1_PROPOSED_MARQUEE_VIEWSince this weekend’s revelation that the Ricketts Family was now willing to foot the bill for the $300 million renovation of Wrigley Field (plus another $200 million in projects around Wrigley) on the condition that certain restrictions – tied to signage, night games, extra activities, and street fairs – are lifted, it was inevitable that a small political fight was going to break out. Specifically, you had to figure that the city of Chicago, no longer asked to assist the Cubs directly with a break on the amusement tax, was going to be on board with the plan. And you had to figure that the neighborhood, represented by Alderman Tom Tunney, would push back a little bit, at least insofar as the lifting of restrictions could impinge on their preferences.

Each entity spoke out yesterday about the Cubs’ plans, with predictable results on each side.

For the city, Mayor Rahm Emanuel sounded very much on board with the Ricketts Family’s proposal.

“So, we’re at a point where there will be no taxpayer subsidies for a private entity,” Emanuel said, per the Sun-Times. That said, Wrigley is important to the neighborhood and to the city — or at least a part of the city that likes to go there – and I want to ensure that it continues that kind of important role that it plays in the North Side, which is why I’m also pleased that they’re also putting a hotel up. So, I asked all the parties involved to finish this up.”

In doing so, the Mayor suggested he would assist in getting things to where they need to be.

“We all have a stake in getting it done. It is not done until all the parts fall in place. There are other things that are necessary to do that. There are 1,200 jobs at stake in building and refurbishing Wrigley. But, I want to be clear. I said from the beginning and now it’s absolutely clear and underscored: There will be no taxpayer subsidy in the refurbishing of Wrigley. But, all the parties have a role to play to see it through to the end, and I intend to help do that.”

Naturally, he made certain to emphasize the feather in his cap that this new deal would represent.

“When I first started this discussion, the Cubs wanted 200 million in taxpayer dollars,” Emanuel said. “I said, ‘No.’ Then, they said we’d like 150 million taxpayer dollars and I said, ‘No.’ Then, they asked if they could have 100 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and I said ‘No.’ Then, they asked about 55 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies. I said ‘No.’ The good news is after 15 months, they’ve heard the word, ‘No.'”

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Emanuel made certain to emphasize throughout his remarks that there would be no “taxpayer subsidy” for the renovation, and was clearly applauding himself in the process. Thus, you can imagine why he’ll be strongly pushing for the Ricketts’ self-funding plan to take hold and go forward.

Does that mean he’ll push Tunney on the other side of the aisle? Probably some, though he wasn’t interested in saying so publicly at this point.

Tunney, for his part, isn’t strictly opposed to the Ricketts Family’s plan, but he wants to make sure his constituency is considered in the process. Yesterday, he released a statement indicating his priorities in these discussions, which were published on the Lakeview Patch site:

  • A 10-year extension of the Neighborhood Protection ordinance that would include a limit on night games and concerts held annually at Wrigley Field.
  • A dedicated police detail unit for all Wrigley Field events, especially post game coverage.
  • An improved streetscape—lighting, sidewalks, traffic signals, identifiers and landscaping—on Clark Street to enhance commercial activity and on Sheffield Avenue to preserve the residential district.
  • A commitment to restore the CTA Sheridan Red Line El Station.
  • A limit on street closures of Sheffield or Waveland Avenues for any Cubs Street Festivals.
  • An updated planned development for the proposed Triangle building and plaza on Clark Street north of Addison. This development should include space for public and community events like farmer’s markets and ice skating.
  • A long-term agreement between the Chicago Cubs and its rooftop partners concerning advertising inside and outside of Wrigley Field that has the approval of the Landmarks Commission, the City and our community.

Obviously that last one is the biggy, as far as the Cubs are concerned. The rooftops, with which the Cubs do currently have a contractual revenue sharing agreement, want to make sure that their views aren’t obstructed by new signage (or, presumably, if those views are obstructed, that they are compensated). Fair or not, it’s understandable that it’s their position, and the Cubs will probably try their best to work out a collaborative solution. I’m sure those discussions are already being had.

