any change to the sweep of the bleachers. Obviously they have already let it go twice with the expansion of the bleachers and with the Toyota Sign. They would have been perfectly in their right not to approve either of those change let alone even consider the conspicuous proposal the Ricketts now have put up.

Now, you may say that would force Ricketts out of Wrigley. To which I would say is very naive and lacks many considerations that Ricketts would have to weigh. I think it unlikely that Ricketts would decide to forgo all the benefits of Wrigley (association with Cubs brand, affords them to charge 2nd highest ticket prices in MLB, continuously allowed them to draw 3mill. even in lean years etc.) over a few million dollars per year in outfield signage advertising. I would LOVE to get the dollar figures that the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox make on their digital outfield advertising.

[ehilton44]

A nice article summarizing the recent legal docs on Wrigley from a Cubs fan point of view.

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2013/...ysis-cubs-news

Analysis: The Cubs' Wrigley Field Renovation Plans

By Al Yellon on May 7 2013, 11:00

The Cubs recently released the official legal documents that comprise their proposal to renovate Wrigley Field and the surrounding area. They have posted the required legal notices on the side of Wrigley Field (you can see one of them in this FanShot). You'll note that there are four separate LLCs asking for various rezoning in that sign:

Wrigley Field Holdings, LLC
Wrigley Field Parking Operations, LLC
Triangle Property Holdings, LLC
North Clark Street, LLC

The requests for the first three of those were signed by Crane Kenney, the fourth by Tom Ricketts. I'm presuming that the North Clark Street LLC is the one that owns the property on which the proposed hotel will be built, and the rest are for property owned by the Cubs on the Wrigley Field footprint.

[Neuman]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

They charge the ticket fees they do only because they can. It's that simple. As long as they can fill the park at a threshold price that is most profitable they will.

What they receive from TV money, beer sales, or ad signage is completely unrelated. If you think they will give their customers a break or do the fans a solid simple because they have revenue from elsewhere rolling in then I think it is you who is most naive.

So Tom Ricketts getting not accounting for the actual running of the team in order to buy it is the city of Chicago's problem? All because he presumed that he could change the landmarking dynamics and the revenue streams by bastandarizing Wrigley (it looks like he will get his way but the city or the neighborhood really haven't played up their leverage unfortunately).

More then that you are not taking into account other teams debt burden. You don't think the Yankees have bills to pay due to new Yankee Stadium? Or the Red Sox for their new renovation? Or the new Dodgers ownership with their 2 billion price tag?!

And lets not overestimate the money poured into the new stadium for renovations. It amounts to around 300 million (I'm suspect that amount will be spend) while the other 200 million will be spent on a revenue generation (hopefully) hotel.

Yankee's debt to value is 2%. Dodgers were bought with mostly cash and have a debt to value ratio of 26%, Red Sox 18%. The Cubs were forced to buy the team with debt by Sam Zell as a condition of buying the team. And even though we all now if they wanted to liquidate other assets to pay off the debt, it appears that their are restriction on their ability to do so or they would have already done it.

And guess what, teams have been dropping ticket and concession prices league wide to attract fans back into stadium this year mainly as a result of revenue growth in TV revenues allowing them to do so.

[Taller]

Town President Larry Dominick sent a larry to Tom Ricketts yesterday about 50+ acres of land in the neighboring town of Cicero for a new stadium. Larry claims that the reason for the Chicago Cubs not winning a world series in over a century is because of an outdated stadium.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ess/705089880/

[Rizzo]

A city with no financial incentives to offer begging for a team. Cute.

City of Chicago offers them no $$$ and they are still staying. Money talks, if you want anyone to even entertain the idea, you better have a dollar sign and a 9 figure number in the letter, especially when the Ricketts have thrown enough money at getting this proposal moving forward. A huge sunk cost, but the cost of doing business regardless.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Originally Posted by Hayward

A city with no financial incentives to offer begging for a team. Cute.

City of Chicago offers them no $$$ and they are still staying. Money talks, if you want anyone to even entertain the idea, you better have a dollar sign and a 9 figure number in the letter, especially when the Ricketts have thrown enough money at getting this proposal moving forward. A huge sunk cost, but the cost of doing business regardless.

All these in state proposals (Rosemont, Cicero ...) are insane. The only threat that is going to open up state coffers would be an out of state one. Booming Texas will probably get two more mlb teams eventually, and even Indianapolis could potentially be a viable mlb city soon. Illinois would most likely cave then lose a 100+ million payroll team and the economic multiplier effect of it's box office impact.

Either way seems as if the city and Rickets compromise is going forward. Its good the overall structure will be preserved , but some pretty gaudy electrical signage within the visual sight lines of the seating bowl are soon to be foisted upon patrons. I've come to believe the rooftop proposal of the billboards on top of their buildings would be the lesser of the two evils. It also would match the same visual appearance of Fenway Park where their LED's are elevated higher out of stadium sight lines than Ricket's ( in seating bowl LED's ) will appear.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

All these in state proposals (Rosemont, Cicero ...) are insane. The only threat that is going to open up state coffers would be an out of state one. Booming Texas will probably get two more mlb teams eventually, and even Indianapolis could potentially be a viable mlb city soon. Illinois would most likely cave then lose a 100+ million payroll team and the economic multiplier effect of it's box office impact.

Either way seems as if the city and Rickets compromise is going forward. Its good the overall structure will be preserved , but some pretty gaudy electrical signage within the visual sight lines of the seating bowl are soon to be foisted upon patrons. I've come to believe the rooftop proposal of the billboards on top of their buildings would be the lesser of the two evils. It also would match the same visual appearance of Fenway Park where their LED's are elevated higher out of stadium sight lines than Ricket's ( in seating bowl LED's ) will appear.

The team is leaving Illinois, oh, noes!!!!

The problem with paranoia rooted from corporations or businesses threatening moves due to incentives is that in the macro economic sense, while a business entity may win thanks to a community's fear, the broader economy ends up losing (not just locally).

[Neuman]

Here is the link to the renovation overview the Ricketts presented at the team convention earlier this year. Quite a bit of information involving the plans for the stadium.

http://youtu.be/c0YpSYnECp4

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Neuman

Here is the link to the renovation overview the Ricketts presented at the team convention earlier this year. Quite a bit of information involving the plans for the stadium.

http://youtu.be/c0YpSYnECp4

Wow. Very nice! If only they could stop there without ruining the bleachers and the neighborhood with that fucking jumbo-tron!

[eleven=11]

a little off topic but ...
is there any pics of the new spring training stadium in mesa Arizona ?

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

a little off topic but ...
is there any pics of the new spring training stadium in mesa Arizona ?

No, they haven't update it yet. I think you will see it on the entire website.

[MegaBass]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

a little off topic but ...
is there any pics of the new spring training stadium in mesa Arizona ?

Per Keep the Cubs Facebook page that has some of the initial renderings.

Also they just completed the baseball academy/education center in the Dominican Republic.

[Chicago29]

Originally Posted by Neuman

Here is the link to the renovation overview the Ricketts presented at the team convention earlier this year. Quite a bit of information involving the plans for the stadium.

http://youtu.be/c0YpSYnECp4

It wasn't stated in the video, but I thought I heard/read somewhere that the steel columns that support the upper deck would also be replaced. It would make sense considering the replacement of the upper deck and the concrete work on the lower level.