1_PROPOSED_MARQUEE_VIEWHowever you felt about Rick Reilly’s article about the Wrigley Field renovation and the financial importance to the Chicago Cubs thereof, the article mattered because it kept the story in the national attention (or, for some folks, brought it to their attention for the first time). It was natural, then, that there’d be a fair bit more written about the renovation in the ensuing days. There’s a ton to discuss on the renovation, be they related to the current national attention or not, – so much that it’s gotta be Bullet-style.

  • Crain’s writer Greg Hinz, who’s been relatively tapped in on the Wrigley renovation story, says there has been real progress on deal talks in the last week, and we could see a “partial” deal announced “soon.” It’s interesting to hear Hinz mention a partial deal – presumably that means some of the funding mechanisms, but not all – since Mayor Rahm Emanuel has, at least publicly, been adamant that he doesn’t want to see any partial deals. He wants the whole thing done at once.
  • Hinz hears that, at this point, the entirety of the hold-up is the dispute with the rooftops and Alderman Tom Tunney’s loyalty to those rooftops. The Mayor has political reasons for not wanting to step on Tunney, so that’s why we’ve had such a protracted period of apparent silence. The rooftops want to make a deal, and the Cubs would probably prefer to just block the rooftops with ads. Since that may not be politically feasible, the Cubs and the rooftops are likely going to have to come to an amicable resolution, at least until their current 20-year agreement expires in 2024. (Might I suggest a combination of in-stadium ads that don’t block views, ads on the rooftops with some/most/all revenue going to the Cubs, and an increase in the 17% gross revenue share that the Cubs get from the rooftops (negotiable based on the ads)? In exchange, the Cubs don’t block the views for at least the next 11 years – and with the increased revenue, particular the revenue coming from the rooftop share, maybe the Cubs decide they don’t want to block the rooftops after those 11 years, either. The rooftops might want more, but when you’re fighting for your very existence, you gotta know when to make a deal.) If the Cubs and rooftops make good on such a deal, Hinz says Tunney may be more willing to bend on the other funding mechanisms (more night games, more concerts, and street fairs), pending some kind of decision on police and parking issues.
  • Speaking of those collateral issues, the Lake View Citizens’ Council – we may as well just call them “The Neighborhood” – has written a letter to Mayor Emanuel, essentially asking that they be apprised of the Cubs’ plans before anything is formally decided. They want to know what’s going to happen with parking, police, night games, and the general impact on the neighborhood. The letter is the second in a series, the first coming last April, in which The Neighborhood seeks to have a voice in the renovation discussion. They certainly have a stake in the game, but an improved Wrigley Field is going to be a good thing for most everyone in The Neighborhood, so I’m modestly disinclined to be sympathetic when they start making demands on the Cubs. That said, many of the things they request are reasonable – for the most part, right now, they just want information. (Of course, as I’ve said before: it’s hard for the Cubs to give anybody answers on the renovation when they don’t yet know what they’re going to be permitted to do.)
  • What I find most interesting in the letters, which were courteously provided by Serena Dai of DNAinfo (whose coverage of the renovation story at the local level has been unmatched by anyone), is that The Neighborhood – in a letter to Tom Tunney – actually pushed for an increase in available night games from 30 to 33, and concerts from 3 to 4, back in early 2012. We’d been led to believe that the Cubs were pushing for those increases as a stepping stone to future further increases. Now we know that The Neighborhood is fine with minimal increases, but that suggests that the Cubs actually want considerably more night games and/or concerts (which is understandable). Before you go thinking that The Neighborhood was being entirely altruistic, you should know that, in exchange for the very modest night game/concert increase, they placed a condition: “A financial contribution from the Cubs to the Lakeview Community will be made to offset any inconveniences experienced by residents and businesses of Lakeview. The Cubs shall make a financial contribution for each of the four (4) additional night events using the following formula: a minimum of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) per event with a maximum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) per season. These funds are to be spent on identified community projects that will be determined on an annual basis upon mutual agreement of LVCC and the Cubs.”
  • (Interesting aside: the Cubs’ community affairs representative for the discussions with The Neighborhood? Why, it’s none other than the previous president of the Lake View Citizens’ Council, Jennifer Dedes-Nowak. Very savvy, Mr. Cubs.)
  • Beth Murphy, one of the owners of Murphy’s Bleachers – a prominent rooftop building and bar – suggests that the Cubs and the rooftops are still working peaceably on a solution. “I know this sometimes presented as rooftops versus Cubs,” Murphy told the Tribune, “but really it’s just everybody working together to make solutions that works the best for everybody, including the Cubs, including the rooftops, including the neighborhood. And we have a long tradition of hashing things out.”
  • If the final frontier in the battle to get a deal done is indeed striking a balance with the rooftops, the Sun-Times’ Herb Gould suggests that the Cubs be allowed to put up huge billboard ads in the outfield. On the backs of those ads, though, he suggests the Cubs show a broadcast of the game. Since the rooftop experience is largely about the social aspect and the food and drink – according to Gould – and since you can’t really see the action on the field from the rooftops (again, according to Gould), this is the perfect compromise. Somehow I suspect the rooftops would not agree, nor would their patrons. Seeing the whole field, however large or small, is the point of live sporting event attendance. Watching a large version of a broadcast in close proximity to the ballpark (to say nothing of the small broadcast delay, which would be a nightmare) is not the same thing. Maybe the rooftops will be left with no other choice, but I think this is a suggestion they’d fight pretty strongly.
  • Some Deadspin writer had a mindless and lame response to the Reilly article (most Reilly articles come complete with so many thoughtful responses available that I have no patience for someone taking the lazy route on a Reilly fisking), but what matters is that it’s more national attention.

