respect wrigleyFinally, there’s a little something happening in the way of Wrigley Field renovations, and it could be something big. And we could find out about it as soon as the Cubs Convention next week.

But I’m getting ahead of myself …

Tuesday night, the Chicago Cubs presented the possible upgrades they’re considering for Wrigley Field, together with the nearby Triangle Property, to a community group in the Wrigleyville area. In short, the Cubs are looking to improve everything – dugouts, restrooms, concessions, locker rooms, batting cages (added below the grandstands), luxury suites, and the press box. Additionally, the Cubs are looking to turn the Triangle Property into a community area for all kinds of events, and the McDonald’s property into a hotel.

The information comes from a report on DNAinfo Chicago, a media enterprise owned and operated by Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts. Although he doesn’t have any direct involvement with the Cubs, he obviously would be certain to make sure the information about the renovations were supremely accurate in his own publication. Some details, from DNAinfo:

A short video showed a rendering of what the Cubs have in mind for the ballpark. The changes would be phased in over four years if approved, [Cubs manager of community outreach Jennifer] Dedes Nowak said.

“This is a heads-up,” she said, emphasizing she sought community input before final decisions. “This is what we’re thinking.”

The plan also featured more practice space for players and a replacement for the existing roof.

Development of the field’s adjacent triangle property — the area west of the ballpark now occupied by a temporary ice rink and parking lots — aims to transform the spot into a neighborhood entertainment and community hub.

Renderings featured an open space for farmers markets, outdoor movie screenings and a better ice rink. It would be surrounded by more Cubs office space and a one- to two-story retail plaza.

That all sounds in line with the things we’ve heard over the last couple years. Essentially, the Cubs are holding out the possibility of a great community area and hotel (with parking) as a carrot to incentivize the neighborhood to get on board with easing restrictions on the things the Cubs can do to generate revenue. And, if the neighborhood likes the improvements enough, maybe they even get on board with the idea of the Cubs receiving some public money to work on the renovations, in the form of tax breaks on the amusement tax collected on Cubs tickets. The community obviously isn’t “the decider” in that regard, but surely the Cubs recognize it can’t hurt to have a big group of taxpayers on your side.

Here’s the real kicker: the article indicates Cubs’ VP of Communications Julian Green said official photos of the renderings of the possible upgrades are going to be presented January 19th.

What’s January 19th? That’s the Saturday of the Cubs Convention.

Now, I ask you: why would the Cubs present the renderings of the future of Wrigley Field and the surrounding area unless they had a pretty good sense that *something* was going to happen, and soon? Last year at the Convention, we saw renderings of the new Dominican facility, which was already green lit. Further, the Cubs announced the new patio section in right field and the new LED board, which had not yet been finalized, but everyone understood were going to happen.

The wheels in my head are turning. Would the Cubs reveal renderings and plans for the Wrigley renovations at the annual fan convention, only to add the caveat that, “we don’t know if any of this is actually going to happen, though, because we don’t know if we can get the funding to make it happen”? I really don’t think they would.

I won’t go so far as to predict that we’re going to have an announcement at the Convention, but it now suddenly seems plausible. Short of an announcement, a statement of confidence that things are going to proceed soon seems … likely. It feels crazy to say that, but how else can you interpret this information?

The Convention just got a whole lot more interesting.

  • @cubsfantroy

    I really need to try to get to Wrigley this year.

  • JB88

    If your dot connecting is correct, Brett, it certainly seems like some wheeling and dealing has been occurring behind the scenes.

    And, there’s a part of me, that is hitting myself in the head and saying “it makes so much sense.” Theo and Jed are clearly the master of obfuscation on the baseball side, it never would have dawned on me that, perhaps, Ricketts wishes to foster that sort of atmosphere within the entire organization. It is a lot easier to control all messages if you are negotiating in private versus using the media to try to get Emmaul to the table.

    • Brett

      I don’t want to go too far in the dot-connecting, but … yeah. There’s a lot of that that makes sense, and I just think it would be very odd to announce the plans for the Wrigley renovation without any kind of confidence that you’re going to get the funding.

      • guy

        I know you’re way more of a pro-public money for renovations guy than I am, but how can you possibly be OK with this kind of back room dealing? Rich guys (aka the Ricketts) can just go talk to the mayor and city council to hold secret meetings on getting millions in public money? There’s NO PUBLIC INPUT whatsoever, let alone knowledge that this is even happening. Then, they get to smile and reveal all of the things that will enrich them further being paid for by the public at a convention celebrating themselves? How is this not an outrage?