The first one is likely almost as big, as the Cubs clearly want to be able to increase their night games (tricky in a residential area), and their non-Cub events like concerts (again, tricky in a residential area … though, isn’t being able to open your window and hear a concert, like, a good thing?).

The other items appear to be things that could be helped by some city involvement and/or are things that the Cubs, themselves, might very well want, too.

  • Dan W

    You know after reading about the back and fourth bantering, I’d say “TEAR IT DOWN”. There is now way that a true Cubs fan (millions) would not be smiling from ear to ear with a brand new state of the art facility. Mold the new stadium after Wrigley, the Ricketts, Epstein, are going to put a world class program on the field in the near future. It doesnt matter where they play, they win and the the place will be packed………………

    • Corey

      FUCK NO.

  • JB88

    As a former resident of East Lakeview, I can tell you that you are able to hear concerts at Wrigley (as well as the game themselves when the crowd cheers) all the way to inner Lakeshore Drive. So those concerts certainly have some serious reach.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      What did you folks in that area think about it? Do you have a sense of whether it was considered really annoying, or a good thing, or a neutral thing?

      • JB88

        For most people, the concerts were quite welcome. The bands brought in were desirable and it was a once-a-summer sort of thing. The other thing to keep in mind is that the concerts typically ended by 9 p.m. I think the Cubs will need to be concious of the number of concerts they have, but as long as they are done by 9 p.m., then I don’t think it will be a big deal. Plus, and I think this is a biggie, but you really can’t hear Wrigley when your windows are closed. Sitting outside in the summer with a beverage and hearing Wrigley or a concert was never a bad thing for me.

        I think most people who live within a couple mile radius of Wrigley understand that their lives are impacted by the Cubs also being in the neighborhood. My least favorite occurence was finding a drunk Cubs fan pissing on my building after a day game, but for the most part the biggest annoyance is traffic, which exists no matter the time of day.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          Thanks for the perspective, JB. I’ve always felt like folks who move into that area kind of know (want?) what they’re getting into. But, I’ve only visited, as opposed to lived there, so I also figured, “what do I really know?”

          • JB88

            I’ll also add that I’ve always felt like the weekend night game restriction was BS and not something that the neighborhood really wanted. The main reason? Because that shifts the night games to the week, when: (a) people work; and (b) because it creates havoc on commuting to and from the neighborhood at the time most people are getting off work. Additionally, with day games in the summer, it completely screws up traffic during the times that most people grocery shop or have kids going to various places that are inevitably west of Wrigleyville.

            Conscientious residents understand that traffic would actually be better in Lakeview if night games were moved from weeknights to the weekend.

            • JB88

              That should be “weekend day games in the summer.”

          • mr.mac

            Which concerts could have possibly ended at 9pm? Most of them (if not all) do not start until after it is dark. That’s not till somewhere between 8 and 8:30.

            • JB88

              For one, I remember Sting ending around that time.

              As for starting after dark, I don’t recall that at all. Most of those concerts have opening acts starting between 6:30 and 7, with the main act going on around 8. Again, just my recollection and, in full disclosure, I moved out of the neighborhood in 2009, so I don’t know what has happened over the last few years.

              • mr.mac

                McCartney came on stage at 8 or 8:15, and he played till around 11 in 2011. Could be they had early start/end times when you lived there as the concert thing at Wrigley was pretty new-ish. It’s just not that way anymore.

        • http://twitter.com/bleeinternets Brandon

          I went to see Springsteen last year and that ended around 11:00. Considering the usual outdoor concert curfew of 10:00 (which is enforced for other outdoor things like Lollapalooza, Pitchfork and neighborhood chamber of commerce festivals) I was kind of surprised.

