respect wrigleyRooftops spokesperson Ryan McLaughlin and Chicago Cubs spokesperson (VP of Communications and Community Affairs) Julian Green were on the radio with Bruce Levine and Ben Finfer on The Score this morning – indeed, they just got done speaking, and I thought those of you who couldn’t catch the interviews would want the important bits. There were many. I’ll add a link to the audio as soon as it is available. (UPDATE: It’s up.)

For now, I’ll offer my immediate take. From the interview with Julian Green, here are the salient, paraphrased points he made:

  • Why and how did a deal seemingly get so close and then fall apart? – Almost a year trying to get a compromise done. Got to the point where we were willing to consider moving the right field sign outside of the ballpark, but then there were additional demands to move the left field video board outside of the park. We felt like that was a nonstarter. Negotiations stalled from there. We’re still talking, but we weren’t willing to consider that.
  • Do you feel good about the Cubs’ position with respect to the rooftop contract? – I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t speculate on outcome. We’ve lived up to contract and there was never a guarantee that the views would not change. Look at the Toyota sign. We are allowed to put up signs that are in the best interests of the team. This is not about putting up spite fences or blockages. An expansion of Wrigley Field is not a violation of the contract.
  • Why delay then? – At the end of the day we’re partners. We’re trying to come to a compromise and an out-of-court solution is always preferred. The Ricketts Family doesn’t want to start laying out $500 million, which would bring in jobs and economic activity and then have it held up in courts. We have compromised throughout the last year – on the size, on the location, on the mock-ups.
  • What about the remedies built into the contract for the rooftops? – There was language for the first eight years in the rooftop contract that if there was blockage that impaired the business, there were remedies to alleviate those impairments (financial, build rooftops higher, etc.). That period has expired. But from a sign perspective, there was never a guarantee that the views wouldn’t change – hence the Toyota sign.
  • More on outfield signage – The Red Sox might make $15 to $20 million in signage that they can put back into the organization. We’d like to have the option to be doing the same kind of thing. (Me: But … soooo much signage at Fenway … ) Budweiser is the sign partner as part of a long-term deal with the Cubs. But we’re trying to sign other partners for very long-term contracts, and having a captive audience for 81 games per year means significant potential revenue. Even still, we’re trying to compromise and considered moving that right field sign outside of the ballpark. We said that sign was more valuable to us in the park, and yet we were willing to agree to move it – and even had to try and convince the rooftops to accept that.
  • Would you ever consider moving? – Early on, there was some talk about leaving Wrigley Field, and there were interesting/flattering offers. But the Family wants to win at Clark and Addison. I can’t speak on behalf of the family, but how far after doing everything they’ve done to try and compromise, and after no public funding whatsoever, how much further can you be pushed? How far do you go before you say we tried, and it just isn’t going to work out? Hats off to the City and the Mayor, we got a great plan through. But from our perspective, we’ve done everything we can to move this thing forward. We’ll see what happens in the future.

From the interview with Ryan McLaughlin, here are the salient, paraphrased points he made:

  • Rooftop position on the contract? – Important to remember the history in all of this. Ten years ago, there was an understanding that the rooftops would be contributing 17% off of the top – between $3 to $4 million per year – and would then update the buildings at the request of the City. Now we feel like the rug is getting pulled out from under us halfway through. In sports, you can’t just break a contract halfway through without penalties. But it seems like that’s what is trying to be done.
  • Legal battle? – We don’t want to go through a legal battle. We share that position with the Cubs. But we have to protect our legal rights. I don’t think anyone wants a lengthy legal battle. As Beth Murphy says, when the Cubs first did the bleacher expansion, they worked with everyone to make sure it’s going to work with everyone. We were brought in this time at the 11th hour. That’s just not the way to do it.
  • How are the Cubs breaking the contract, given 6.6 language that a governmentally-approved expansion is not a violation? – Our attorneys feel strongly about this, and I won’t get into specifics, but there are elements of the contract throughout that inform our position. Our views can’t be blocked, and the Toyota sign is not a good example, because that doesn’t block any views. The JumboTron does block views.
  • Where did you guys feel like you had a compromise? –  The JumboTron’s shadow blocks views, too. You go to a rooftop for an experience that you can’t get inside the park. (I didn’t really understand where he was going with this, which I’m going to presume was my own fault. Maybe I mis-heard something.)
  • Will the rooftops sell if a good offer is made? – Those kinds of offers are probably the kind of thing that need to take place privately. Suggestions to buy the rooftops out are probably a good suggestion, though. (I don’t want this to be misunderstood: Levine told Green at the end of his interview that he had three words for the Cubs: “Buy them out.” McLaughlin referenced that comment when he made this answer, indicating that Levine was making a good point. The implication was that buying the rooftops out is something they would consider. (Of course, I’d add that you always have to find the right price, given that the value of the rooftops sinks precipitously in 2023.))
  • Worried about a backlash or boycott? – It’s a red herring to say we’re holding up renovation and construction. This $300/$400 million investment had to do with a hotel, with signage around Wrigleyville. We’re talking about a small percentage of the signage. I don’t know how a sign in the outfield prevents the rest of the work from happening. Of course we’re worried about reputation and what folks think about us. We hope to find a solution.
  • What is the alternative plan for the JumboTron? – The hope is to put it in a better spot in left field where views aren’t blocked.
  • McLaughlin once again called Bruce Levine’s “buy them out” advice the “best advice of the day.”