        Obviously, we don’t know for sure this is what’s happening. And you haven’t said you’d be happy if this is what’s going on. But if it is, how can you be OK with it? How can rich people just secretly negotiate with the mayor to get millions in public money? How come you and I aren’t allowed to do this?

        • hansman1982

          You and I and Brett and everyone else can do this sort of stuff when you have a multi-hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impact on a city like Chicago.

        • Cubbie Blues

          A little hint. This is the way things happen. There is hardly ever a vote where the outcome is in question to those that are voting. The officials would actually be very ticked off if you didn’t approach them behind the scenes first. They want to know all of the in and outs before being put on the spot. Now, that is not to say that there can’t also be public forums to have discussions as well, but every big decision is made before any “official” public meeting is made (that doesn’t include public forums).

        • JB88

          You are not properly characterizing what the Cubs are actually seeking though. As I understand it, the Cubs are basically seeking three things: (1) an agreement from the City to defer collection of amusement taxes from the Cubs (this has been provided to all other organizations, including the Bulls/Hawks when they built the United Center in the 90s); (2) a lifting of the historic landmark status and other artificial proscriptions on how the Cubs conduct their business; and (3) greater flexibility to have night games and close Waveland and Sheffield during the games.

          What is the nuance, you ask? The amusement tax isn’t a foregone conclusion. It is only based on ticket sales and it is only based on the Cubs residing in Chicago. And, it is the most aggressive amusement tax against a MLB team in the country. And the Cubs aren’t even asking that the amusement tax be lifted, just that the Cubs be permitted to retain a certain percentage of increases to the amusement tax rather than paying those to the city over a certain period of time.

          • Patrick W.

            Shout out for the word “proscription”

            • JB88

              Shout out for the shout out 😉

          • itzscott

            If I’m John Q Public I’m immediately wondering why the profits from Luxury Sky Boxes, a Hotel, etc couldn’t be used to fund the renovations themselves without the need for the amusement tax paying for it?

            If you aren’t Joe Ricketts and want to build a factory or expand an existing business you would normally get a property tax abatement or something like that.

            I’d like to know if the Cubs and Wrigley are already getting a break on other taxes and are asking for another one on top of those thru the Amusement Tax?

            On the surface it seems that anyone who could purchase the Cubs for $1 billion without blinking an eye or affecting their standard of living while knowing their potential purchase desperately needed rehabbing would’ve factored that in when making their bid so they didn’t look like beggars with their hands out a few years later to ask everyone else to pay for their rehab.

            My house needs a new patio, driveway and finished basement. Can I get a break on my taxes to pay for it or do I find some way to get a loan and then have to pay higher taxes as a consequence because the value of my property just went up?

            • Brett

              You ask some very interesting questions, but your conclusion:

              “My house needs a new patio, driveway and finished basement. Can I get a break on my taxes to pay for it or do I find some way to get a loan and then have to pay higher taxes as a consequence because the value of my property just went up?”

              Feels pretty off. Your house does not generate revenue for the city, for the neighborhood, for small business owners, etc. Chicago derives a benefit from the existence of – and continued prosperity of – the Cubs. That seems like a pretty big difference.

              • Kyle

                Sure his house generates revenue for the city. Besides property taxes, it allows a productive citizen to live in the city and create economic activity.

                • SirCub

                  Difference is that “productive citizens” aren’t too hard to find. If this guy can’t afford to live there, then someon else will. And no matter what, you’ll have people living, working, and spending money in your city.

                  Baseball teams, on the othe hand, are not easiy replacable. And if you want a productive, revenue-producing one in your city, then there is an incentive there to support them.

                  • Kyle

                    Until the Cubs come up with a credible threat to leave, which they won’t, the city has no need to take this into account.

                    Attracting and keeping imaginary baseball teams in imaginary cities may be hard, but Chicago has nothing to worry about with the Cubs.

                    • Cubbie Blues

                      Same can be said about the said house. The house isn’t going anywhere either.

                    • hansman1982

                      and that house with the productive citizen living in it will be lucky to be a net positive for the city. Factor in children in school and odds are the house will be a cost to the city to be there.

