1_PROPOSED_MARQUEE_VIEWMurphy’s Bleachers, in addition to being a bar across the street from Wrigley Field, is home to one of the many rooftop clubs currently engaged in a back-and-forth with the Chicago Cubs as the team seeks out ways to fund the renovation of Wrigley Field. Of particular interest to the rooftop owners is the Cubs’ plan to increase advertising revenue by way of ad signage, either along the outfield wall at Wrigley … or elsewhere. Of course, that “elsewhere” is on the rooftop buildings, if the Cubs accept a plan put forth by the rooftop owners last week. The rooftop owners are concerned that ads along the outfield wall would block their views into Wrigley Field, and effectively put them out of business.

The owner of Murphy’s Bleacher, Beth Murphy, sat down with NoozeBox to discuss the status of their conversations with the Cubs on this issue (the two sides met on Monday), and touched on a number of pertinent points. In the video, which you can see here, Murphy shares the following thoughts:

  • The rooftop owners’ meeting with the Cubs on Monday involved a great deal of information sharing, particularly about the rooftop owners’ projections regarding the advertising revenue they believe they can generate for the Cubs on the rooftop buildings, and about the feasibility of actually implementing the signage.
  • Murphy wishes Tom Ricketts, as the owner of the Cubs, was more involved in the discussions, because “we have different concerns as owners,” when compared to the business folks running an enterprise. Right now, it sounds like Crane Kenney is leading the discussions.
  • “There’s money to be made,” and Murphy wishes the Cubs and the rooftop owners and the neighborhood business could all just get together in a positive way, so that they could create something unique.
  • The City has skin in this game, primarily because of the historic and tourist nature of Wrigley Field – plus, of course, the tax dollars. If the Cubs add jobs and property taxes through the renovation, but remove jobs and property taxes by shutting down the rooftops, it might be a net loss to the City.
  • Murphy doesn’t believe the current contract with the Cubs is a bad contract. And she thought the bad feelings between the Cubs and the rooftop owners had gone away ten years ago, and it feels like they’re back.
  • The Cubs pull in the attendance they do, in part, because of the neighborhood.
  • Murphy recounts a recent meeting on these issues (before last Friday’s rooftop owners press conference where they revealed their ad signage plan) with Crane Kenney, where she says Kenney told the rooftops that they had a “$3.5 million foot in the door,” in terms of the Cubs considering the rooftop owners’ plans. That figure is approximately how much revenue is sent over to the Cubs from the rooftops annually under their current agreement (a 17% gross revenue share).
  • Murphy suggests – not in a mean way – that when the Cubs have conducted focus groups to determine how fans would feel about big ads around the outfield wall (which, incidentally, block the rooftop views), the Cubs have framed those focus groups from the perspective of, “what would you be willing to accept in order for the Cubs to win the World Series?” And that is why, according to Murphy, you see support for large ads within the ballpark. But she says the Cubs were saying the same thing back when they installed the lights in 1988.
  • Murphy says the Cubs have expressed concerns about putting up huge signs within the park that could upset fans, so they’re at least sensitive to the issue.
  • hansman1982

    Brett, did you know there is a auto-play video at the bottom of the post?

    • TWC

      He’s batting 1.000 with those today!

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        Unfreakingbelieveable. Did every video provider change their embeds to autoplay overnight? I’ve embedded a hundred videos and never once has one been an autoplay, until TWO today. For shame, web providers.

        • DarthHater

          I may have to ask you to provide an affidavit for my employee disciplinary hearing… 😉

    • DarthHater

      another nice noisy opening, too

  • TWC

    “Right now, it sounds like Crane Kenney is leading the discussions.”

    Hahahahahahahaha. Oh, man. What an insult to the rooftop owners.

  • TNN2

    They should hire a professional to be their spokesperson.

    Point 1 – It was reported on Chicago Tonight that the rooftop owners don’t even know if it is structurally or electrically possible to mount the kinds of ads on the side of their buildings. Until they know that it’s actually possible their plan is nothing more than a dream.

    Point 2 – Sounds like the Cubs are operating like a business. TR will get involved during the final stages.

    Point 3 – There is money to be made, but that doesn’t mean the rooftop owners are entitled to a portion of any of it.

    Point 4 – It might be a net loss, or it might be a net gain. But her statement ignores the hotel across the street that is tied to the new revenue streams at Wrigley. I can’t really see any scenario where it would be a net loss for the city to allow ads inside Wrigley.