          I live in Uptown, about a mile and a half away from Wrigley. I can tell when there’s a game/concert (lights are super bright) but I can’t hear the music from that far away (or I was selectively not hearing Jason Mraz)

        • MDel

          We live right across from Soldier Field, and the occasional concert was one of the unplanned perks we have enjoyed since we moved in (recently surpassed by the sledding hill right out our window thanks to my 3 year old). As a U2 fan, between sound checks and actual concerts, we had like a week of free shows when they were in town. Even for artists we aren’t big fans of, the wife and I love to sit on the balcony and listen.

  • TSB

    Some crisp folding money in a plain envelope, and the amderman’s objections should disappear…

    • Ron

      They have been doing that ever since they agreed to revenue sharing with the roof top owners.

  • Ron

    I have always been semi against the public funding portion of this but reading Rham’s remarks make me want to puke. Anything short of a complete lift on all restrictions will be considered a huge loss for the Cubs. They are already at a competitive disadvantage and this is just making things worse.

  • DarthHater

    Okay, this isn’t about the Cubs or baseball, but it’s too awesome to overlook. See the column below defending the decision of the NBA’s New Orleans Hornets to change their name to the Pelicans. And be sure to watch the embedded videos!


  • CharMcCar

    Keith Law sounds so dumb arguing with Brett about value on twitter, really rubs me the wrong way as far as his future analysis goes

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I didn’t want to give him too much shit, because I do like Law’s analysis … but man, he was really wrong on that one, and kind of took a lazy way out of the discussion.

      For those who didn’t see it, Law has a policy of ignoring the possibility of an extension when evaluating a trade (in today’s instance, the possibility that the D-backs extend Prado). I pointed out that the ability to extend a guy before he reaches the open market and is free to negotiate with every other team has some value – the D-backs now have a year to negotiate with Prado before any other team can bend his ear. That has value. I couldn’t say how much (it depends on the team, really), but it’s not zero. Law essentially said that if you can’t put a value on it, it’s not worth considering. That, to me, is a lazy response – we value intangible things all the time, even when we can’t put a precise worth on them. Then again, it was Twitter, so there’s only so much room for nuance.

      All in all, I won’t bash Law too hard over this one.

      • bbmoney

        It’s a tough question. I think in most trades the value you get in your negotiating window is pretty negligible.

        The exception would be if you’re trading for a guy before he’s really making any money in arbitration and he wants the security for a LT deal and might take less than market. Prado doesn’t really fit that case, I doubt he’d give a ‘hometown’ discount to a team he just got traded too having already made ~16M by the time he’ll hit free agency. And if you’re paying him market rate with an extension there isn’t much value there, unless you make some arguement about now you know you have him and it’s mental thing headed into 2014.

        I guess I wouldn’t say if you can’t put a value on it you don’t consider it, but you better at least be able make sure it’s something pretty valuable if it’s going to factor into a trade decision. I’m not convinced it is in most cases.

        • JulioZuleta

          Take a guy with a family that just moved cross-country. Tell him “Here, sign this sheet of paper giving you tens of millions of dollars. If you sign it, you don’t have to worry about any career altering injuries that could happen this year, and you won’t have to move your family again in 10 months.” I know it’s not a slam dunk by any means, but it’s worth more than nothing, for sure.

      • JulioZuleta

        Soooo a guy who makes his living scouting/studying/projecting teenagers says that if you can’t put a value on something it’s not worth considering? How can you put a value on a 17 year old’s intangibles, or his “projectable frame” or a completely arbitrary “floor” or “ceiling” based on talents of a guy who won’t sniff a big league roster for 5-6 years at best. He’s so hypocritical. Unfollowed him a while ago and life has been better. I know he has some good stuff, but I figure anything Cubs related will be retweeted by other people I follow.

        • JulioZuleta

          Ask Keith if he has followed Anibel Sanchez the last year. One of the things that Det said at the time of the trade is that they made it with an extension in mind. Although they didn’t get it done during the year, they were still given a hometown chance to match (as we all know). There is definite value. I still think it was an awful trade for the DBacks, but to dismiss that, especially using that rationale, is ridiculous.

