Quantcast

respect wrigleyWe haven’t heard a whole lot on the Cubs-rooftops impasse, as it relates to the Wrigley Field renovation and development project, since the late-January/early-February saber-rattling about the Cubs erecting their advertising sign in right field (currently delayed), and the rooftop owners readying for a lawsuit. That came after some comments by Tom Ricketts and Crane Kenney at the Cubs Convention, which reportedly ruffled the rooftops’ feathers as the sides were on the verge of an agreement. (I’m not actually sure how accurate that is, but those were the reports.)

By all accounts, the sides continued working behind the scenes on a deal, and “the hope” was that a deal would be ready to announce by Opening Day – presumably meant to be Wrigley’s Opening Day, which is this Friday. That remains possible, in the sense that no one has explicitly ruled it out, but I can’t help but wonder if we’re in for another round of sparring.

The Ricketts Family will be spotlighted on 60 Minutes Sports on Showtime tonight at 8pm CT, and you can catch a sneak peak here at CSN. It appears as though the ongoing rooftop dispute will take up a sizable chunk of the broadcast, and it doesn’t sound like things are going particularly well. Beth Murphy is also interviewed in the piece.

I highly doubt the Ricketts Family would say anything in the 60 Minutes piece that the rooftops haven’t already heard at the negotiating table – just like I’m sure there was nothing said at the Convention that actually surprised them – but it seems like every time the Cubs speak publicly about the dispute, the rooftops try to grab some leverage by expressing frustration about whatever was said. In other words, whatever comes out of this 60 Minutes thing, I’m tentatively expecting some more public spatting. Hopefully I’m just being overly pessimistic there, and hopefully we’ll find that, because the interviews were recorded a long time ago, things have gone swimmingly since, and a deal is on the horizon.

I really can’t wait until I can end one of these Wrigley update pieces without a “hopefully” sentence.

As I reported in last month’s financial piece, sources say the finalized Wrigley renovation project could generate as much as $40 million in incremental annual revenue for the Cubs (but only if they can actually proceed with the renovation in the way outlined for, and approved by, City Council). So, yeah, this remains an exceedingly important story.

An announcement that a deal was in place that would allow the Cubs to proceed in earnest with the renovation as they envision it, paired with an announcement of a long-term TV deal that contemplates the full slate of games post-2019 (and allows the Cubs to start cashing in next year), would pretty much make 2014 a great year – and it’s April, and the big league team probably won’t win many games.

All we’ve got is “hopefully” at this point, though.

  • Blackhawks1963

    It is past due time for the Ricketts and their cache of hi-powered corporate attorneys to take the rooftop owners to court and bury them six feet under. Scorched earth all the way at this point. Bloody them, bury them, destroy them. They are enemy and goodwill negotiations on the part of the Cubs have been rebuffed at every turn. And while you’re at it, take the pristine image of Tom Tunney and City Hall threw the gauntlet too.

    I will never step foot again in Murphy’s Bleachers. I will never again participate in a rooftop event via my employer either. I hope all Cub fans oblige likewise.

    • Noah_I

      There are more difficulties to this than you are thinking. First, the Cubs would merely be seeking declaratory relief: that the contract allows them to do what they want. The Cubs can do this, but any legal fees would be a wholly sunk cost. Second, in discovery the rooftops would likely have much greater access to the Cubs’ financial information than either the Cubs or the MLB would like for the rooftops to have. Third, you’re almost guaranteeing that this is drawn out for at least a year, likely more, as litigation takes a long time. And that’s not including appeals.

      And fourth, what if the court determines that the Cubs WOULD have to pay any rooftops for impinging their views? Or what if the court determines that the Cubs don’t, then the Cubs start the process, and the appellate court reverses? It would leave the Cubs in limbo far longer than any of us would prefer.

      • Caleb

        Difficulty, Schmifficulty. Blackhawk is right–bury them. At this point even a worst case scenario, parade-of-terribles situation is preferable to the alternative and gives you at least a hope of a “win.”

        Legal fees? Costs outweighed by revenue generated when they break ground. Discovery? Eh, what’s the really cost you compared to getting this show on the road. Drawn out? Who cares. Break ground, ask forgiveness later. With all the support the Cubs have, there’s almost zero chance of an injunction preventing them (and, worst case, at least then they *know*).