    Point 5 – She is probably right about some ill will, but it doesn’t help when fellow rooftop owner Loukas claims that Wrigley wouldn’t be there without the Cubby Bear or Murphy’s.

    Point 6 – The Cubs will continue to pull in the attendance in large part due to the neighborhood. Nobody visits Wrigley because they can see some half empty bleachers on a rooftop. They aren’t part of the neighborhood that people are visiting.

    Point 7 – So the Cubs can go from $3.5 mil to $20 mil from the rooftops, or they can put up their own signs and make an extra $10 or $20 mi on top of that? That’s a pretty easy choice especially when you think about things in terms of wins. That’s going from less than one extra win per season on the FA market, to maybe as many as 6. If the numbers being talked about are legit the Cubs should do everything they can to put up signage inside the park.

    Point 8 – The Cubs are asking the right question in the focus groups. If the money is used to better the team, then yes yes yes put up any signage you want. The World Series is the goal and if someone makes a little money along the way then I don’t really care about that. But that is the right mindset to be thinking about all of these projects – how does this help the Cubs win the WS? Is she seriously suggesting that isn’t a legitimate way to frame the conversation?
    Point 9 – I the focus groups I’ve been in the Cubs certainly seem to be sensitive to the fans concern about altering Wrigley Field, or at least they are asking all the right questions. The Cubs aren’t going to screw this one up aesthetically. Some things may take a little getting used to but we aren’t’ talking about a Soldier Field kind of rehab. It’s more of a touchup with a couple signs. The Wrigley Field that people loved in the 1980’s is never coming back. It’s time for some upgrades and the work the Cubs want to do really amounts to a fairly moderate level of change. I know the rooftops will be impacted but they can either get smart real quick, try to cash out real quick, or they are going to lose this fight. Judging by the commentary from their owners I would predict that they’re going to be crushed.

    • hansman1982

      Right now, the rooftoppers appear to be playing the “Look at us, poor small businesses just trying to eke out a living here while we get crushed by the big, bad billionaires.”

      I’m guessing that an attorney told them they have next to no chance in a legal battle over the current contract and now they are going after public opinion.

      • Section 31…….. SHHH

        Every one needs public opinion. The Cubs did that Brilliantly by selling its fans on the renovation and ability to pay for the project themselves. Yet they still need to converse with the people involved -usually that the first step in negotiations but the cubs needed to go a different route since they have no leverage and need to create leverage by it fans.

        • DarthHater

          Want some fan leverage? Just wait til annoyed fans start organizing groups to boycott all neighborhood businesses that are making it harder for the Cubs to win a World Series. That will get their attention big time.

        • hansman1982

          Getting the public behind you is important; however, when that appears to be quite literally the only thing you have a reasonable hope of clinging to in order to stay in business…it’s time to cash in and move on.

          If the rooftops have so much leverage and power here, then why aren’t they acting like it? To me it looks like some people who are in over their head (though they don’t quite know it yet (which is typical of people who got rich without risk or having to put much thought into it)) negotiating this deal.

          I wouldn’t shed 1 tear if each of the buildings collapsed in upon themselves (while unoccupied and with noone around).

    • Section 31…….. SHHH

      Fact 10 – The Rooftops have a contract. first hurdle,

      • DarthHater

        Fact 11 – The contract doesn’t leave them in a strong position. Hurdle cleared.

      • hansman1982

        Then why aren’t they parading a contract clause in front of everyone’s faces?

        Cause the contract didn’t guarantee them much. I have precisely negative eleventy bajillion respect/care for/concern over the rooftop owners. Now, if they can show they’d be a viable business without the Cubs playing there, or they were there before Weeghman Park was built, then I’ll give 2 shits.

        Until then, they are a parasite.

        • Section 31…….. SHHH

          It seems like the roof tops took the offense – seem they are more worried when the contracts are up in 11 yeaars. they asked for an extension of 9 years. Face it under current legal agreement the Cubs at worst will have to deal with the Roof tops at 11 years. What happen if the City backs the Rooftops it might be foolish . and it might happen .

          Just like a rebuild takes 8 to 10 years on the baseball field so says the Cubs., it might take Ricketts a lot longer to actually get out of that agreement and by that time. Who really knows what the future holds

      • TNN2

        From a few different reports that contract isn’t as clear cut as most people assume. There is apparently some language that alters the 17% fee downward if the Cubs block their views. This came out during the bleacher renovations. If that’s the case then I’m sure the Cubs will have no problem earning zero dollars from the rooftops while they bring in $30 mil from increased signage.

