The Cubs owner threatening to leave Wrigley, and some "Cubs fans" are actually IN FAVOR of

Estil

Okay those of you living near Chicago, you no doubt heard that your new owner threaten to leave Wrigley if he does not get the upgrades he wants to Wrigley (similar to how they made a similar threat if lights didn't get put up in the mid-80s). But here's what I don't understand, there are actually many people in Chicago who WANT the Cubs to leave Wrigley??? That can't be serious. Whatever happened to the days of "Save Tiger Stadium" or "Save Fenway Park" when people actually made every effort possible to save irreplaceable ballparks...after all what's so special about New Comiskey and Comerica Park? When before they had classic historical stadiums that would still be standing today and working just fine if the owners made an honest effort to do so. After all, nobody wants to tear down and build a new White House, St. Peter's Cathedral, Effiel Tower, and so on, right?

So what's up with these alleged Chicagoians and/or Cubs fans now coming forward and actually wishing to get rid of Wrigley? No offense but they just are not the Cubs without it. Just like how the Tigers are not the same without Tiger Stadium.

WTCG

It seems like people like Wrigley because of the nostalgia but once they personally experience its antiquated facilities and overall dilapidated conditions they get over their nostalgia and wish for something better. I wouldn't say I know lots and lots of Cubs fans but I know many and believe it or not the majority of the ones I know don't care much for Wrigley.

Estil

I'm not saying it couldn't use a makeover (as Fenway got over the past 10 years) but surely they don't seriously want Wrigley to just be bulldozed do they?

Dave99B

I went to Wrigley a few years back. Loved every minute of it. The atmosphere was electric. Classic park.

Leave her alone! She's perfect. In fact, I'll trade you for Safeco Field...straight up.

Dave

stown

<< <i>I'm not saying it couldn't use a makeover (as Fenway got over the past 10 years) but surely they don't seriously want Wrigley to just be bulldozed do they? >>



You're missing several key components of the renovation plan, Estil. The ownership group and its affiliates want to put in $500MM, while not using one penny of taxpayer funds, to spruce up the ballpark ($300MM) and surrounding area ($200MM). The current issue is the left field rooftop 'suites' and placement of a 6,000 sqft video screen, which the suites claim will block sightlines and breach an existing contract. The owners anticipate at least $20MM/year of revenue from the screen, which will used to off-set costs instead of using tax dollars.

It's an excellent PR move and bet the rooftop establishments eventually give in due to political pressure. After all, it is the Chicago way...

GR

I miss memorial stadium...and i was born after it was made. lol

lanemyer85

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm not saying it couldn't use a makeover (as Fenway got over the past 10 years) but surely they don't seriously want Wrigley to just be bulldozed do they? >>



It's an excellent PR move and bet the rooftop establishments eventually give in due to political pressure. After all, it is the Chicago way... >>



not really. The PR move will procure precisely nothing as the X amount of revenue the video board will accrue would be promptly offset by the x amount of ticket sale & concession revenue that will be lost if the Cubs actually did move to Rosemont or Hoffman Estates or Schaumburg or any other burb. It simply boils down to Ricketts' desire to upgrade the park in the manner he sees fit without the meddling of the rooftop owners and other neighborhood leaches who already profit from his product. The Cubs aren't going anywhere and the threats are at best, weak.

stown

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm not saying it couldn't use a makeover (as Fenway got over the past 10 years) but surely they don't seriously want Wrigley to just be bulldozed do they? >>



It's an excellent PR move and bet the rooftop establishments eventually give in due to political pressure. After all, it is the Chicago way... >>



not really. The PR move will procure precisely nothing as the X amount of revenue the video board will accrue would be promptly offset by the x amount of ticket sale & concession revenue that will be lost if the Cubs actually did move to Rosemont or Hoffman Estates or Schaumburg or any other burb. It simply boils down to Ricketts' desire to upgrade the park in the manner he sees fit without the meddling of the rooftop owners and other neighborhood leaches who already profit from his product. The Cubs aren't going anywhere and the threats are at best, weak. >>



If they move (which I don't foresee happening), then yes, the PR was all for naught. However, I firmly believe it was in order to get public support against the rooftop suites' potential claims, which will eventually give into the enormous pressure from the city and fans.