  • Jim

    As an outsider (Arizona) if I were Ricketts, I’d tell those Chicago politicians to stick it and move to another city. Then I’d like to see what they would do with that corner. Short sighted fools. Those Chicago politicians make me sick. Just doing business with them gets you just as dirty.

    • caryatid62

      The Cubs have no leverage. They’re not going anywhere, and any claim that they’d move would be recognized for the empty threat it is.

      Furthermore, if the Cubs moved, they would lose as much as the city. Neither side wants that.

      • Lou

        Agreed. It seems as though Ricketts lost leverage when he said that the team was wedded to this ballpark and he had no intentions of moving from the get-go.

        • Kevin

          And you believed him?

  • Frank Baron

    I totally agree with the other comment.I was never in favor of the public financing the Cubs projects precisely because the “Gangsters with badges” known as City Hall et al think they own your property and have the right to heavily tax and control it. The Cubs should consider other options like going out to the West Chicago/Aurora area and building a replica of Wrigley field and the immediate neighborhood… And tell Ram to Ram it. The only way you handle the greedy/corrupt politicians is to take away their cash and their control… Did’nt the White Sox hold up the city for public funding of a new stadium? Along with a favorable rent package. A mistake the Rickett’s made is not leaving the possibility of leaving the neighborhood an open question. Had they done that, this might have been a different conversation. The fans would follow the Cubs no matter what part of the Chicago area they played in.

  • Jon

    Sorry that you moved next to a ballpark people. It’s not like you didn’t know it existed before you moved in. Shut the hell up. I’m sure you can move and get a handsome penny for the value of your property

  • Kevin

    The Ricketts need plan “B”

  • Ted

    I say move out of Wrigley & build a new state of the art stadium! Cubs fans go to see the Cubs & you could build a new wrigleyville at another location.

  • John

    Items #2- #5 are a complete joke. Why should the Cubs kick in any extra money to fund that stuff? What is the 12% amusement tax for?

    As a former resident of the neighborhood (I moved out last summer because I don’t have faith in the city schools) I have to say that the traffic concerns are ridiculously overblown. Yes, for an hour before the game and an hour after the game there is more traffic and you are probably doing yourself a favor to avoid the area. But for the most part it isn’t a problem to get around during games.

    The Cubs should say no to the first demand as well. Get rid of the shackles. Besides, one of the biggest reasons why night games are a problem is because it’s hard for residents to find parking. The biggest problem with that is that it is caused by residents themselves and not Cubs fans. People take their cars out of their garages, park them on the street, and then rent out their garage spots. This leaves no room on the streets for residents who lack garage parking. The city and specifically Tunney’s office should do a better job of cracking down on this.

    The last item is a no brainer since there is already a contract between the rooftops and the Cubs. Of course any change there would have to be agreed to by both parties. The city should let them work it all out on their own by removing the landmark restrictions on signage. If they don;t then the Cubs ought to sue the city based on 1st amendment rights saying that limiting advertising in this situation represents an infringement of their right to free speech.

    Basically if there is any holdup in this plan the Cubs should prepare to engage the city and rooftop owners in all out war. Fund an opponent to Tunney, sue everybody, really start looking to move out to the burbs, and watch Wrigleyville die as they leave.

    I don;t think any of that will happen. I think that Rahm is letting Tunney through his public tantrum so he can claim he’s doing his job but in the end there is zero chance that Rahm let’s a $500 million project get killed because a bunch of part time bar owners are all knotted up about things.

    If the rooftop owners were smart they’d all join into 1 partnership so there is no risk of a couple guys getting bought out. Then they could sell the Cubs 3 contiguous buildings for them to put up ads or a scoreboard, share the profits and keep their businesses intact.

    • Toby

      Ricketts should start buying up all the rooftop buildings. Demo them and build a huge hotel and put a jumbotron atop it.

  • Anthony M.