        It’s also been reported that if work done to Wrigley Field “benefits the community” then the Cubs don’t have to worry about the contract either. It would be hard to argue that a $300 million stadium renovation and a $200 million hotel that would add hundreds of jobs wouldn’t benefit the neighborhood.

        As stated elsewhere if the contract was strong enough the rooftops owners wouldn’t be scrambling like they are. They know their position is weak, though it would be premature to call their chances of winning dead.

        • Pat

          The Toyota sign is worth 650,000 a year. How many signs are they putting up to get to 30 million?. That’s fifty even if you consider the value of one in fifty signs equal to the value of the only sign, which isn’t the case at all.

          • King Jeff

            Is it only 650k? I’ve read some places that it was between 2 and 2.5 million.

          • TNN2

            Not all signs are created equal. That Toyota sign is pretty high up. I think they’d like to get some signs that were lower so that the TV cameras could pick them up. That generates more income. Size also matters and the Toyota sign just isn’t that big.The type of sign matters too. If it’s electronic you can sell the same space 8 or 9 different ways during the course of the game which generates more income. They are also discussing installing a video board which would sell for a higher rate too.

            All in all that Toyota sign should be considered to be priced well below what they can make without restraints.

            • aCubsFan

              You are absolutely correct that not all signage is equal. That is why the signage behind home plate is prime placement and why every team in the league has it.

              If the Cubs want a prime space. I could see them figuring out a way to turn the home run basket in the outfield into signage. It would be a great place for sometime like leaderboard type (Internet terminology for long width, short height) advertising. This could tie in nicely with the left and right field LED screens and would be in a lot of TV shots.

              I could also see them replacing the wire mesh screens in the outfield bleachers with some rotating digital advertising media that wouldn’t necessarily interfere with the rooftops.

              I would also look for more simplistic advertising elements similar to the Under Armor ads that were painted on the doors in the outdoor. The padding on the left and right field foul line walls would be ideal places.

  • DarthHater

    “If the Cubs add jobs and property taxes through the renovation, but remove jobs and property taxes by shutting down the rooftops, it might be a net loss to the City.”

    Ha. Yea, and there might be a net increase in monkeys flying out of my butt.

    • Pat

      It’s not really unrealistic. I would not assume increased property taxes from wrigley due to renovation. It will still fall into the classification it currently does. Now as far as the rooftops, inactive businesses and residences pay substantially less than active businesses.

      • King Jeff

        What lost jobs would there be if the rooftops don’t get their way? Worst case scenario, the ads that they want to build will still be built, but not on their roofs. Aside from an usher or two and someone to sell the tickets, how can they possibly claim that they would create more jobs and income than the Cubs would with their plan?

      • TNN2

        Don’t forget about the hotel across the street too. That adds jobs and will generate a lot more tax revenue than it does now (since it will also have a McDonald’s doing the same amount of business).

        The question is does a 175 room hotel that operates 365 days a year generate more tax revenue than 17 rooftops that operate for 80? The rooftops each bring in about $15,000 each day they are open. Each hotel room would have to average about $315 each to match that. That’s pretty close but in the event of a tie I’d give the hotel the edge. People staying at a hotel are going to be spending more money around the neighborhood for a number of days. People visiting the rooftops leave right after the game. So you have to consider the extra sales taxes that might be generated too.

  • http://www.Chicagocubstalk.blogspot.com ChicagoCubsTalk

    Lets work on Wrigley before the rooftops lol

  • Rich H

    I am too the point on this whole thing that Ricketts needs to walk into Murphy’s with his checkbook. Ask how much it will take to buy your freaking rooftop? Not the whole place if your worried about the big bad business man taking over Wrigleyville. Just the roof top.

    I bet if they make a profit and keep the bar this goes away.

  • DarthHater

    Beth, if your contribution to the neighborhood is on a par with the Cubs’, then how come it’s called “Wrigleyville,” and not “Murphyville”?

    • hansman1982

      See, the Rooftops are full of heart and hustle and scrap and a carnal knowledge of winning…therefore they are equal to Wrigley, stats be damned.

      • Blublud

        Hansman, the rooftop owners are not as good as Campana. 😉 Campana can as least contribute to the Cubs, however minute most people think those contributions are. The rooftop owners, at one point, might have offered surplus value, but with the signage offering X times as much value, the rooftop owners are no longer able to provide that value.

        • Blublud

          My only Campana debate of the day. Had to bring MG out of Bizarro Land.