        I’d even be willing to take some of that Tanaka money and use it to specifically crush Beth Murphy. You don’t think that a reasonable rooftop owner–even considering their own pecuniary interest–would, if a real Cub fan, have by this point figured out a deal that works for everyone? It’s not like the Cubs have been intransigent douches–they’ve gone out of their way at every turn (or so it seems to us) to be reasonable, accommodating, and compromising.

        I say it’s time to start putting up Cardinals memorabilia up around her business, because she’s obviously a double agent trying to sabotage the Cubs’ plan to dominate the world for the rest of our natural lives.

      • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

        Forget the legal route, I’d be ok with playing some old school Chicago politics and sending a health inspector into Murphy’s to “find” some serious violations.

        • Brocktoon

          With the consistent smell emanating from Murphy’s Bleachers, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

        • candyland07

          Funny – if the health inspectors actually do its job – Wrigley would be condemn.

        • davidalanu

          As a long-time restaurant owner, I can’t tell you how much your suggestions offends me. As a Cubs fan, however, I’m strangely comfortable with it.

          • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

            This made me chuckle. I was only joking of course, but I do hate Murphy’s

        • Jon

          If you want to play the Chicago political game, I have to question the decision by Todd to get involved in that anti-Obama super pact stuff. Not a wise one, IMO.

    • candyland07

      Actually when I go and see the Cubs this year . I will do what I LIKE to do. If i want to catch a game on Rooftop I will. If i want to go inside the park and a see a bad team the the Cubs put on the field _I will.

      I dont really care who wins . The rooftops had/have a contract ,the Cubs want to abandon that contract. Its all about money. I do know one thing nobody is stealing the Cubs product. The Cubs sold its view to the Rooftops for so many years and Its the Cubs that want to alter and abandon that plan. and agreement.

      anybody want to buy a bison dog ?

      Simply put – Get the luck OUT.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        I’d always wondered if you had skin in the game, candy.

        • candyland07

          I actually dont know what you mean by skin , break it down Brett. Without high heels I stand 57 inches .

        • Sandberg

          *homealoneface*

  • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

    I’m with you Blackhawks. Not that I know the intricate deals of the contract, but it’s time to stop worrying that the Cubs will be seen as a corporate bully and squash the rooftops like the bug that they are

  • Chad

    I think most cubs fans are tired of this. We are all tired of the hold up on revenue increasing rennovations. I could care less if they changed everything on wrigley as long as it makes money that can go back into the system and make a stronger organization. I am a big fan of even moving the team. I don’t care anymore, but I just want something to happen that will help the cubs.

    • cavemancubbie

      I’m with you Chad. As it stands, the Cubs are in economic limbo. In my frustration, I believe the Ricketts are partially to blame for this. I wish they (Ricketts) would grow a pair.

    • SenorGato

      I’m definitely tired of pretending the Cubs are broke. OTOH, I have been beaten down by Epstein, his cohorts, and the many blind followers. I am now willing to understand that what is being done will stabilize the franchise economically (financially and baseball wise) and allow them to play with the big boys for decades, which to be perfectly honest this franchise should long have been able to do naturally.

      Anyway, I want to blow that 14something franchise record in payroll out of the water. If this bullshit results in that and the ability to sustain it then yay. Otherwise it’s a waste of everyone’s time.

      • SenorGato

        I also don’t blame the Ricketts’ an ounce for this. They didn’t spit us bullshit about dual fronts and every season/chance to win being sacred. They made it very clear during 2011 that they wanted to aggressively get amateur talent into the organization and revamp the development process, and have spent the money to do it. They’ve also magically found money, conveniently, each time Epstein sets his eyes on a specific FA (though he and Hoyer have only actually landed Jackson).

        I honestly like the Ricketts family alot. From my POV they’ve long had the idea that this is a massive overhaul, pretty much from the day they bought the team, and have never really led anyone to think otherwise. Epstein OTOH…

  • itzscott

    Is there any clarity if that $40 million in incremental revenue will be plowed back into the team or if that will be used to pay back the Ricketts family for the cost of the renovations ($400+ million?) over the following 10-12 years?

    • Chad

      Well I would guess that any revenue would go back into the organization. At some point the organization has to pay back its debt one way or the other. I would assume it will go not only toward the debt but toward the cubs organization. I’m not sure it really matters where the money comes from. Debt has to be paid, but “extra” goes into the team.