[Disclosure: some of the rooftops advertise on BN, but that has not impacted the way I’ve covered this ongoing story.]

  • JulioZuleta

    Yeah, that wasn’t Deadspin’s finest work, but Reilly deserves whatever he gets. He is just the worst. I’m gad he wrote this article, but generally speaking, he is my least favoite sportswriter (and that is saying A LOT).

  • Patrick W.

    Is the advertising content more important (valuable) because of the 30K fans in the park who will see it or the fans watching on TV? The reason I ask is, if it’s all about the TV (which is why you want ads in the ballpark not on the rooftop buildings) why not erect giant “glass” panels and do virtual ads like they do at hockey games?

    • aCubsFan

      Excellent thought Patrick.

    • King Jeff

      Probably weather related reasons. Hockey games with those ads are indoors.

      • Mr. Mac

        Do you think the glass panels would affect the wind patterns in the park in any way? I like the concept of this.

      • mikeakaleroy

        I was just wondering about the sun reflections off glass panels too. You don’t have to worry about that indoors either. If the sun was positioned right, you may bbq the bleacher bums.

        • King Jeff

          That would be an unfortunate incident.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I think both have value (well, I mean, I know they do), but the Cubs have said that it’s the TV exposure where the real value is. So, if the technology were there, it sounds like an interesting idea. Of course, if it were just about the TV exposure, you wouldn’t even have to put up glass, because they only show the outfield infrequently – you could just digitally blast in an ad when the outfield is swept and when there’s a homer. I’m sure there’s a logistical reason this kind of stuff isn’t publicly under consideration.

      Intriguing thought, though.

  • aCubsFan

    Mr. Gould of the Suntimes is dead on with his perceptive. I had been thinking the same thing. Ads facing Wrigley broadcast on the backside of the ads.

  • DarthHater

    How about if the cubs just buy Beth Murphy a nice big screen TV and a subscription to MLB TV?

    • mikeakaleroy

      If Cubs games are blacked out in Iowa for me, I’d hope to hell they’re blacked out for the lady that lives across the street from the Cubs. :)

  • Rebuilding

    Asking a serious question because I don’t know the technology, but given all of the holographic images of ads, first down line, etc., is it possible to have billboards on TV that aren’t really there?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Yeah, that’s kind of what I was saying. I don’t know if the technology is there, but, if it is, seems like it must not pay as well as real, physical ads. Heck, how about an ad overlay digitally imposed in the outfield grass on broadcasts? There’s some money …

      • King Jeff

        I think having broadcast overlays crosses into having to give the broadcast company the revenue for the ad, or at least splitting it. For it work optimally for the Cubs, I think it would have to be a self-sustained ad that is indigenous to the ball park.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          Smart guy. Yup. You’re right.

        • Cubbie Blues

          Yes, but, you would be able to rotate through the ads presented and get even more ads in the same amount of realstate as the physical ones to the viewers. That increased amount of revenue may be enough to offset the broadcasters cut. Of course you would have to work out a deal with both WGN and CSN.

          • King Jeff

            I think with an already limited amount of time that the ad can be shown per broadcast, that rotating them wouldn’t add much revenue. Plus, as you said, there are the broadcasters to deal with as well.

            • Cubbie Blues

              Well, Dangit. Oh, I’ve got it. They just get a big-ass bright projector and shine the ads on the grass. The projector could even act as your jumbo-tron with replays sponsored by “fill in the blank”.

    • King Jeff

      How well will those ads show up in sunlight to a television audience? It sounds like a promising idea for the night games though.

  • Jono

    I know so many people.who moved out of lakeview bc they got sick of the atmosphere. That seems to be a more appropriate action than trying to flex influence over someone else’s property

  • Drew

    I would think the Bars around Wrigley would not want the “Ads on the Front, TV on the Back” scenario. This might shift some of their clientele out of the bars and just onto the streets if nothing else to watch the game.

    There are Virtual Ads placed on the playing surface of Football games all the time. (I think Hockey too but I am not a fan). Why with the opportunity for a new TV Contract do they not look into this. Or would that type of advertising lean more to the broadcaster than the Cubs? Either way, this would lead to them wanting (NEEDING) their own network.

    • Drew

      (sorry, I started this response and took too much time to post it, seeing that it has already been addressed. . . .)

  • Jim L.

    From that DNAinfo site, an article on a neighborhood group that supports the Cubs renovation plans: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130315/wrigleyville/new-wrigley-neighborhood-group-dedicated-supporting-cubs-renovation

  • JR

    Nice! Hopefully this neighborhood drama is over. Great job on keeping tabs on it Brett. I am too lazy to research it on my own.

  • Tommy

    “The Cubs shall make a financial contribution for each of the four (4) additional night events using the following formula: a minimum of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) per event with a maximum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) per season.”

    Is there any other team in baseball that makes this type of concession to the surrounding neighborhood (including the White Sox)? It seems like a reasonable request, but it seems from most of the articles I’ve read here in the past, the Cubs are already paying their fair share in taxes compared to the rest of the league. And as we all know, these costs in the end which just dwindle down to us, the fans, and frankly, the neighborhood around Wrigley is prime real estate, and the businesses do great business BECAUSE of the Cubs, not in spite of them. Maybe they should be sharing revenue with the Cubs instead (yes, tongue in cheek, but you get the point).

    • hansman1982

      The “concessions” sound more like a bribe.

      “Hey, Politician, if you give me $10,000 each election, I’ll vote for you.”

      Sound much different than:

      “Hey, Cubs, give us at least $75K for every event you want, and we will support your plan.”

      • Tommy

        Hansman – correct, as usual, my friend!

  • Pingback: Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: The Mayor Speaks, JumboTron Fight, Tunney Letter, Rosemont Meeting, More | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()