  • Die hard

    Tail wagging the dog- Rooftoppers need Cubs not vice versa

  • Spencer

    The Cubs can do a lot of their renovations to Wrigley without dealing with the rooftop people though, right? Most of the infrastructure w(iring, plumbing, redoing the clubhouse, expanding the batting cages) doesn’t involve the rooftops. So, what it seems like this is boiling down to is the modernization of the exterior facade of the ballpark and adding bells and whistles that can increase revenue. Revenue is obviously important, but getting things in the interior of the park squared away should be the priority. It’s more of a draw for prospective FAs, and it keeps the current players happy, too.

    • Can’t think of a cool name

      Unless they need the advertising revenue to help with the renovations. I realize the Ricketts are rich but 300-500 million is a big bill.

      • TNN2

        This is exactly right. They need the revenue streams to pay for the renovations. Where else would they get the additional $60 mil each year to pay for it?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Two separate issues: the ad signage (which affects the rooftops) is part of the revenue-generation process for the rest of the renovations.

      • Pat

        And since it was omitted from the renderings there’s really no way to tell if the rooftops would even be affected. This may well be a way for Ricketts to get more night games and concerts without giving up anything they intended to do in the first place. If so, I tip my cap and admit he’s a better businessman than I give him credit for.

  • cubfanincardinalland

    Why would Ricketts want to buy out the rooftops? The Cubs want to put up signage that wipe out the rooftop views. Oh but they have a contract. As I said the other day, I hear the contract has easy outs on it, that leave the rooftops twisting in the wind. Thus the amatuer hour of panic we are seeing from the group, as they have been thusly informed no doubt.
    When one of your arguments is that the Cubs draw well because of the rooftop business in the neighborhood, you have officially entered bizzaro world.

  • http://ehanauer.com clark addison

    Rooftop owners are parasites. Mostly speculators vulturing on the Cubs for a measly 17%, and aiming to flip their houses at the first possible opportunity. I have no sympathy for them.

    • Section 31…….. SHHH

      The only parasite is Joe Ricketts.

      • Hansman1982

        How so?

        • Section 31…….. SHHH

          Joe Ricketts does not reside in Wisconsin nor do any of his family, yet When Governor Walker was recalled for election in Wisconsin (that he won) The Ricketts family spearheaded contributed over 125,000 dollars from their personal pockets to insure that people can not organize unions. I wonder if he will do the same for the people that build his stadium. loL I can see it now ! Joe Rickets drafting a memo – anybody who works on the renovation of Wrigley will not get benefits or medical coverage or a decent working wage.

      • Drew7

        Thanks for the insight, Beth.

  • Tom A.

    Why would the Cubs not send out an email survey to its season ticket holders and determine their opinions about negotiating with the owners of rooftop seating ?

    Let me start the survey process — I vote my three box season tickets as “Don’t care about the rooftop owners, buit do care about the Cubs maximizing revenues and building a winning franchise.”

    That makes it 3 against rooftop owners and 0 for rooftop owners.

  • Serious Cubs Fan

    Watching that clown conduct that interview with Mrs. Murphy, (I think she was respectful and understood the give and take) made me want to punch him in the face. The guy is a joke, what a biased one-sided clown. He made it sound like the cubs are a charity. His of, “Owe how mean is Tom Ricketts, for not letting the Rooftops that have been free loading for years and stealing a product on the field, not just let them continue to steal and not just let them take the cubs product and continue to pay them the measly 17% cut of ticket revenue.”

    Guy is a clown and should get his head out of his you know what and become a real reporter with some credibility

  • 1060Ivy

    Funny how the debate regarding Wrigley seems to revolve around rooftops while neighborhood associations have traditionally been seen as a more significant obstacle in previous changes

    • Section 31…….. SHHH

      I agree the neighborhood association can be a bigger obstacle that gonna be the end game. When it comes to a hotel being built that is not over 4 stories tall and being branded as a boutique hotel is when the Community get involved.

      people can bad mouth the roof tops because its they represent one entity , A whole frickin neighborhood is a different story. I find it amazing that people have not asked, Why are there not more hotels surrounding Wrigley Field.? The reason may surprise . and it is simple. They do not want one.

  • Tom A.

    Just watched the video. Do you think it should be labeled as a paid advertisement by the rooftop owners ?

    I do agree with Serious Cubs Fan — the guy doing the interview is terrible. I will never watch anything involving him ever again. If anything this makes me feel even more apathetic towards the rooftop owners.