Remember what happened to Steve Bartman? Something like that but on a lifetime supply of steroids.

lanemyer85

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm not saying it couldn't use a makeover (as Fenway got over the past 10 years) but surely they don't seriously want Wrigley to just be bulldozed do they? >>



It's an excellent PR move and bet the rooftop establishments eventually give in due to political pressure. After all, it is the Chicago way... >>



not really. The PR move will procure precisely nothing as the X amount of revenue the video board will accrue would be promptly offset by the x amount of ticket sale & concession revenue that will be lost if the Cubs actually did move to Rosemont or Hoffman Estates or Schaumburg or any other burb. It simply boils down to Ricketts' desire to upgrade the park in the manner he sees fit without the meddling of the rooftop owners and other neighborhood leaches who already profit from his product. The Cubs aren't going anywhere and the threats are at best, weak. >>



If they move (which I don't foresee happening), then yes, the PR was all for naught. However, I firmly believe it was in order to get public support against the rooftop suites' potential claims, which will eventually give into the enormous pressure from the city and fans.

Remember what happened to Steve Bartman? Something like that but on a lifetime supply of steroids. >>




It really wasn't PR anyway. Ricketts wasn't out front talking about it. He was posed a question from a beat writer in regard to a future relocation and the media just made it into something more than it was for more traction. Obviously a move 'could be' a possibility in any business but anyone with an IQ above room temperature is keenly aware the neighborhood is a large part of the draw to Wrigley, the traffic around Rosemont is a nightmare, and there is zero chance they'll move. This isn't Reinsdorf threatening to move the White Sox to Tampa in the late 80's if the city refused to built him a new yard. He simply wants to be able to spend his revenue as management sees fit without the constant meddling of the neighborhood leaches. That's all it is.

stown

We both agree it's very unlikely the Cubs move. If you had another point, I missed it.

lanemyer85

<< <i>We both agree it's very unlikely the Cubs move. If you had another point, I missed it. >>



you usually do.

stown

<< <i>

<< <i>We both agree it's very unlikely the Cubs move. If you had another point, I missed it. >>



you usually do. >>



Then please enlighten me.

Estil

For those of you who don't remember, they made similar threats in the mid 1980s regarding putting lights in Wrigley. I believe they had a set of lights ready to go back in the 1940s but donated them for the WWII effort before they were installed. Frankly though I don't see what the fuss was...even if they didn't want to do any night games, couldn't they have at least had the lights installed anyway, just in case a game goes into one too many extra innings or if they made a postseason appearance (1984 was their first postseason appearance of any kind since 1945, and they appeared again five years later, the year after their first night game).

So if they want some giant jumbotron somewhere (preferably though not on Wrigley Field itself but just outside it) I say knock themselves out! As long as the traditional scoreboard, ivy, bleachers, the red sign out front and the other basics that make Wrigley Field distinctive are still there. After all, doesn't Fenway still have all its basic features (even the Citgo sign!)?

Again, it's bad enough we lost Tiger Stadium and I really think Old Comiskey could've been saved if Jerry didn't throw a tantrum about moving to Tampa...

soundgard

I miss tiger stadium. Comerica park is a joke.

stown

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>We both agree it's very unlikely the Cubs move. If you had another point, I missed it. >>



you usually do. >>



Then please enlighten me. >>



I take that back, find someone else to have circular arguments with. In the meantime, take your self-proclaimed superior intellect and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Have a nice day.

Estil

<< <i>I miss tiger stadium. Comerica park is a joke. >>



At least it's better than the plain jane New Comiskey

grote15

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>We both agree it's very unlikely the Cubs move. If you had another point, I missed it. >>



you usually do. >>



Then please enlighten me. >>



I take that back, find someone else to have circular arguments with. In the meantime, take your self-proclaimed superior intellect and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Have a nice day.

