Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Ozinga defends minority company
Posted in:
* Last week, the Chicago Tribune editorial board recused itself from writing editorials on the proposed sale of Wrigley Field to the state. Today, the Sun-Times editorial board mocks Mother Tribune…
And now Sam Zell’s own newspaper has abandoned him. The Chicago Tribune’s editorial board announced the other day that it would “recuse” itself — run to the sidelines, fold its arms and remain neutral — from the debate over Zell’s efforts to sell Wrigley Field to the taxpayers of Illinois.
The Tribune’s “economic self-interest” in the sale of Wrigley is simply too great, the paper explained in a curious editorial, for the paper to take a credibly independent stand — too many readers just wouldn’t buy it. […]
But we also see the paper’s recusal from the debate for what it is — a tacit acknowledgement that the boss hasn’t got a leg to stand on. If Zell’s case for selling Wrigley to the state had any real merit, we suspect those on the paper’s editorial board would take a strong stand in favor of it — and find no need to recuse themselves.
As it is, Zell’s scheme to palm his ballpark off on the taxpayers runs counter to cherished free-market principles the Tribune has championed for 150 years.
Fat chance Zell would let his editors write that.
* According to Forbes, Zell is the world’s 164th richest person, with a net worth of $6 billion. He even has some low-income housing projects in Egypt (hmmm, my wife has been hinting about taking a trip to Egypt for a while).
There is no reason on God’s Green Earth why the government should help pad Zell’s considerable coffers with this Wrigley buyout. The Sun-Times is absolutely correct. Dump this idea.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 9:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Ozinga defends minority company
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Zell will never get to be the 160th wealthiest person if the profit he wants from selling the cubs is slighlty less without the seperate sale of wrigley to the State. Poor guy, reduced profits.
As I mentioned before, I bet the price Zell paid for this package included a discount due to the condition of the stadium. Thus, he already has capitalized on its condition when he made the first deal. Having the State essentialy wipe out this factor means he actually gets a double win, low price plus having that expense removed by the State.
Any official that supports this deal and approves it should be impeached for violation of their fiduciary duty to the State.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 9:11 am
This was a non-starter from day one. The state has already constructed one stadium deemed a failure, both aesthetically and financially, and rehabbed another that subsequently lost its landmark status and is a testament to poor architecture rammed down the throat of taxpayers by goverment (Children’s museum, anyone?). The primary argument that the Cubs would ditch Wrigley for another location is laughable and transparent. This issue needs to die - right now.
Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 9:15 am
This whole issue should have never seen the light of day, except for the Governor’s blind want to be of some relevance with the Cubs. The Cubs are the Cubs only because of Wrigley.
This Governor rails about corporations not paying their fair share, and then comes up with this half brained idea. I wouldn’t bet the farm that this wasn’t the Governor’s idea to start with.
This idea and the Governor should both just “go away”.
Comment by Crystal Clear Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 9:27 am
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, gang!
What about all the economic activity Wrigley provides for the CoC and its residents? There are going to be a whole lot of people hurting if the new owner deems more money is to be made by moving the team and turning 1060 W. Addison into condos, million dollar homes, or a Walmart or something….
By demonizing Zell, you are short changing all the little guys that have come to depend upon Wrigley Field as a source of economic prosperity.
Comment by Johnny USA Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 9:50 am
Yes, it should and will be shelved. Great populist issue in an election year. I understand all the players’ motivations in this except Blagojevich. Didn’t he already have enough on his plate without handing another club to his opponents? Strange.
The Sun-Times is spot-on about the Trib’s “recusal.” If they thought it was a great idea, they’d be all for it, just as they were lights in Wrigley. Zell has got the suits in the Tower scared witless.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 9:59 am
To Johnny USA, If you are really thinking of the “little guy” why on earth would you want the State or Blago involved in any way shape or form on this? Private business needs seperated from both.
Comment by Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 10:02 am
sports are the opium of the masses
Comment by b-dogg Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 10:21 am
The Sun-Times needs to stop its inferiority complex about the Chicago Tribune. It only makes the paper look silly at times. No one is in favor of Wrigley Field being sold to the State of Illinois.
The Tribune recently burned the Sun-Times over its video contest which was won by a Trib intern over the Wrigley Field issue.
The Sun-Times should concentrate on presenting better news and casting a more jaundiced eye towards local government such as the City of Chicago and Cook County.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 10:24 am
Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan - “Private business needs seperated from both”
That will be thin gruel for all the parking lot attendants, peanut salesmen, panhandlers, taxis, bar owners, and everyone one else with economic interest in Lakeview if the Cubs move.
These people have kids & families, you know.
Comment by Johnny USA Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 10:34 am
Johnny USA,
Please. The Cubs won’t move from Wrigley. Period. So many people come to town to see Wrigley Field, not the Cubs. If a new owner tried to move the Cubs to some souped up stadium in the suburbs, they would cut the value of the franchise by at least a third (not to mention revenue loss from thousands of empty seats.
For the sake of your argument, though, let’s assume a new owner wanted to move. Yes, vendors, bars, rooftop owners etc. in Lakeview would suffer in the short-term, yet vendors, bars etc. in surburbia would benefit. Either way, it is no reason for the STATE to buy Wrigley and pour millions into its upgrade. If Chicago thinks the value of having the Cubs in Lakeview is important for its economy, Chicago should be the government entity to shoulder the burden of its renovation. After all, what’s another couple of percentage points to the sales tax?
Comment by South Side Mike Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 5:15 pm
But BIG JIM THOMPSON wants a ball park to play with and who are we - the “little people” to deny him his “TOY” ?
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 6:03 pm
And those who left the neighborhood due to the lack of the Cubs would be replaced. Demand would be high for a nice neighborhood 4.5 miles north of the Loop that doesn’t have hordes of drunks wandering around urinating on their lawns and shouting “Woo hoo!” at full throttle.
Comment by Independent Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 6:06 pm