    If I ever see her, I would ask Beth Murphy why she let herself get filmed be interviewed by such a complete idiot ? Of well, maybe no real and respectable reporter was willing to perform such an interview. Or maybe that idiot is her son ! Yes, that must be it ! The guy is her son and this is just a home video !

  • Bwa

    So the rooftops have been making about $17 million in profit each year off of the cubs product and now they are complaining that the cubs want to take that away? As much as I love the rooftops being a part of wrigley, I can’t blame the cubs for wanting that money for themselves.

    • Pat

      Please look up the difference between gross revenue and profit.

  • Indy57

    New idea. No one thinks (or wants) the Cubs can move to the suburbs. Current Wrigley neighbors want to have peace and quiet. So, move “Wrigley” to a new location in the city. How about along the river say just north of North Ave.? The City of Chicago already owns a motor vehicle facility (Chicago Fleet Management Dept.) there. Claim eminent domain on the surrounding properties, and move the other businesses that reside there to another location (lots of construction jobs). Sorry Home Depot, there has to be another spot for you somewhere)). There will be plenty of space available for parking at the stadium or in the neighborhood. Also, it would be an easy on and off to I94.

    Then, build bridges over the river to connect Willow, Wisconsin and North Cliffton. This will allow fans to utilize the Clybourn corridor (as well as other restaurants and bars) before and after the games. If Murphy’s, Cubby Bear and others want to keep their business, just relocate. Cubs have a new stadium (50,000 capacity like the other big boy teams) in the city near great neighborhoods without too much of the hassle the Lakeview folks find disdainful. The river gets developed (might encourage more development along the river) a new neighborhood gets to blossom and Lakeview gets peace and quiet. Maybe the City can relocate Fleet Management to Clark and Addison (a land swap). It can be a new tradition. And the Cubs don’t have to forego $20 million that go to Rooftop owners who steal their product. Those fans can enjoy a new “Rooftop Experience” right inside the park.

    • ThereWillBeCubs

      Replace “the river say just north of North Ave.?” with “the fucking MOON?” and I think you might actually get more support for this idea.

  • cubzforlife

    Even after the cost of the buildings and renovations these rooftop owners have cleaned up. Never knew how much they earned. I really don’t like that blue bleacher on the corner building. And I have four votes against the rooftops. Sect 209 row 15.

  • Section 31…….. SHHH

    Your writing skills are Awesome. I say go forward ! spread your news ! Go and make it happen. honestly it sound good on paper! If that is what Ricketts wants -I think it can be done. He owns the team he can and should move if the little people get in his way. So please devote your life to that plan.

  • macpete22

    The Francona thing on mlb network is pretty interesting. Talked about Theo a bit so far.

  • http://www.Chicagocubstalk.blogspot.com ChicagoCubsTalk

    Has anyone ever actually set on the rooftops?? Wondering how it would be for Opening Day??

    • MichiganGoat

      Okay I just sent you a tweet hope you will reply

    • Tom A.

      Hmmmm, sit in a ballpark anywhere from 1 foot to 200 feet from the action or sit 550 or more feet from the action ?

      Hmmmm, sit in a ballpark somewhat protected from the cold early April wind or sit out in the middle of the air with no protection from that wind ?

      Hmmmm, sit in a ballpark with 42,000 other great Cubs fans or up on a roof with about 50 other fans ?

      Hmmmm, I guess you just have to decide on your own if these things don’t help you form a point of view.

  • Pat

    Cold and really far from the action. It’s worth doing the rooftops once, but I would suggest June when you will probably have decent weather.

  • cubzforlife

    The benefit of the roof is similiar to a sports bar where the drinks and ballpark type food is included in the price. And you can see Wrigley. I went for a Cubs Sox on a Sunday night a few years ago and missed being in the ballpark.

  • http://www.sportsdanny.com Dan

    OMG I hate the rooftop owners – People don’t go to Wrigley because of the neighbor – they go to the neighborhood because of Wrigley – It’s not called RooftopVille – Beth Murphy should shut her piehole and realize public opinion is not on her side. The city isnt going to side with them

  • Dustin S

    If someone is going to plan on really wolfing down a lot of food and drinking yourself silly, and aren’t that interested in the game, I suppose the rooftops could be appealing. But generally IMO the rooftop tickets are overpriced. Occasionally you’ll see deals, especially the 2nd half of bad seasons. But if I’m travelling to Wrigley you’ll find me in the park, or I would sit in a good Wrigleyville bar and watch the game on tv before sitting rooftop. $100-$150 for rooftop tickets will buy a lot of beer and food in Wrigley and I can actually enjoy the game. The rooftop owners have made a ton of money and I’m happy for them, but going to a game rooftop isn’t for me.