      • Hee Seop Chode

        It’s not the organization’s debt; the debt belongs to the Rickets Family Trust. Lowering the debt level may incidentally improve the Club’s ability to spend on Baseball Operations, but lets all remember that each reduction of principal outstanding builds the personal wealth of the Rickets family (not the Cubs as an organization).

        • itzscott

          My fear is that as long as Crane Kenney is around with his “corporate speak” that can be interpreted in many different ways and the fact that I don’t completely trust Ricketts yet (the Michael McCaskey weasel-like clone thing)…. I’m just not completely onboard that all the sunshine & lollipop consequences of the renovations being written will translate to THE TEAM, as opposed to the Ricketts family.

          • mjhurdle

            I don’t understand this thinking though.
            Even if you assume that the Ricketts are just greedy cooperate suits in it for the money, it makes the most sense for them to put more money into the Cubs.
            A competitive, winning Cubs team is far, far, far more profitable to the Ricketts than a last place Cubs team. If they really only care about profits (and im not saying they do) then it is in their best interest to make this team good, and not just pocket a few extra million a year while attendance continues to plummet due to bad baseball.

            • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

              Exactly, the team’s profits are directly correlated to the team’s success. The better the performance, the more tickets are sold, the more merchandise is sold, the more concessions are sold, the more ad money they can get, and so on and so forth. The Cubs are unique in that even when they are bad they will still do better than most teams, but the optimal profit margin directly relates to the team success.

        • Caleb

          No. Read you Brett’s piece financial stuff good. It make you smarter.

          • Brocktoon

            The fact that the debt is required to be paid down by MLB doesn’t make it any less the Ricketts debt that they agreed to upon purchase of the team.

          • Hee Seop Chode

            As Brett explains, Operating expenses may be limited by MBL fiscal covenants, but this is an issue separate from the Ricket Family Trusts equity position.

            • half_full_beer_mug

              I don’t get why people are hung up on the fact that some of the money was borrowed from the Rickett’s Family Trust. Unless we make the assumption that Tom had that kind of cash hiding in the cushions of the couch, the money had to be borrowed from somewhere. What difference does it make if they are repaying that loan to the family trust or Bank of America?

        • Chef Brian

          The Ricketts own the Cubs so any debt incurred by the purchase of the club is the organization’s debt. The Ricketts are the organization. If you buy a hot dog stand and agree to make payments, those payments are not separate from the hot dog stand it’s an expense that goes into running the stand. People are getting too caught up into trying to get around the debt service. Any money that congress in the door good to paying bills, and debt service is just another bill.

          • Chef Brian

            Comes in the door not congress, stupid swype…

          • Brocktoon

            What’s happening is Ricketts Dogs has changed from 100% All-Beef dogs to a pork/chicken hybrid, and asking its customers to continue to pay as if they’re eating All-Beef dogs on the promise that once they have made enough money to pay for their hot dog stand purchase, they’ll switch back to the All-Beef.

            • DarthHater

              Yea, that’s exactly what it’s like.

              • Brocktoon

                If we’re going to use tortured, non-applicable hot dog stand analogies…

                • Chef Brian

                  Listen, sorry I had to dumb it down for you, but business is business and debt is debt. What does what the Ricketts are charging at the gate have anything to do with the organization’s debt?

                  • BT

                    More importantly, no one is making you (Brocktoon) buy the goddamn hot dog. If you think Ricketts is charging too much for the hot dog, DON’T BUY IT. He is allowed to charge whatever the hell he wants for it. The market will decide whether it was a wise move or not.

                    • Brocktoon

                      I shouldn’t have mentioned anything regarding prices, wasn’t really my point, and I always get annoyed at people complaining about how high ticket prices are as if the Cubs should alter their pricing structure on a yearly basis.

                      My point was along the lines of tank the product to pay for your acquisition with promises of someday making the product good again.

                  • Chef Brian

                    Or debt service? It’s a bill that comes out of any of money coming in. I can’t make it any more plain than that. Whether you like the product on the field or not is irrelevant to the point I was making Brocktoon. I like how you managed to turn the conversation so you could take a shot at the plan.

                  • Brocktoon

                    I’m sorry you don’t know how to make a relevant analogy.