>>

MintMoondog

<< <i>I miss tiger stadium. Comerica park is a joke. >>



+1 as one of the old bleacher creatures...No other stadium could you feel like you were on top of the centerfielder and either chant "Lemon!" or taunt the opposing CF. However, lower deck had all kinds of "obstructed view" between the poles and the inability to see any flyballs. Announcers loved Tiger stadium because the pressbox was basically right over homeplate.

lanemyer85

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>We both agree it's very unlikely the Cubs move. If you had another point, I missed it. >>



you usually do. >>



Then please enlighten me. >>



I take that back, find someone else to have circular arguments with. In the meantime, take your self-proclaimed superior intellect and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Have a nice day.

>>



so we can add "circular arguments" to "you're talking out of both sides" in your personal straw-man lexicon when challenged on something you've made up. When you botch the meaning of self-proclaimed in an intended insult, feel free to be entertaining with it. Some satire or failed sarcasm at least. Stick it where the sun don't shine....and some emoticon. Ahh you got me. How about just mirroring your exploits in the Jason Collins thread when Boo called you on your reading comprehension issues. Just bail, rest up, squeeze into some compression shorts, and come back and craft some narratives out of thin air in the next round.

MintMoondog

Chicago, perhaps the world's most corrupt city not part of the former USSR. Gave the country Obama, has a ballerina bully for mayor, and has the worst baseball fans in the country who treat each game as a drunken networking opportunity. So it is not exactly surprising to read into a thread started by some Cub fan that derails into spiteful exchanges, but that is just my opinion GO TIGERS!

BTW Wrigley field is highly over-rated and the fans have less idea what is going on in the game than any stadium in any sport I have attended.

CNote

Wrigley kinda looks like a dump. And, by kinda, I mean totally.

halosfan

That would have been the first move I made if I bought that team

coinkat

Maybe the owner should sell the Cubs. If he did not like Wrigley and appreciate it for what it is, he (they) bought the wrong team and need to revisit their business plan.

Estil

<< <i>Wrigley kinda looks like a dump. And, by kinda, I mean totally. >>



Oh? I never heard of Fenway or Tiger ever being referred to like that. I was always led to believe that Wrigley was THE most sacred ground in all of baseball, with Fenway and Tiger very close seconds. For those of you who are wondering why I don't mention Yankee Stadium...well for all practical purposes after the mid 70s renovation the only original parts left were Gate 2 and the playing field. Hence why when the previous Yankee Stadium was torn down there weren't nearly as many tears shed for it as you might expect, seeing as how I guess even most native Bronxians knew most of it was not the real Yankee Stadium.

stown

<< <i>Maybe the owner should sell the Cubs. If he did not like Wrigley and appreciate it for what it is, he (they) bought the wrong team and need to revisit their business plan. >>



Renovations were a part of their bid package to purchase the Cubs, which was approved by over 75% of the Owners. I guess the best worst case scenarios would probably be either Ricketts paying off the 17 rooftop areas for compensation of perceived obstructed views or waiting 11 years to build their scoreboard and the rooftop establishments get nothing.

jradke4

<< <i>

<< <i>Wrigley kinda looks like a dump. And, by kinda, I mean totally. >>



Oh? I never heard of Fenway or Tiger ever being referred to like that. I was always led to believe that Wrigley was THE most sacred ground in all of baseball, with Fenway and Tiger very close seconds. For those of you who are wondering why I don't mention Yankee Stadium...well for all practical purposes after the mid 70s renovation the only original parts left were Gate 2 and the playing field. Hence why when the previous Yankee Stadium was torn down there weren't nearly as many tears shed for it as you might expect, seeing as how I guess even most native Bronxians knew most of it was not the real Yankee Stadium. >>



yep wrigley is pretty sacred. they have won so many championships there!! i just love having to walk into to a ball park with a hard hat to make sure the upper deck doesnt land on your head. well they have that kinda fixed with the nets they put up to catch the concrete.

telephoto1

Anyone who's been to Wrigley recently will likely agree that it desperately needs a makeover. Badly. As in it's almost dangerous to be there. I like the idea presented that rejuvenates the stadium without using tax dollars. As to the big screen, go for it. Those rooftop "businesses" don't pay hardly anything to the team anyway and have just been leeching money away from them for years on end. If they're going to still use the old stadium, what they should do is tear out about a city block's worth of those places and put in some damned parking. That said, they could as easily just rebuild elsewhere and keep old Wrigley as a museum or something. As a Cards fan, I know that a lot of people railed against getting rid of the old Busch Stadium, but the new one is the best thing they could have done. Classic design, easy access, and unlike Chicago, parking is a breeze.