                • Brett

                  That’s a ridiculous stretch, and is not the same kind of economic activity – in character or in volume – a large enterprise like the Cubs generates. I almost added a caveat because I figured some joker would say something like that.

                  Here’s hoping you’re just needling, and you don’t actually believe in that comparison.

                  • Kyle

                    I think the comparison is a little more valid than you do, but I also think it’s irrelevant.

                    This isn’t a morality issue. It’s a business negotiation. And in my view, the city has all the leverage and no need to give in.

                    • farmerjon

                      I agree Kyle, (I can’t believe I just said that) if the rickettes’ went out and bought 20-30 ot in the west/northwest suburbs it would bend the city’s ear very quickly. The “black hole” the cubs would leave behind would be immense.

              • itzscott

                >>Your house does not generate revenue for the city, for the neighborhood, for small business owners, etc. <<


                What are you "talking" about???

                My taxes pay for schools, who hire teachers, etc, who pay taxes which contribute to the tax pool. The construction of my patio, driveway and basement keeps construction workers employed who also pay taxes and contribute to the tax pool.

                The teachers and construction workers I pay frequent and support the small businesses in my community before, during or after their work day …. generating more to the tax pool.

                That's the way it works…. any monies that fly out of my pocket after I pay my own taxes fly out of someone else's pocket to pay taxes when they use the money I paid them.

                The Cubs highlight the number of new jobs to be created. Everyone's all for that! Maybe the city could abate the payroll taxes the Cubs would pay for all of these new hires to fund the renovations over the predicted time it would take to recoup the same amount of costs the Amusement Tax relief would.

                • Norm

                  “Your taxes” is not all that important to the city, because if you leave, there are plenty of others to take your place.

                  Not so much for the Cubs.

                  But I agree with people who say there should be no public funding. But to think the Cubs is equal to a homeowner is a bit much.

            • JB88

              This is sort of an odd post from a guy who was advocating reading articles before commenting in another thread.

              To that end, I’ve attached an article from last April where the Cubs proposed amusement tax investment scheme is discussed.


              Long and short, I don’t wish to rehash the arguments that have gone on over the last many years relating to why you needing to renovate your house is 100% different than the Cubs’ need to renovate Wrigley, but I do think a few points should be discussed:

              (1) The Cubs financed a large portion of their purchase of the Cubs, so I’m not really sure what your second to last paragraph is supposed to mean.

              (2) Part of the deal that the Cubs were seeking is removing certain artificial prohibitions on how they run their business, when they hold events, and how they are able to renovate the stadium. Despite being a private company utilizing a 100% privately owned stadium, the Cubs are the only team in Chicago who is not free to place signage where it wants or hold events when it wants.

              (3) The notion of paying for improvements with the anticipated profits seems like a strange jumping off point. Sure, maybe you finance some of the renovations in a small way doing that, but that would potentially and severely compromise the future flexibility of club spending and improvements. In other words, it isn’t good business to leverage potential future profits that you haven’t even banked on the hope that your currently planned capital improvement projects lead to profits down the road.

        • Dougy D

          I am sure that anything involving the tax money being spent in such a manner would require it be decided in a public meeting, such as a city council meeting (or whichever way the city is managed).

          I personally think that the Cubs organization is bent over a barrel by the city. It seems that they city should allow them to use some of the money that the Cubs earned from the amusement tax to improve the area of the stadium as well as the stadium itself. It seems that the Triangle building would provide more ‘amusement’ to the city, and the stadium would be ‘improved’ and theoretically draw in more people. In theory, this creates more taxes through the amusement tax than was previously being brought in before.

          I am the farthest thing from a business man, but it seems to make sense to me. I would think that the amusement tax dollars would have to be spent on something related to amusement. At the same time though, I wouldn’t expect anything but corruption out of an Illinois politician.

          • JB88

            The amusement tax is written in such a way as to require attendance in a venue in excess of a certain threshold (can’t recall, but I believe it is north of 750, so as to exclude music venues, theaters, and movie theaters), so the Triangle Building probably wouldn’t be taxed under the amusement tax, but, of course, any revenues generated by that would be subject to sales tax and also subject to property taxes.

      • JB88

        Odd might be the wrong word. “Uncharacteristic” is probably a better one. I think it would be very uncharacteristic for the Cubs to negotiate in that sort of manner, particularly with Rahm Emmanual. In fact, if anybody tried to negotiate with Emmanual in that manner, it would be akin to an act of war and would probably cost you any chance to accomplish what you are seeking to accomplish.