    I’m in agreement – the City is holding the Cubs and Ricketts hostage. I love Wrigley, but a duplicate looking stadium but with all the modern amenities built in could be built in Schaumburg right off of 53 ( where they were looking years ago. They could even develop a subdivision around it with rooftop building condos that would sell for a premium. Screw the city. Let them see what they can do with a rotting stadium with Landmark status sitting in that neighborhood. Bars and restaurants would go out of business and shudder their doors by the dozens !

    • caryatid62

      People need to stop claiming that some suburban stadium would draw anywhere near the revenue that Wrigley draws. The Cubs’ popularity and income derives from two things: (1) it’s presence on the WGN superstation in previous years, and (b) Wrigley Field as historical tourist destination.

      If the Cubs left Chicago, the city would be screwed, but so would the Cubs. They would lose billions; no one’s flying to Chicago to travel to Schaumburg to see the Cubs.

      • Fred

        I disagree – people would want to see the cubs play if they are in Schamburg or Chicago. Plus the Billions to be made are from tv not attendance.

        • caryatid62

          How are tourists going to get there? Why would anyone who is not a Cubs fan go to games in Schaumburg? Why would anyone travelling to Chicago take a full day out of their trip to (a) find a way out to Schaumburg, and (b) go to a game at a stadium that has no tourist value whatsoever?

          Over ten years, what would that do to the number of Cubs fans in existence? If the number of Cubs fans go down, what does that do to the likelihood that they can get a billion dollar TV deal? If the city decides to move someone else into Chicago, how does that impact any TV deal?

          If the Cubs move from Wrigley, they become the White Sox. And we know what kind of revenue the White Sox bring in.

          • Ralph

            There are a lot of people who travel to the Chicago region who never go into the city. Schaumburg would be much easier for a lot of people to get to then the city itself.

            • Womacks

              I belive most of the cubs season ticket holders live in the northern suburbs anyway.

              • caryatid62

                This is not true at all.

            • caryatid62

              Not compared to the number of people who vacation in Chicago. It is not even close.

          • Josh C.

            How do tourists get there now, it is not like Ohare is right up the street from Wrigley!! How do Yankees and Mets fans from the other areas of New York get to thier staduims? There is absolutley no difference in that city as to the Cubbies moving to the suburbs (which is an idea that i am not a fan of) but it is unfair for the crooks running that city to put such restricitions on a team.

            • caryatid62

              Ummm…public transportation? The El?

              You really think people are going to fly into Chicago, take the el into the city, and then plan an entire day around taking a 45 minute Metra ride to a suburb, then a who-knows-how-long bus ride or walk to a stadium just to see a mediocre or worse baseball team? As opposed to a situation in which they could fly into the city, stay at a downtown hotel, enjoy all the amenities of the city, head to Wrigley, watch a game, then enjoy the other parts of the city all within the same day.

              People don’t even want to travel to Bridgeport. There is literally no reason for them to travel to Schaumburg.

              Moving to the suburbs means Cubs revenue will be directly tied to the quality of the product, which is great for hard-core fans, but terrible for business (because maintaining a quality product every year is simply impossible).

  • 1060Ivy

    My guess is that 95% of those saying Cubs should move attend less than 3 games at Wrigley a year which comes into context when thinking about their revenue impact on Cubs management decisions. They maybe the majority but their impact flails in comparison to season ticket holder impact.

  • Rich H

    How can Emanuel even think about it being “Public Money” when it is the Cubs and their fans that have been footing the bill for all the parks in the city for 20 years. I don’t want to be the barer of bad news but we as fans have already paid for 300 million worth of renovations and then some with the amusement taxes that have been tacked on to our tickets.

    So I am now to the point that Ricketts needs to go the mayors office with a nice lease agreement with one of the suburbs and tell Rahmmy boy that he can buy said lease agreement off of him for 350 million. When Emanuel balks (and he will) then leak the story that you have purchased that land. Believe me you will get a good deal from the mayors office then. Just look at the new Bush Stadium in St Louis. That is almost exactly what they did to get it built.