Wow. I am surprised at how willingly he discussed the possibility of buyouts – maybe that’s what some parties have been angling for all along? They know they’ve got an asset that won’t be worth nearly as much in 10 years, and it essentially depreciates every year along the way. Maybe this is the last stand for some of them. I’m just speculating based on McLaughlin’s comments, though, and it’s not like anything like that has been reported to date. And we have no way to know what kind of prices the rooftops would ask for in buyouts – Tom Ricketts did mention at the Convention when asked about this that it isn’t as simple as just writing a check. Who knows. Just thinking out loud here, because, as I said, I’m pretty surprised by McLaughlin’s comments.

As for the rest, it was unsurprising to hear Green leave the “move” option on the table, and I did get the sense that the Cubs feel good about their contractual position. No discussion, on either side, about the rooftops trying to scuttle the entire renovation as a nuclear option-type threat (we had heard about that at the Convention).

  • CubFan Paul

    “The JumboTron’s shadow blocks views, too”

    Not the sign, but the shadow is what they’re complaining about. Wow.

    • DrReiCow

      “The JumboTron’s shadow blocks views, too”

      What the heck does this even mean? Shadows don’t block views. They may indicate that light for a certain view is blocked, but what view would be marred by the shadow of the JumboTron? A view of the street? Less sunlight for lower level windows? Shadow on the field?

      This one just sounds absurd.


      • hansman

        Considering that the jumbotron is on the north side of the field it makes negative sense.

    • Chris

      That’s how I read that too…


      • TWC

        What does Ludacris have to do with the rooftops? Is he a Cubs fan?

        • Drew7

          Nicely done.

  • clark addison

    Now the truth comes out. This is a ploy to get the Cubs to buy the rooftops at an outrageous price.

    Boycott the bastards.

  • Ghost of Ryno

    Brett, love all the insight you provide each and everyday. Keep up the great work!

    Question about the interviews. Was the context of the discussion of rooftop buy-outs more about buying out the remaining contract value or having the Ricketts clan buy the buildings? Thanks in advance for clarifying.

    • baldtaxguy

      Yes, good question, I assumed the buildings.

    • Brett

      It wasn’t explicit, and it all came from Levine’s comments, but I’m pretty sure he was talking about the buildings/businesses, not just the contract. Which makes sense – owners wouldn’t just want buyout of contract.

      • LEO L

        I think it was implied the buildings as it was mentioned that it would make sense for the cubs to develop those buidlings for their use afterwards. making it a win-win situations. not exact quotes but that the comment made by the radio guys

  • baldtaxguy

    That is very interesting the buyout option was discussed in this way by the rooftops’ spokesman. Why would he say this? Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but is it because they have not been down this road in discussions, like literally at all, that the spokesman is being so vocal about a buyout? I would expect that the range of dollars between the two sides in a potential buyout would likely start to shrink the longer this goes on, so is the primary plan on the Rickett’s side of things to never address a buyout when that is what they want all along? Get the rooftops to cross that cost break-even point quicker when the cost of litigation and negative public opinion for future sales outweighs the value to the rooftop owners of just getting out? Not saying this is happening and I am not one to give Rickett’s blanket credit on anything, but it would be an interesting move – silence treatment.