                    If Tom Ricketts paid 1.2B in cash for the Cubs, and spent the next 10 years paying himself back 30M/year because he spent every penny he had on the Cubs, people would have an issue with it.

                    I understand that he is required to pay off the debt per MLB regulations, the point is, this every cent goes back into the team is nonsense, when he’s handicapping the money going into the team for 10 years in order to afford to actually buy the team.

                    • Chef Brian

                      Did you read Brett’s piece on the purchase or did you read and just not understand?

                    • Brocktoon

                      Enlighten me chef, because I’m pretty sure I understand everything Brett laid out. The terms of the sale required the debt, the Ricketts are paying the debt payments through team revenue. In the end Ricketts acquires the team in a McCourt like manner.

          • Edwin

            The debt expense is for owning the hot dog stand, not running the hot dog stand. Wouldn’t the debt service be an expense to the owners instead of to the hot dog stand directly?

            • Brocktoon

              It’s an expense to Hot Dog Stand LLC, so all revenues from the stand are going back into the business.

  • BenRoethig

    Its time to get this done one way or another. Find a way to get the Rooftop owners out of the picture one way or another or announce that Wrigley can’t work anymore because of neighborhood politics and move on. This can’t be delayed another year.

  • jh03

    Brett, how much longer do you think it will be until this is over?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      As soon as two days; as long as two years?

      • jh03

        haha I kind of assumed that.. If you *had* to guess, what would your guess be?

      • TWC

        Larf.

        Way to step out on a limb with that prediction, Ace.

        • Fishin Phil

          He has a real future in meteorology.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            It might rain today.

            • Caleb

              It’s my birthday. For 31 years now it’s been shitty weather on April 2. Never fails. You *can* guarantee that without any lawyerly hedging!

              • jh03

                Happy birthday!

              • DarthHater

                [img]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2867/9719608944_08928d0a0c_m.jpg[/img]

                • Caleb

                  Thanks Darth!

          • Santos Toupee

            Hysterical Fishin…

  • V23

    Blackhawks1963 is right. Beth Murhpy who’s crappy bar and rooftop has profited off the cubs for decades…is the biggest symbol of what is wrong with the rooftops.

    We should all bring signs to opening day and discourage anyone from going to Murphys.

    I also agree that Ricketts needs to just get this to court. That’s where it’s going. Unless, he’s just trying to buy all the buildings.

  • ame1908

    Will this be available to watch sometime after it airs (if I don’t have access to Showtime)?

    • Jon

      I would be interested in this as well (legal or not) :)

      • ame1908

        ^^seconded. Oops. If anyone can help out, let us know.

  • Voice of Reason

    If you want to be mad at someone be mad at tribune company. This is kind if the tribs way of shitting on us one more time on their way out the door.

    The tribune company signed these contracts with the roof top owners. I won’t go to a roof top or Murphys bleachers either, but the roof top owners do have signed contracts. Its just something that the ricketts inherited and have to deal with.

    This is just the next step for the ricketts.

    • itzscott

      >> If you want to be mad at someone be mad at tribune company. <<

      One thing you have to understand is that Sam Zell is and always was a White Sox fan and much of this could have been him giving the finger to the Cubs.

      • Voice of Reason

        So its your contention that Sam zell did this on purpose? Because he was a Sox fan he figured he would screw over the cubs by signing contracts that he thought were stupid with roof top owners?

        You do understand how stupid that belief is?

        • itzscott

          That wasn’t my contention.

          First and foremost Zell structured the sale to be in the best interest of Zell and The Tribune.

          My contention is that if there was any way that Zell could stick it to the Cubs by innocuously tying something into the terms of the deal whose consequences weren’t immediately apparent to the rest of us amateur financial wizards, don’t think for a second he wouldn’t do it.

          His reputation has always been that of a sly fox when it came to real estate and business transactions.

          • Brocktoon

            But that has everything to do with benefiting Zell on the purchase, and nothing to do with giving the finger to the Cubs.

      • Sandberg

        Was Zell even around when the initial contract was signed?

  • The one who knocks

    I got a chance to chat briefly with Tom Ricketts about this issue in Mesa. One thing he said was that if there were only one rooftop owner, it would be done by now. But everybody wants something different. He also mentioned, somewhat cryptically, that “we have options.” No sure what that meant but he made it clear that they much prefer an amicable solution to using those “options.”