      • True(ly) Blue

        Brett, Isn’t there a possibility that an announcement of plans and subsequent community support helps get the mayor to buy into the plans?

  • justinjabs

    Let’s see… Wrigley Field renovations … unveil at Cubs Convention … are we getting a recently re-signed animatronic Kerry Wood in left??

  • Ryan W

    Another possible scenario: they think the renovations are so awesome that they think using the approval of neighborhood members and their most rabid fan base (Cubs convention) to assist in pitching the idea to politicians. Meaning, they actually don’t have any approvals, no back room deals have been done, they are showing the renderings as a way to rile up support on their side. If they pitch their idea well they can leverage the support from the neighbors and fans against the city to get the deal they want….

    • Brett

      I thought about that, but isn’t that just a terrible, terrible idea? Get your fans all riled up with these beautiful plans, and then say, “but we’re too poor to do this ourselves, so you need to help us get public money by showing your support for these ideas!” That’s a PR disaster waiting to happen.

  • MightyBear

    Very smart. Seems like there’s a big announcement regarding facilities at the convention every year now and a teaser to get folks to come to see what it is.

  • Cubbie Blues

    I just saw that the SABR Analytics Conference was announced. Jed Hoyer will be one of the featured speakers.

    • Brett
      • Cubbie Blues

        Oops. In my defense that was a month ago.

        • Brett

          Oh, for sure – no criticism on my end. Smaller stuff that’s old like that, I wouldn’t expect anyone (but me, maybe) to remember.

          • DarthHater

            Jerk. 😉

            • Brett

              I deserve it each time.

              • DarthHater

                Now you’re just fishing for sympathy. 😛

          • TWC

            Is there any news on the Wrigley renovations?


            • Cubbie Blues

              Was that the reading or comprehension part you were having troubles with?

            • DarthHater

              Read the article.
              Understand the article.
              Comprehend the article.
              Digest the article.

              …. and THEN attempt to comment intelligently.


              • SirCub

                Whoa, whoa, whoa. There are articles on this site? I had no idea.

                • hansman1982

                  Yes, I thought there were only Grand Master Trolls posting in the message board.

                  I’m gonna get to 500 just in that one thread.

                  • Cubbie Blues


              • TWC


  • Crazyhorse

    “The team also wants a 50 percent cut of any increase in amusement tax revenue growth above 6 percent. And unlike the bonds, which would be retired in 30 or 35 years, that would be forever…..

    I hope every registered voter in Chicago and Illinois nix this proposal. IF the Cubs and The Ricketts trust is asking Chicago for 300 million dollars to upgrade Wrigley Field thru bonds that can work . BUT if Ricketts is asking for 50% of taxes to put into his personal bank account after any tax rate above 6 percent is robbery. and the people of Chicago have a right to know.

    • JB88

      What the Cubs seek isn’t really that much difference than what the Bulls/Blackhawks sought back in the early 90’s. Then, they negotiated, IIRC, a 2% amusement tax on luxury boxes for, I believe 20 or 25 years. I recognize there is an end to what they received, but they also had a tax that was 3X less what the Cubs are seeking.

      • Crazyhorse

        Like i stated – If the Ricketts trust is asking for 300 million dollars too be backed by bonds and offset by an amusement tax that is buisness. But to demand that any tax rate over 6 percent be split 50/50 and those tax dollars go to Ricketts -FORever. Time to ignore the Cubs.

        • hansman1982


        • JB88

          You should reread that article, if for no other reason that it says that the Cubs are seeking $150 MM in amusement tax concessions from the city.

          Moreover, I’m trying to understand why you claim that negotiating for an offset is business, but negotiating for a split of a tax above a certain threshold where the money is solely generated based on people entering into a private business is somehow not.