    Also, I’d be curious to know how the neighborhood situation compares to other cities like Boston. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve never heard of Fenway neighbors wanting compensation for the Red Sox playing nearby or complaining about night game traffic.

  • Pat

    Thats because every other existing stadium put in their lights in the late thirties early forties, when we were coming out of a depression and into a world war and maybe two thousand people showed up for a night game as opposed to a thousand for a day game. People had better shit to worry about than traffic congestion.

  • Casey Stengel

    These owners never stop coming up with bizarre ideas. So, they are small businesses? I’m not into math but if 3.5 million is 17% of your gross revenue…I’ll take that. And there is now lawsuit (Brett–you interested?) according to the Chicago Sun-Times that says 3 roof tops denied workers their 3% gratituty (read–tips) from patrons. Impressive. That’s sharing!

    Other thoughts:

    How might the area improve without those bars? No more drunks? Residents might not be upset. No more drinking before and after with a lot of gross sweaty folks.

    I applaud the Cubs for using crane. He is perfect for this. He doesn’t get upset about his reputation. He is a man of great value and certainly no shame.

    Finally–the website where she appeared (what is a noozebox?) had a hilarious clip with Chet Coppock backing the rooftops and slamming the Ricketts. This is a man (with an ego matching crane) who essentially invented sports talk radio in Chicago. Now? He is a bloated and some frightening looking chap who makes this little vids and bizarre Facebook posts.

  • Die hard

    You can’t see the players or action wo binocs- so why should roof toppers care about blocked view?-

    • SirCub

      Yea, x-ray binocs aren’t that much more expensive than the regular kind anyway!

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        The problem with x-ray binocs is that sometimes you see things that you cannot unsee.

        • SirCub

          It’s a risk-reward situation. Ideally, it would be like the Bud Light Fan Cam, but better.

  • WI Jeff


    I don’t have a dog in this fight (not affecting me financially)
    What other business- sporting, concert, movie allows poaching their property like the roof top owners? It was cool and quaint in the 80’s with a grill, bucket of beers and a few buddies, but now it is big business, I would be pissed if someone took my intellectual property to make money and then try to dictate what I can do inside my own house or office. (Think of your neighbor watching your big screen TV from his house through a window, then tells you “don’t ever close the curtains”) You can overlook when it is just your neighbor once or twice, but when he sells tickets to the HBO Fight that you paid the cable company for and invited your buddy’s over for… that is down right bull!

    Other side of argument:
    I’ve have thoroughly enjoyed a three games with a group of friends on different rooftops in the past few years. I do believe the skyline and the buildings add to background and canvas more than a sterile stadium.. I like Camdem Yards, city scape like Busch Stadium and Progressive Field. Wrigley is better due to the intimacy and proximity of the buildings. Like skydiving, seeing a game on a rooftop is something everyone should do once.

    Just an Opinion
    Four things could/should happen…..
    1. Sell your property to Ricketts Group win/win- extra office, luxury hotel cubs condo experience, meeting space. Cash out big! Happens all the time
    2. Lease your roof tops to Cubs- win/win –you are still getting paid for improvements, run your bar Ms Murphy and still getting yearly fixed income..safe play.
    3. Negotiate Terms with Rickets sorta win/win for both…Not a position of strength, but you take the risks (ups and downs in the economy like the rest of us business owners) good years and bad ones)
    4. Stay status quo and run the risk that the Ricketts, Cubs Co. could change/block your view. It is like someone buying a build-able lot next to you and constructing a house that blocks your view. Happens in every community. You don’t have to like it, but it happens…….

    I’ve was part of a co-op for tickets (6-10 games – 4 tickets per game) 1999 through 2010 (purchased through family friend owned them).
    Season Ticket Holder- money where my mouth was during some tough years.
    I’ve been on the waiting list for 12 years for season tickets and got them last year and took the upper deck 205. This year we are able to move down 105.

    If an extra 20 million per year allows them to provide a better product on the field and in the stands… I am for it….. Wrigley is a plumbing nightmare and a dump. These minor league stadiums have better facilities http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/A/macon.html
    Take the Cubs tour and see the home and visitor locker rooms…..

    Okay,,,,, Let’s go Cubs!

  • Rcleven

    “What other business- sporting, concert, movie allows poaching their property like the roof top owners?”

    Problem is the Cubs have allowed this from the beginning. If nipped in the bud this wouldn’t even be a discussion.