  • FFP

    Wow. That clip of the 60 minutes piece pissed me off.
    Beth Murphy: “Do they really need a jumbo tron?”
    Who the F does she think she is? Is she going to weigh in on the Shark extension, too? Who should play third, Beth? I don’t believe the Agreement says she has diddly input on the “needs” of the organization beyond her rights and responsibilities as a creeper paying peeper.

    The Ricketts family in unison: “Tom is the patient one.”
    Reminds me of the book To Kill A Mockingbird and what Scout called “Atticus’ dangerous question.” I imagine Tom Ricketts saying: “Do you really want to sue me?” I’d place money that the Ricketts are about to legally destroy little Beth-fart and her breezy-borough blow-hard band.

    • ame1908

      Yeah, the comment from Beth about what the Cubs “need” was way out of line. Made me pretty upset too. She should keep her emotions out of the equation.

      The whole situation is frustrating, but I think Tom deserves some credit so far for not making any irrational decisions that might have negative consequences in the future. We all want the deal done yesterday, but Tom’s done a good job of not sacrificing what they want for the speed of the process.

      In five years, I think we’ll be thanking him for not making concessions.

    • http://www.friendly-confines.com hansman

      It’s a classic David vs. Goliath argument. The little guy who is getting crapped on just wants to make an honest dollar but the big bad corporation is in there way. Do they really neeeeeeeeeeeed anything? They are the big bad corporation. They already have it all.

  • Jon

    Beth Murphy can best be described using a four letter noun. I’ll let everyone fill in the blanks for themselves.

    • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

      Does it rhyme with our favorite way to move runners over while giving up an out?

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        No need to go there, gents.

        • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

          I just thought it was clever due to our discussion on bunting the past couple days. Consider the conversation over

        • Caleb

          If there *was* any occasion to “go there,” this was the way to do it. Classy and understated with a hint of irony. Plus, little kids (an audience you wouldn’t want reading such vulgar and crass language) can’t rhyme–everyone knows that.

          Wait. Scratch that last point. How about we clean it up a bit: “Beth Murphy is being _______, a word that rhymes with ‘rifficult’.”

          Like the way that we “rifficult” a runner over to third base in the 9th inning.

          Wait. Crap. 0 for 2 today.

        • FFP

          Sorry, Brett, if I kicked a door open that usually is usually closed around here with name-calling: not that I take responsibility for others’ choices.

          As ame1908 put it about TR, I should “not making any irrational decisions that might have negative consequences” In these threads.

          Thanks, ame1908 for both your commiserating and for nudging us back toward civility, too.

    • Blackhawks1963

      Amen brother

  • CubFan Paul

    “the finalized Wrigley renovation project could generate as much as $40 million in incremental revenue for the Cubs”

    Weren’t initial reports/estimates $100MM?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      One report estimated $90 million, but that was – I believe – also incorporating some increased ticket sale stuff that’s really hard to project. I also think that was probably always a touch high. All I know is what I’ve been told.

      Of course, they’re all just projections, ultimately.

    • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

      I remember hearing about $40 million/year when they were first discussing it, but as Brett said, I’m sure there have been a wide range of projections

  • mr. mac

    I read the second to last line as: and the big league team probably won’t win ANY games.

    All I could think was, “Boy, Brett really is pessimistic about this season.”

  • Caleb

    Doesn’t the Coase theorem help solve this? But *ALL* the rooftops!!

  • jonred

    Ricketts needs to get this roof top situation resolved, as we are now at the 100-year anniversary where all of the park improvements should have already been completed. It’s my understanding that the new scoreboard/signage will block views for two rooftops. I would sit those owners down and make them an offer that would be in their best interests to sign. Tell them that they only have 10 more years to be in business before their contract ends. Pay them for their annual expected profits for those years, along with a premium for the property. Otherwise you take them to court and they see how they fair against a legal team from a billion-dollar organization with the backing of MLB.

    I’d also like to see a boycott of the overpriced, overcrowded Murphy’s until Beth realizes that the only reason she has her business is because of the Cubs!