  • Dante Hicks

    WHile I tried to think oh, wait…it could be a way to put pressure on the city, that would be suicide. Given the way things were going until the fiasco last spring with Joe Ricketts, the Cubs are not stupid. This isn’t Ed Lynch. These guy are savvy. And no, don’t make a lame joke about Crane Kenney. The Cubs have been meeting (was recently acknowledged by Ricketts) as well as others that staffs have been meeting. Ricketts and the Mayor supposedly (according to Ricketts) have not spoken, but have no doubt the Cubs people have been working closely with the city, the alderman (has the backbone of a jelly fish), and as Brett reports, the neighbors. They have been waiting and planning. I’m sure these plans have been changed many times. The conversations were going well as of August although off the public radar. Someone very wise here (I apologize for not recalling who) said you don’t release this stuff until you are close to a deal. That is true. And, there will be a scoreboard, not a Dallas size one, but a scoreboard. Ricketts himself will tell you that the people across the street are stealing product–well, he implies it. And he has to deal with that. I’m a life long fan and find that they only sure 17% of revenues to be a joke. I also find the tax situation for the Cubs a bigger joke. I was a Wrigleyville resident for 18 years and truly? Neighbor groups should get with the program. Their home values have skyrocketed, even if there has been some sliding since ’07. Extra people? Move to the suburbs. I’m getting too far afield. My general point? The Ricketts have been good neighbors and deserve a better deal. And they seem to be doing well and quietly. And knowing the Mayor, that’s how he does things.

    There is one major caveat though before fans get too excited. Living in such a big city, tons of new buildings and plans are unveiled each year. The vast majority don’t get built because of alderman or money issues or the economy. Projects get changed. The “original vision” as we may see next weekend? Quite possibly won’t be the same as what happened. Fans need to be patient. And more patient. If the hotel is dropped or something, don’t fear it won’t happen.

    Finally, Will the Cubs be forced to play a season or part of season elsewhere? The only person I ever spoke to with actual knowledge of these situations said one plan was do a three renovation and play April and May in Milwaukee of that last season. They would home open to the new place in June. The other construction would be off season. The Cubs would help season ticket holders with transport etc. Apparently, and this was told to me in August of 2012, no US Cellular deal was being discussed.

    Finally, what the Dodgers are doing and doing in ONE offseason? Makes me jealous. I’m jealous of many Dodger things now, but wow, that was fast. Done by March? Unreal.

  • The Brian Roberts Trade

    Families plan vacations around going to Wrigley Field. It is one of the top tourist attractions the great city of Chicago has to offer. Add to the fact that the Cubs have more restrictions than any other club and they own the facility out right. I do not see how some public funding does not make sense. The entire city benefits from a better Wrigley Field and neighborhood.
    The mayor knows this and I am sure they are just finding the right way to sell it to the public.

    *rant over*

  • 2much2say

    Johan Santana for Soriano straight up…
    Santana 1 yr 25 mil 5 mil buy out Soriano 2 yr 38 mil

  • Crazyhorse

    150 million dollars is correct. the 300 million blurred my vision- yet and as a taxpayer in Illinois i understand how the tax system works in this state. And under no circumstance should this state and the City of Chicago forfeit any type of tax revenue and be disguised as a payout that future generations will have to pay Ricketts for a loan. kinda sound disturbing.

    • JB88

      I appreciate what you are saying (also as a taxpayer of IL), but that is the price of doing business in any state when you are talking about large businesses. It happened last year with Sears.

      Now, obviously, the situation between Sears and the state and the Cubs and Chicago is not completely analogous because Sears’ business is not tied as directly to its location as the Cubs’ business is. All that being said, all that article provides is a snapshot of the negotiations as they existed on April 25, 2012. Nothing more. And, to be frank, while I’d love the Cubs to gain whatever competitive financial edge they can get if it improves the team, I would be fairly shocked if they received that concession from the City.

      I suspect that the demand was made not to actually win that concession but to have that as a bargaining chip to take off the table in exchange for the City agreeing to relax other items, more likely the advertisements and historic landmark restrictions

      • Crazyhorse

        It may be the price that you are willing to pay. I, in good faith can not . I cannot support giving The Ricketts Family Trust any portion of a tax revenue .I do not need my grandchildren paying the Cubs anything that the City and State gave them 47 years from now over a 150 million government Subsidiary . I only pick the 47 years is because I am that age and my grandchild is due with in the month.


        • JB88

          I don’t think you and I are on the same page.