    • baldtaxguy

      “Get the rooftops to cross that cost break-even point quicker when the cost of litigation and negative public opinion for future sales outweighs the value to the rooftop owners of just getting out? ”

      I guess I mean getting the rooftops to cross that cost break-even point “at a lower point” than “quicker.” Noting has been quick here.

  • ClevelandCubsFan

    If they could get the Cubs to pay, say, [perceivedvalueofrooftopstotheCubs] + [50percentof anticipatedlegalexpensestoavoidsaidlegalexpenses] they get a big win. Assuming all things are equal, though, legally posturing your business partner into a corner is a pretty crappy way to do business. But we don’t know about that “all things are equal part.”

    Got to admit, though, that owning the rooftops for their competitive window would be a really nice asset. But at what price?

  • Diehardthefirst

    Well at least they’ve agreed to disagree- that’s a start

  • Cubbie Tim

    What if the rooftops accidentally burned down? Hmmm

  • Ghost of Ryno

    Some contracts have Termination for Convenience clauses that set a sliding dollar amount for a Party to pay to exit the Agreement that declines over time. These clauses are included to avoid expensive litigation. In those types of arrangements the party exiting the deal covers the remaining cost of capital investment made by their partner along with wind down fees and a small portion ( say around 10%) of the expected revenue over the remaining term.

    While such a clause is not written into this deal, that type of approach in negotiating could yield a settlement that is not incredibly expensive for the Cubs to consider. The rooftop owners would avoid costly litigation and more talks of boycotts that could really harm their larger interests.

  • hawkcub

    Seems by the RTO spokesman that they may be angling for a buyout. If this would be true I wonder if they want just RTO’s effected by the signage to be bought out or everyone. I’ve always thought buying out the effected RTO’s would be in the Cub’s best interest. But I could see the others wanting out now knowing in 10 years their business would be destroyed the second the contract is done.

  • sethdiggs

    Yes – I’m pretty surprised at the effective admission that a buyout is viable (just the admission in a public forum part). Since it was so deliberate, I wonder if this is some abstract tactic or just plain, old cutting of the shit.

    I’m glad there was at least some allusion to actual dollar amounts associated with this (15-20 million at Fenway). Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough, but all this discussion always leaves me asking, “Can anyone quantify how debilitating all of this actually is?” It would be nice to have an inside look at all the cost-benefit analysis that is going on in the front office.

  • V23

    Does anyone know a list of bars near Wrigley that have interest in the Rooftops?
    I know Murphys and Sports Corner.
    Cubby Bear?

    I’d like to know which ones to never go into.

    • scorecardpaul

      v23 I agree with this point. I don’t really care who is right or wrong, I just want the Cubs to make all of the money. I want to be able to start buying multiple world series.

    • 1ski

      sluggers and cubby bear have the same owner i’m told. It suck’s because I used to go in slugger’s all the time now we drink at tune’s at southport & byron before the games.

      • BleedCubbieBlue

        Cubby Bear, Run Ivy, and Sports Corner are all owned by the same person. They own the rooftops above Sports Corner, the big one on Waveland that is always seen on TV, and a large one on Sheffield (brown and next to the one that is really tall). Used to work for them but the owner is a douche and doesn’t know jack about baseball. Now his daughter runs the show for the rooftops but she is even worse when it comes to baseball (she’s a looker but didn’t even know we traded Sosa and i worked there in 2008)

        I also know the owners of Slugger and they are great. They also don’t own a rooftop so i say go there. Lol

        • 1ski

          thanks for the info.

  • Greenroom

    “Almost a year trying to get a compromise done. Got to the point where we were willing to consider moving the right field sign outside of the ballpark, but then there were additional demands to move the left field video board outside of the park. We felt like that was a nonstarter.”

    This is just crazy. The Cubs were willing to move the signs outside the park. Does this mean attached to the front of the rooftop buildings? Or somehow placed on the sidewalk outside of Wrigley? Perhaps they should look up the definition of the word compromise.

    “its a red herring” No, it is not. You say the Cubs will break a contract with the signs. But you want them to upgrade other parts so it improves your revenue and will “guarantee” the Cubs will stay. Sounds like they want to be bought out. Fine, but where does the bidding begin or end?

    • sethdiggs

      Agreed – It sounds like the Cubs were willing to make some pretty substantial concessions. The whole issue of having the sign close enough to enable the ads to be captured on TV seems like a pretty important point…just a guess. Maybe this recent negotiation breakdown will turn out to be a good thing.