    • deej34

      Agreed agreed agreed. I live a couple miles west of Wrigley and I find it ridiculous that all these people CHOOSE to live in Wrigleyville, then b*&ch and fight to keep concerts and night games out! If you are that old and concerned about your peace and quiet DON’T LIVE IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO or WITHIN 5 BLOCKS OF A MLB STADIUM!!

      I fully support trying to move the team to a burb. Get the mayor off his butt and don’t let him take the cubs for granted. Especially after paying to build that other stadium of the s*^t side, I mean, southside of Chicago.

      • CM

        I’ve said this a billion times on this site and I couldn’t agree more. Anyone in that neighborhood complaining about anything that has to do with Wrigley should have never bought there in the first place. It’s not like they magically erected the building in the middle of the night, and oh by the way, it’s fairly visible from about a half mile in any direction.

        I have an idea. I own a 3 bdrm/3 bath duplex down in Wicker Park that is about 8 years old. It is one block off Division between Damon and Wood. Please let any Wrigleyville resident with a similar property know I will gladly trade them even up if they are unhappy with the conditions the Cubs and Wrigley bring along with them.

    • caryatid62

      “Hello, Mr. Sternberg, this is Rahm Emanuel. The Cubs are threatening to move out of Chicago. I was wondering, because a number of your silent partners live in Chicago, if you’d be interested in relocating the Tampa Rays to Chicago. We can work through a plan to restore Wrigley Field and give you full rights all the tourist dollars that come through the gate each year. We’d be honored to have your organization as a part of Chicago, and it would guarantee a tenfold increase in the value of your franchise almost instantaneously. How would you like that?”

      • Womacks

        The cubs could block the move the same way SF is doing with Oakland – plus do you really believe that the Sox would let a well run American League organization into town?

        • Ralph

          Excellent point Womacks

          • caryatid62

            And Rahm would fight it in court. Welcome to the world of anti-trust litigation.

            • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

              Baseball is exempt from anti-trust lawsuits. How do you know enough to be a baseball fan and know about anti-trust issues, but not know that? That’s a weird gap in one’s knowledge.

              • DarthHater

                Actually, the statement “baseball is exempt from anti-trust lawsuits” is a bit of an oversimplification. The exact scope of the so-called antritrust exemption (which is a court-created doctrine, not an act of Congress) and, in particular, the way it applies to disputes over relocation of MLB teams is not entirely clear and, to my knowledge, has never been fully litigated.

                • Bill

                  Wouldn’t the issue be between the league members (i.e. the teams involved). I doubt that anything would happen here as much as the Cubs moving to Brooklyn.

                • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

                  Not fully litigated? Sure.

                  But the case history is behind a very broad interpretation. The next time MLB loses an anti-trust case, I’ll stop thinking they have an blanket exemption.

                • caryatid62


          • Fred

            Plus the Cubs own Wrigley – i’m sure they could let it go for around 5 Billions – what do you say Rahm -?

            • caryatid62

              I say that if you’re not going to use it, the city will, through eminent domain, take back the land. Thanks.

              • Fred

                For fair value i’m sure.

                • Ralph

                  How does the city get the White Sox and the Cubs to waive their rights?

              • JB88

                You have zero idea what you are talking about. You should stop waxing intellectual on legal issues.

                • Jack

                  And what law school die you go to???

                  • JB88

                    University of Illinois. Been practicing for the better part of a decade.

                • caryatid62

                  I’ll keep talking about whatever the hell I want to. Thanks for the advice, though.

                  • Ralph

                    I agree with you on that point Caryatid62. I may disagreee with your point, but if I object it will be respectful.

            • Ralph

              Baseball is exempt by an Act of Congress, maybe Rahm should get a refund from his law school.