          The Cubs and the City of Chicago are (or were) in the midst of a negotiation. Amongst the terms that the Cubs were seeking was a concession in future amusement taxes charged against people buying Cubs’ tickets. If the Cubs received that, any amusement tax charged above 6% would be split between the Cubs and the City. In other words, let’s say the tax was 7%, the City would receive 6.5% of that revenue and the Cubs would receive .5%; 8% and the City would receive 7% of that revenue and the Cubs would receive 1%, you get the picture. The Cubs have already indicated that all funds made on the team would be reinvested in the team. So, in theory, you as a Cubs’ fan would be seeing those funds which would otherwise be going to the City of Chicago reinvested in a team you claim to love.

          Now, all that is frankly academic, anyway, as the City of Chicago is capable of saying either (1) yes or (2) no to the Cubs’ request that the amusement tax revenue above 6% be split 50/50 between the Cubs and the City. If they say no, your angst is completely unfounded. If they say “yes”, your angst is completely misdirected. Because the only “person” who you should be mad at is the City of Chicago. Rather than be pissy toward Ricketts, you should be grateful to have an owner that (a) is trying to improve the onfield product and fan experience (when did the Tribune or Wrigley family last do that) and (b) is a savvy enough negotiator to try to extract such a concession in order to continue to try to improve that team.

          Separate question, do you actually live in Chicago? Because, candidly, these are funds that the City of Chicago—if it agreed to the Cubs’ request—would be willingly foregoing, not something that is at all tied to the tax revenue for the state of Illinois.

          • Crazyhorse

            I should be grateful …….. WoW and – savvy is not term i would use to describe the ownership of the Cubs. I do not want any generations of Cub fans nor the people of Illinois to give tax revenue to the Cubs forever. the key word is forever …………

            • JB88

              *Boggle* You are either very closeminded or very shortsighted.

              This happens in business negotiations between government and businesses all the time. And if you want to be pissed at someone, be mad at politicians that would give that money to a business, not the business for seeking it.

              • Crazyhorse

                you are correct ! if the mayor or governor approves the….
                loan and because of that loan certain people will be in a never ending tax loop . Kinda sounds like the toll system we have in place,

        • JB88

          One additional point, I think you also misconstrue exactly what the Cubs’ even seek through the $150MM. What the Cubs are seeking is actually a bond, which they will pay back (potentially with the equivalent of interest) over a certain period of time.

          In other words, this is not truly a subsidy but more like a fixed-term loan.

          • Crazyhorse

            then go to a bank if it a loan.

  • Crazyhorse

    well i did enjoy our conversation. i need to go and i want to say thanks for the conversation and time and effort to your replies. I am usually around -all the time.

  • cubzforlife

    The reason the games are in Milwaukee is because they cannot have a rainout. This plan was shared with me by my pal Crane Kenney. Kenney told me the plan was 3 off seasons and play the April games in Milwaukee. He did not mention help with transportation but did say they would discount those tickets to season ticket holders.
    I’ve been told T.R. Will be at Kerry Woods event and I hope to pick his brain. The funny thing is how these guys look at me. They sorta kinda recognize me after seeing me at all these things but as soon as I open my mouth the realize I’m only a fan and they treat me like a stalker.

  • Diesel

    Could they ever argue that the city is obligated to help due to the landmark status?

    • Scotti

      They could argue the City should help because the tax would generate zero extra dollars without these improvements. The City has no skin in the game. They want to do nothing to improve the product yet insist on reaping rewards–millions each year–for the Cubs investing in their own product. How does the City deserve that money?

      In terms of Cubs being over a barrel (as others have stated)… Were the Bears or Sox or Bulls over a barrel? No. None were ever really going anywhere. Yet they got deals. The Cubs are not over a barrel. The City IS raping Cub fans over a barrel, though. Cub fans are the ones who pay the taxes! IF YOU DON’T GO TO A CUB GAME YOU SIMPLY DON’T PAY THIS TAX.

      And not only do the Cubs not get any other tax breaks but they actually pay extra each year for what the Amusement Tax is supposed to cover (drains on the City resources like policing and trash clean up). When you see a cop at Wrigley the Cubs pay for that separate from the tax. When you see City clean up crews the Cubs pay for that (you can see all of this in the Cubs yearly report to Wrigleyville residents). The Bears, Sox and Bulls do NOT pay for their policing or clean up of the surrounding area–the Amusement Tax covers that City expense. The reason the Cubs pay for it is because the City never allocated enough funds and the neighborhood blamed the Cubs!

  • Pingback: Theo Epstein Speaks on a Variety of Subjects and Other Bullets | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Pingback: Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: A Funding Deal with the City May Be Near | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()