      • Funn Dave

        All we know is that they offered to move the signs out of the park. We don’t know to what extent such an action would actually decrease the blockage.

  • Patrick W.

    If the RTO are paying the Cubs $3MM-$4MM annually that means their revenue is between $14.6MM and $19.5MM per year. So for the rest of the contract they would be expected to have revenue between $146MM and $195MM. Figure out their profit margins and you have an idea of the starting cost of a buyout.

  • Greenroom

    Thanks Patrick. Wow that is a ton of cash. Ideas on solutions? Damn.

  • TommyK

    The way I read the contract, the Cubs can’t put something up “to block” the views. To me, trying to ascertain the intent of the parties at the time they signed the contract, that means they can’t put something up with the intention of blocking the views. If I’m drafting the contract and I want it to say that they can’t block views no matter what, the contract would reads “The Cubs agree not to buy up any wind screen, sign, video board, or any other structure or other thing that in any way blocks the views. . .”. Keep in mind, shortly before the contract was signed, the Cubs put up wind screens on the chain link fences. Everyone knew they did this to block the views of the rooftops. I think the contract was meant to make sure they didn’t do that again. Based on everything I’ve seen and heard, I don’t see how the rooftops meet their burden of showing irreparable harm or a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits need to get injunctive relief. If they can’t do that, the lawsuit doesn’t necessarily hold up construction.

    • Funn Dave

      Could you indicate or copy & paste the passage you’re referring to?

      • TommyK

        It’s the provision with the restriction. I don’t have the language in front of me, but it says the Cubs agree not to put up any wind screens, banners, etc “to block” the views.

      • TommyK

        Here is the language of the Contract I was referring to. If this language is meant to prevent them from putting up advertising, it is very poorly worded.

        “6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops,”

  • 26.2CubsFan

    I see a buyout as unlikely and shockingly expensive. Beth Murphy will be in the cold, cold ground before she sells her bar/building.

    • TommyK

      I think the rooftops are trying to leverage this into either an extension of the current deal beyond 2023 or a highly profitable buyout. They know that, in 2023, the Cubs are going to completely block their views and put them out of business. They see this as their last chance to cash in big before that happens.

  • TommyK

    You also have to consider the balancing of the harms If the signs go up, the harm to the rooftops is that they will lose some percentage of their revenue. Setting aside the problem that revenue loss can be compensated through monetary damages (seemingly killing the case for irreparable harm), we can estimate the potential damage to the rooftops. If 17% of revenue is $3 to $4 million, total revenues are somewhere near $20 million. What percentage of the total revenue of the rooftops will be lost due to sight blockage by the proposed signs? The signs don’t impact all of the rooftops, and I don’t think any of the rooftops lose sight lines completely. So some rooftops will be unaffected and those that are affected will lose revenue because they presumably won’t be able to charge as much for tickets. Let’s say the lose of revenue is 25% for the sake of argument. That’s $5 in revenue lose annually. About $850,000 of that amount would go to the Cubs under the 17% agreement, so the out of pocket loss to the rooftops is is about $4.15 million. If a TRO is granted, the Cubs would lose whatever revenue they would get from the sign and video board. I don’t know that number, but if the Red Sox get $15-$20 million a yea, it’s likely that the Cubs would get significantly more than $4.15 million. This lose would be irreparable, by the way, because they wouldn’t have anyone to sue to recover it. In other words, if a TRO is denied and it is ultimately found that the Cubs violated the contract, the rooftops could recover their provable lost revenues from the Cubs. If the TRO is granted and it is ultimately found that the Cubs are entitled to put up the signs, the Cubs would just be out the money they would have rightfully gotten. At least I can’t think of a theory under which they would be able to recover that amount from the rooftops or anyone else. So I think the balancing of the harms factor also favors the Cubs.

  • Funn Dave

    I like the pointedly ominous non-answer about moving.

  • pete

    Two thoughts.
    1. After reading McLaughlin’s comment on Bruce Levine’s advice, I cannot help but now view the rooftops as an overarching nuisance suit.
    2. Although their Jumbotron shadow reference makes me nervous – look at what Griswold did with a mere penumbra (sorry, law school humor).

  • jeff1969

    Couldn’t the Cubs just build a dome over Wrigley?