              • John

                Isn’t it pretty widely recognized that the Supreme Court ruling which proclaimed baseball is a game and not a business may be one of the worst rulings a Supreme Court has ever made? It gave Baseball an exemption from anti-trust legislation but if the original ruling somehow gets overturned then the exemption goes away as well. Baseball knows this which is why anytime Congress threatens them they come back and give Congress almost exactly what they want. A team could probably win if they sued MLB but it would be a long, messy, and expensive lawsuit against the very people you need to work with. So yeah it could be done, but it isn’t likely anytime soon.

                I wouldn’t mind seeing the A’s give it a run though.

                • fred

                  Worst ruling byy whom?

                  • DarthHater

                    I believe the ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

                    • Ralph

                      If it was his worst ruling ever, which a majority of the justices agreed with, is a subjective matter. Some may say it was the best ruling ever, others may disagree.

                • http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com Kyle

                  Bad decision or not, it’s got 90+ years and several upholdings behind it.

                  The Court will take the attitude that Congress could clearly clarify the situation and revoke the exemption if they wanted to, and since they haven’t, the exemption stands.

                • caryatid62

                  Ultimately, this is the point. The Cubs even threatening to leave Chicago would result in a ridiculous legal back-and-forth that would earn neither the Cubs nor the city any money. It’s not in the Cubs benefit to move, nor is it in the city’s benefit to have the Cubs move.

                  Any argument that begins “move to Schaumburg” is silly and dead in the water. It’s not going to happen. It was never going to happen. It’s a bad idea and one that will financially damage both the Cubs and the city. Just accept that and move on.

        • caryatid62

          Furthermore, the territorial rights issue would have to be revisited before the Cubs would move, so the city would have the opportunity to step into that void and litigate before the MLB constitution recognizes the Cubs’ “new” territory in Schaumburg.

        • hansman1982

          Not sure how the Cubs would do in that fight.

          Sure would seem like a 3 year old getting upset when another kid started playing with a toy they walked away from.

      • Mr. Brent Kennedy

        You are forgetting that minor detail that the Rickets family owns Wrigley Field.

  • md8232

    Move the Cubs to Alton, Il.
    A. It’s close and I can buy Season tix.
    B. It will stick it to the Cards!!!!!!!!!

  • Bigg J

    Oh man I love going to night games at Wrigley.

  • Ralph

    The City of Chicago being fair? HA! Move to Schaumburg and turn Wrigley into a homeless shelter.

  • caryatid62


  • Womacks

    Building a new stadium could be done in a couple of years versus five years.

  • Fred

    I disagree

  • dash

    I say if they start building now, the Cubs could have a new stadium in Gary, Indiana by opening day.

    • Featherstone

      I thought you were trying to draw fans in not scare them away.

    • wvcubsfan

      Which universe do you live in? You couldn’t have approved plans by opening day of 2014 much less a new stadium by opening day of 2013.

      • TWC

        The universe in which anyone would want to do anything in Gary, IN, other than get the frack out as quickly as possible.

  • Craig

    I agree. Build a new park in the suburbs. When I go to Cub games at Miller Park, it is so much nicer to enjoy the game. Make the new park look like Wrigley but with everything new. Attendance will stay huge and it will teach the mayor a lesson. Then all those Wrigleyville residents, bar owners and rooftop owners will have something new to complain about: businesses shutting down and lower property values.

  • TWC

    I love the incessant suggestions that the Cubs move to the suburbs.

    Because, clearly, that idea has *never* occurred to the Cubs. Ever. There’s no way that they have *ever* done *any* research into that idea and decided that their best approach would be to renovate Wrigley instead. Impossible. If only you people were louder or more insistent that the Cubs move, THEN the team would finally figure out that you were right all along.

    • hansman1982

      Just think…if the Cubs build a new stadium in the suburbs they could tailor it to TONY CAMPANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      150′ in the power alleys
      175′ CF


      • Spriggs

        … maybe… if he crushed one right down the line.