  • http://bleachernation.com woody

    So if they litigate then add another year minimum to the start of a rebuild. This is like watching the movie ‘Groundhog Day”. Interesting read from Arguello at cubs den about the implications of another selloff in July. The two fit together because there is a possibility of a worst case scenario looming. The argument is that if the Cubs are in selloff mode it will be because Rizzo, Castro and to a lesser extent Olt have not lived up to expectations as core players to be built around. And that if those guys and of course the pitching staff do step it up that we will be close enough to .500 where the selloff isn’t palatable to the fans. Somehow I don’t think this is how Theo envisioned things when he took the job. Remember this winter when he admitted that initially he envisioned a two prong approach? But that had to be abandoned I presume because of financial constraints. So it is crunch time for both the business plan and for the ball club. Non-productive years from Castro and Rizzo would be catastropic to the plan. And litigation would be a losing proposition for both sides IMO. Put whatever color of lipstick you want on this pig, but the threat of a major cluster f@@k looms. I don’t want this to happen, but with another season like the last two and litigation on the horizon we can punt the year of contention out of sight.

  • V23

    adding 40mm/year would be huge, but does that make the cubs a $129mm team or a $160mm team? TheoJed said they have higher budget than they are using.

    This better be the last year of the downward spiral.

  • cubfanincardinalland

    No chance this drags out 2 more years. What gets lost in all the bullshit, is the fact that renovating the stadium is not just some option. They either do it, or find another place to play. Continuing to dump 10 mil a year to keep it from falling down has about run out.

    • Brocktoon

      Well, they could fix the infrastructure whenever they want, the holdup is they want to help fund the infrastructure renovations with stadium advertising.

      • cubfanincardinalland

        That’s the “Beth Murphy” plan.

        • Brocktoon

          Well, yeah, I’m not saying it’s how I want this to play out, but it’d certainly be cheaper to renovate Wrigley’s infrastructure than to build a new stadium.

  • TommyK

    I can’t believe they haven’t started the renovation yet. Watching the Cubs get pushed around by the rooftops is so frustrating and depressing. More than anything else, this situation shakes my confidence in the organization. What a mess.

    • Voice of Reason

      Its interesting how people see things in different ways.

      The cubs are not being pushed around by the roof top owners. This is just business. The roof top owners have contracts and the ricketts inherited the contracts and now must legally work through this. This isn’t the ricketts first rodeo. They’ve been involved with stuff line this before. This plays out more publicly since its the cubs. For the ricketts its part of doing business.

  • Blackhawks1963

    Why does it not infuriate more people that the rooftop owners and the “special interests” of Wrigleyville think they can hold the Cubs hostage. The ballpark has been there for over 100 years, and pre-dates ANYBODY who owns property or a business interest in the neighborhood. And everybody who owns property in the neighborhood owes their huge property values to the presence of the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.

    WhoTF is Beth Murphy to legislate if the Cubs want to put up a Jumbotron?!? THe Cubs have gone through every legal hoop imaginable via City Hall, the Landmark Commission, etc. to get approval for their tasteful and thoughtful plans to bring Wrigley Field more into the modern era, add essential new revenue streams that are a part of 100% of professional sports stadiums across the country and to fix a crumbling infrastructure. These sanctimonous bastards can tell a private business interest they shall be held hostage until they ALSO acquiese to their laundry lists of demands. In no other major city in this country does this crap get allowed. I’m not going to get into politics, but my goodness is this a fu(ked up mess.

    Put up the damned wind screens. Hire the best damned corporate attorneys that money can buy. And BURY these special interests six feet under. Bleed them until the bank’s foreclose on their properties. GO TO WAR….NOW.

  • Fastball

    They just need a great Chicago neighborhood fire which happens to start at Murphys grease pit in the kitchen that the health inspector forgot to inspect. They could rebuild if they can get the permits. By the time they did the contract will have expired.

  • Diehardthefirst

    $40 million ain’t much considering all that is in the way of legal hurdles- just raise beer price by $1.00

    • gocatsgo2003

      We are going to make $40 million by raising the price of beers $1.00 to about 2.6 million fans? While it could be fun to be at Cubs games where every man, woman, and child drinks about 15.5 beers, I don’t think the math checks on that one.

      • Brocktoon

        How about we just write off the 40 million?

  • Diehardthefirst

    Assume they sell half million beers game over 80 home games is 40 million beers …

    • http://www.friendly-confines.com hansman

      So everyone is going to buy 15 beers?

  • Diehardthefirst

    Hmmm my math may need tweaking- let’s say raise beer and soda by 1.00 and all other foodstuff by .75 and souvenirs by .50 — that should do it

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+