lanemyer85

<< <i>Anyone who's been to Wrigley recently will likely agree that it desperately needs a makeover. Badly. As in it's almost dangerous to be there. I like the idea presented that rejuvenates the stadium without using tax dollars. As to the big screen, go for it. Those rooftop "businesses" don't pay hardly anything to the team anyway and have just been leeching money away from them for years on end. If they're going to still use the old stadium, what they should do is tear out about a city block's worth of those places and put in some damned parking. That said, they could as easily just rebuild elsewhere and keep old Wrigley as a museum or something. As a Cards fan, I know that a lot of people railed against getting rid of the old Busch Stadium, but the new one is the best thing they could have done. Classic design, easy access, and unlike Chicago, parking is a breeze. >>



I find new Busch to be as equally generic as the cookie-cutter old Busch. It's sort of like Great American Ballpark. It's new and clean, but really it's meh compared to PNC or AT&T Park, Petco, or even 20 year old Camden Yards. Regardless, if it means it will improve the odds of keeping undesirables from WI, Southern IL, and MO away, then I'm all for eliminating all parking. If you're in the area, there's plenty of parking with a low cost shuttle or public transportation (Red Line) next door to the stadium. I couldn't care less that some yob from Belleville or Kenosha has to garage his mobile meth-lab a few blocks away.

stown

<< <i>Anyone who's been to Wrigley recently will likely agree that it desperately needs a makeover. Badly. As in it's almost dangerous to be there. >>



But that's part of the alluring charm.

Heh.

Estil

<< <i>Anyone who's been to Wrigley recently will likely agree that it desperately needs a makeover. Badly. As in it's almost dangerous to be there. I like the idea presented that rejuvenates the stadium without using tax dollars. As to the big screen, go for it. Those rooftop "businesses" don't pay hardly anything to the team anyway and have just been leeching money away from them for years on end. If they're going to still use the old stadium, what they should do is tear out about a city block's worth of those places and put in some damned parking. That said, they could as easily just rebuild elsewhere and keep old Wrigley as a museum or something. As a Cards fan, I know that a lot of people railed against getting rid of the old Busch Stadium, but the new one is the best thing they could have done. Classic design, easy access, and unlike Chicago, parking is a breeze. >>



I noticed that too regarding the cookie cutter Busch. I mean it wasn't like the ones in Atlanta/Pittsburgh/Philly where they really did look almost exactly the same. They had the arch things on top and all the decor inside (plus they like most got rid of the stupid artificial turf). So yeah why were the Cardinals insistent on building a new stadium when the fans generally felt just dandy with the previous one? Kinda a waste you know?

coinkat

Well the old Chicago Stadium is gone... why not just make it a clean sweep and get rid of everything in Chicago that has character?

Maybe the State of Illinois or Chicago should just assume ownership of the Cubs.

telephoto1

So yeah why were the Cardinals insistent on building a new stadium when the fans generally felt just dandy with the previous one? Kinda a waste you know?

I don't know that all the fans felt so "dandy"...Had you ever seen a game in the old "space station" Busch? on a typical STL summer day-or night, it was like residing inside a pizza oven. Virtually no air circulation unless you were way up high, and not much even then. The new Busch is more open, nicer and just a better overall place to watch a game imo.

Back to Wrigley... I'm all for historic venues but that place just flat out needs help. If they want to continue to have games there, it's time to leave the 1916 mindset behind and do some upgrading to drag that place into the 21st Century. As to the parking thing, that's always been my #1 complaint. Paying moon money for the privilege of parking far away, followed by either walking forever (and let's be honest- taking a chance on getting rolled), or paying again to actually get to the stadium-located in an area that hasn't seen an infrastructure upgrade since, well, since the last time the Cubs won a WS... and paying major league prices for everything else to boot? No thanks. Been there, done that, dodged the falling chunks.

Edited for typo.

IrishMike

It's a dump and has been for years.

Estil

<< <i>It's a dump and has been for years. >>



You better hope no one feels that way about your own historical football stadium (the Norte Dame one I mean)!