    • Diamondrock

      Or the Cubs could build a new stadium in a balloon! The rooftops don’t own the sky!

  • Funn Dave

    What, no link to a buy-out-the-rooftops kickstarter? 😛

  • Funn Dave

    I like his point about how there are a number of other revenue-increasing renovations that they could and should get started on while they wait for this particular battle to play out. And no, I’m not “siding” with the rooftops; I’m just trying to view things from a perspective that isn’t so pointedly biased toward the Cubs. Not that the story itself is particularly biased, but the way that some people read & comment on these stories just seems like they’re desparate for quotes that put the rooftops in an even worse light.

    • hawkcub

      If they they start on other revenue increasing renovations it gives the RTO more leverage. Even though the chance of moving are miniscule now doing other renovations would take it completely off the table. Also the outfield signage/Jumbotron has the highest profibility. Much more expences with a hotel.

      • Funn Dave

        You’re right, it would remove that little bit of potential leverage–but even then, that leverage is contigent upon the rooftops’ accepting the validity of the threat at face value, which a lot of people don’t. Do you have figures about the numbers on the outfield sign versus other new sources of revenue? I hadn’t even thought about the hotel; but while it won’t produce an instant bundle of money like the outfield sign would, it would lay down a steady stream of future revenue, which goes hand in hand with the vision of sustained success. But like you said, starting in on the hotel would essentially remove any threat of a move.

    • brainiac

      hell, i’ll side with the rooftops. these guys have a contract and live across the street. their living situation is being politicized as a reason why the cubs refuse to improve the mlb team (read: spend revenues on contracts). the whole thing is silly, and this is a clear case of scapegoating. when their contract expires, the owners can do what they want. or they could just buy the buildings. the rest of you are just as silly for allowing yourselves to be distracted from real issues.

      • Funn Dave

        Now *that’s* empathizing with the enemy! Great point about how their livelihood is being politicized–sort of reverses the narrative about which side is taking which side hostage. They need to concede in order for them to not be seen as malcontents by the rest of the city / baseball world.

        • Brett

          To put a finer point on it – and I’m making no judgments in either direction – that’s all informed by some peoples’ perception that the rooftop businesses are illegitimate in the first place (i.e., they exist only because they directly take from the Cubs).

          If the Cubs were fighting with a coffee shop across the street that made its bones selling coffee, I think you’d see a very different public disposition.

          • brainiac

            i agree with this, and frankly i rarely chime in about the rooftops because i just think it’s a moot issue. but i don’t like how “the plan” has managed to demonize all of the important parts of team sports – the neighborhood, the players, previous FO initiatives, the park, etc.

            these guys just need to do their job like a normal baseball team and stop being selfish babies.

          • TommyK

            The most frustrating thing for me is that this is another instance of the lingering effects of the poor management by the prior ownership. It’s the prior owner’s fault that the stadium was allowed to get into such bad shape. It’s there fault this contract with the rooftops even exists. It’s their fault the minor league system was so poor at the top levels. It’s their fault the Cubs had so many bad contract these last few years. The new administration is still trying to clean up the mess left by their predecessors.

  • Argonzo

    “In sports, you can’t just break a contract halfway through without penalties.”

    I know these rooftops aren’t overlooking Soldier Field but ownership tosses NFL contracts all the time.

    • TommyK

      NFL contracts aren’t guaranteed. So when a team cuts a player, they aren’t “breaking” the contract. The terms of the contract allow the team to cut the player.

  • ObsessiveCubFan

    I’m a 35 year Cub fan who has never been to Wrigley. I’m a product of the WGN era, with no ties to Chicago. In the 80’s, you’d always get a couple camera shots and commentary of the 3 or 4 people hanging out on the roof tops watching games. Usually shirtless, jean shorts, socks pulled up to the knees, beer mug hard hats…I miss the 80’s.

    Point I’m making, the rooftops are a business now. The innocence of it is long gone. Now we can’t even put up new signs in our own park? I’m over it, they are a nuisance now.