  • Crazyhorse

    For those who jest that Cubs should move – lets hope your dreams come true. so your reality is something we can actually discuss rather than rant and cry foul.

  • Lou

    Rays owner no longer believes in Tampa Bay locale. Hmm…maybe he could sell the team to the Ricketts. Just kidding.

  • Robert

    I have no idea why so many people support Ricketts on this. The Cubs make money. They can pay for the renovations themselves. The idea of moving to the suburbs is laughable. The Cubs started to become popular in the 90s, when Wrigleyville became the place to be seen at. Do you really think Schaumburg will ever be the place to be seen at? O look there’s Ikea and I90! I know a lot of you don’t live here or go to many Cubs games but without the bars funneling in traffic the stadium would have been empty the last 2 years. That neighborhood does NOT depend on the Cubs anymore. That said, the restrictions should get lifted now. Go down Clark at 3 am in the summer and tell me that’s a residential neighborhood. Right now the Cubs need Lakeview a lot more than Lakeview needs the Cubs.

    • wvcubsfan

      Not sure I understand your argument. The Cubs (or at least their owners) are willing to pay for it, but they are asking for the restrictions to be removed. Seems to be exactly what you want. So it would also seem you supports the Ricketts’ plan.

      • Robert

        The ricketts plan was to have the city pay for it, which a lot of people here thought was fair. They are now on plan E. The idea that gets thrown around on this sight of moving to the suburbs is absurd. This plan I don’t have a problem with. The idea that the city of Chicago should help the Cubs max their profits is ridiculous.

  • http://ehanauer.com clark addison

    The rooftop owners are the tail wagging the dog. They are parasites, living off the Cubs (Minus their 17%), yet they seem to have the power to block signage that will impede their precious view.

  • Mike
  • Crazyhorse

    The Cubs have no leverage . repeat this is not a ploy – the Cubs have no leverage.-The best proposal is that what the Cubs proposed. They will foot the entire cost . Stop – that in itself is not leverage. Its a public relation ploy. to ease zoning laws and landmark status by tackling the whole debt. by gaining public support. Guess what, if the City and State decided not to give funding to the Cubs . The Cubs would still have to foot the entire bill.- The Cubs Have No leverage except too appeal for public support and make the City and Ward look bad thru the media.

    I personally have no objections with Ricketts plan- I think it a damn good plan! But Wrigley Field is smack in the middle of a residential area. its not a typical Stadium.

    So keep the propaganda going – cause that all it is. Look at this way , the Cubs Cant even tear down Wrigley and rebuild a new stadium even if they wanted to fund the whole damn thing themselves.

    • caryatid62

      I agree with this. The people of Lakeview need to shut up and accept the fact that they moved into a neighborhood with a baseball stadium in it. However, no public money should be used to fund Wrigley (or US Cellular, or the new Berto center, or Soldier Field, or any sports arena), because it’s corporate welfare and ultimately costs citizens millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. The Cubs’ suggested plan works perfectly for me.

      • Crazyhorse

        This is only my opinion, Tunney (alderman ) is gonna be set up to be sacraficial lamb in this deal. The Cubs by going on record to fund the entire project have basically pushed The mayor out of any type of power play and to a lesser extent the State . THE state will be relieved not to be a part of any backed funding that might have diverted future tax dollars into the Cubs pocket, as in the last proposal back in 2012.

        The Roof top owners will lose Unless Tunney can get The Cubs to compromise . Tunney has all the power right now. . the Cubs need his approval to build . if the mayor get involved – trust it will be Because the Mayor has leverage and that dont come cheap in Chicago esp what Daddy Ricketts did .

        • Rich H

          That is why I said to come to the mayors office with an offer in hand. No way they can move to the suburbs but they can threaten such a move. That way the leverage is in the Ricketts hand at least behind the scenes. If Rahmmy boy flinches good deal. If he doesn’t leak it. Then he will look like a beggar pleading with the Cubs to please stay in there horribly run down stadium. Either way all the stroke is on the other foot.