  • Danny

    For the rooftop owners, Beth Murphy and her cronies, this has and always will be about one thing MONEY! This was never about “small business owners” this is about their GREED. For years, they stole from the Cubs and the Tribune didn’t care if they couldn’t add to Wrigley because they knew when they signed the contract they would never add to Wrigley, they were going to sell the team. I have said it from the start, the CUBS NEED TO MOVE FROM THE AREA….Let Beth Murphy have her views of an empty landmark without a jumbotron…

  • bobby

    I like the rooftops, I have been up there a few times. Most commonly the rooftops are party central. The actual game is an afterthought at times. Even when the fans are fully engaged the view is far from ideal. The game is hard to follow unless you are a crazed fan or it is playoff/WS atmosphere.

    I cant pretend to know the particulars of the deal the rooftops owners have in place but I have to believe that one of their biggest concerns would be future signage obstructing views and not only the JumboTron proposition. So fighting against the JumboTron which may or may not obstruct views could be a precedent fight for the future. The rooftops make huge money through ought the year and if you can imagine a playoff run or WS they would make a ridiculous amount.

    I see a very simple solution, BUY OUT THE ROOFTOPS! Make them a huge offer, get them out, do what you want with the property. Either improve the rooftops and make them part of the Wrigley experience or eliminate them and improve Wrigley without any concern for the on looking properties. Ricketts family can own multimillion/billion dollar businesses but cant buyout a 1/2 block worth of buildings? With all the court few and BS they would be better off just giving huge offers on the properties.

    • Jason P

      “Most commonly the rooftops are party central. The actual game is an afterthought at times.”

      That’s exactly why I don’t think a boycott will ever gain any traction. The majority of the rooftop’s market is casual fans who don’t care enough to participate.

    • J Bounds

      It is not like these are cheap properties. The last rooftop to sell when for $4.8 mln in 2012. That rooftop (1050 Waveland) was sold out of bankruptcy meaning it was likely a distressed sale and probably went for less than what it would have under normal conditions. That said, there are a dozen other rooftops that would also need to be bought if the Ricketts were to do as you propose. That means the price tag is gonna be, what $50 million, $60 million? That isn’t chump change for anyone, especially if you believe (and the Cubs may) that these buildings will lose value precipitously in less than 10 years when the current contract expires.

      Now, the Cubs may be willing to buy the rooftops whose views are effected (I believe it is 2 or 3?). However, the other rooftops may be gumming up the process or those rooftops may be seeking to extort and exorbitant price. We just don’t know. All that said, I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which it makes sound business sense for the Cubs to attempt to buy out all of the rooftops. Frankly at this point I think either an arbitrator or court is gonna have to figure this out.

  • Medicos

    A—Buyout the rooftop owners and tear down some of those buildings like the Wrigley family should have done years ago.
    B—Construct multi-level parking lots on Shefield and Waveland.
    C—Remove the ancient scoreboard and construct the Jumbotron in centerfield to keep the symmetrical balance to Wrigley Field.

    • JadeBos

      Yeah get rid of the scoreboard! Its sooo old! And that brick and ivy is so stupid. Make the whole stadium a hologram. Turn my heart into a ghost and bury it. It would save me a lot of time and money.

      • brainiac

        hah, yeah and we should get rid of that grass in the field. grass is gross. astroturf is at least artificial and there’s no dirt. and while we’re at it who wants hot dogs? what the stadium really needs is charcuterie.

        • mjhurdle

          id be down with field turf

    • Patrick W.

      Wrigley Field’s asymmetry is one of the ball park’s cooler features. The scoreboard isn’t in the center of the bleachers it’s on the RF side. The batter’s eye is in the center. If you get a chance take a Wrigley Field tour.

  • YourResidentJag
  • mjhurdle

    It does seem that the Rooftops are angling to pressure the Cubs into buying them out.
    I understand that from their point of view. They understand that, eventually, their sight-lines are going to be cut away. Their business has a limited life, as least as it is now. Why not try to get the most you can now, when your leverage is as high as it will get?
    I understand the Cubs side as well. The Rooftops are not looking for a $10 million buyout. If it is closer to 100 million, why pay a fifth of your renovation costs now when there is still a good chance you can do what you want with no buyout?

    It seems the Cubs are gather momentum, will be interesting to see what happens.

  • soultosoul

    I always thought one of the most special things about Wrigley was that you could watch the game from your living room or go up on the rooftop and watch. An MLB park in a residential neighborhood is nostalgic. Once you start charging for the experience, however, then you’re ripping off the team. No sympathy for the rooftoppers.

    And, no, I don’t think jumbotrons and nostalgia can co-exist, lol. Not in favor of it, but, whatever, they gotta do what they gotta do.