Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Everybody’s right and everybody’s wrong

Posted in:

Illinois

About the time the first pitch was thrown at Wrigley Field in a game between the Cubs and the St. Louis Cardinals on a recent night, a local group, the East Lake View Neighbors, called a meeting to order two blocks away. The agenda was to discuss proposed Wrigley renovations that the Cubs had submitted to the City Council.

The team’s presentation included a slide show with facts, figures and renderings. As Mike Lufrano, the Cubs’ vice president for community affairs, explained the concept of bringing street fairs to Sheffield Avenue, which borders Wrigley to the east, he was stopped.

“Can you go over that again?” a man asked. “I oppose it, but I want to make sure I know what I’m opposing.”

That’s just one aspect of the problems the Ricketts family is having these days.

* More…

Compromise, however, has remained a bitter pill.

“Everyone is wrong,” said the Illinois political insider Rich Miller, who publishes the Capitol Fax newsletter in Springfield. “But at the same time, everyone has a point.” […]

“The city should be more business friendly, that’s a given,” Miller, the newsletter publisher, said. “But a lot of people look at the Ricketts family as rubes. There is a sense that they came in from Nebraska, bought the team and didn’t understand what they were getting into.”

I said more than that, but space considerations, etc. Here’s some of what I said…

1) The Ricketts are right to want to change Wrigley Field because it’s their business and they’re no longer asking for taxpayer subsidies;

2) The Ricketts are wrong because they have a contract with the rooftop owners and they should’ve bought some buildings right away if they were so concerned; plus, they’re out of town rubes (I asked the reporter how New Yorkers would react if a Nebraskan bought the Yankees);

3) The city is right to slow things down because there are so many competing interests here;

4) The city is wrong because it interferes just way too much in business decisions, and this is a microcosm of how tough it is to do anything in that town;

5) The rooftop owners are right because they have built a business from nothing;

6) The rooftop owners are wrong because their business essentially costs the Cubs money;

7) The neighborhood associations are right to look out for their own interests;

8) The neighborhood associations are so knee-jerk that they’ll oppose any changes, as that above quote makes clear.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:23 am

Comments

What about the John Kass column in the Trib yesterday about how Rahm E. used “Chicago Style” threats on Mr. Ricketts not to do more for GOP in 2012?

Comment by Elmira Eddie Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:29 am
“The rooftop owners have a written contract with the Rickett’s family, this is true. However, I know of a great way to get aruond this. Ladies and gentlemen, based up the straight-forward legal theory of consideration, all we have to do is offer them a choice - take a completely obstructed back of the scoreboard view, or a partially obstructed, smaller scoreboard view. Problem solved.” - JC

Comment by The Muse Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:38 am
the woman they needed to get was this person who did camden yards and fenway. They let her get away to the dodgers-payback for the hundley-karros/grudzelanek deal? and the rest is history.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/janet-marie-smith-and-the-changes-to-dodger-stadium/article_41c5419e-7245-11e2-9350-0019bb2963f4.html

Comment by Shore Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:41 am
I remember when the buildings outside Wrigley were just apartment buildings. How the city and the Cubs allowed regular three flats to get converted into the bloated monstrosities they have become today, I have no idea. Zoning anyone?

Comment by PublicServant Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:48 am
If Yankee Stadium can be torn down and rebuilt, Wrigley could too. Until the Ricketts’ stop denying any possible thought of moving, they don’t and won’t have the upperhand on the rooftops or neighborhood.

Comment by OurMagician Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:51 am
There’s a reason the Ricketts didn’t want Wrigley as part of the deal to begin with. That’s why Blago/Zell tried to pawn it off on the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority and the taxpayers before the sale.

The Tribbies bought the Cubs and Wrigley in 1981 for $20.5 million. At that time, they could have bought have of Wrigleyville for anyother $20.5 million.

Lot of money, both commercial of residential, in that neighborhood now.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:52 am
The sox pay next to nothing for their park. What the hell does it matter where someone comes from? They bought a business and paid a huge price for it. They pay property taxes (Sox don’t) for anyone to say “they should have known what they were getting into” is crap! Isn’t this America? Only in Chicago can some slimy alderman rob you in the open. Look at the Chic fillet fiasco. An alderman claim that it’s his business? because it’s going in ward? Buy allowing this we are allowing businesses to be strong armed into doing whatever they are told. If they can stop you from stopping people from stealing your product why stay? What if GOD FOR BID the family got behind another candidate for that aldermanic seat? Or Mayor? Is it only Democrat business owners who can run businesses in Cook Co?. This has to stop.

Comment by votecounter Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:04 am
==What about the John Kass column in the Trib yesterday about how Rahm E. used “Chicago Style” threats on Mr. Ricketts not to do more for GOP in 2012?==

Give me a break! John Kass has benefitted from the “Chicago Way” he despises so much in more ways than one. I wonder where this “utopia” John Kass pines for so dearly is located? Ugh, he is unreadable. A one-trick pony if there ever was one.

Comment by Knome Sane Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:06 am
Looking at this from a different viewpoint, the Cubs have to have a renovation plan solid and in place not later than the end of 2013, with completion by the end of 2015. If the renovations can’t get there on that time frame, they have to plan on relocation.

Here’s why:
1) Cubs this year are currently 18-25 (White Sox, for comparison are currently 19-23), so the Cubs are probably going to do a little better than last year (only 94 or so games lost this year). Baby steps.
2) The farm system is showing real progress. By most accounts, it’s now in the 10-14 range in MLB, and getting better. And the baseball insiders like where the Cubs are going.
3) By the start of the 2014 season, the Cubs could certainly have a top 10 minor league system with a substantial amount of MLB ready talent coming up, with the goals being for 2015 and certainly 2016 seasons.
4) The Cubs under the Ricketts have re-built the organization in total (top to bottom). The Ricketts may be ‘rubes’ as far as the Wrigleyville situation, but they do know how to build an organization.
5) The WGN sweetheart deals end in 2014, if I remember correctly. That means a substantial increase in TV/broadcast revenues.
6) The CSN deal ends in 2018/2019, if I remember correctly. That will be some very interesting negotiations.

The new stadium will be the last piece of the puzzle. If it can’t be there on that time frame, got to look seriously at relocation.

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:16 am
To be accurate, the Ricketts family did not negotiate the contracts with the roof top owners. Those deals were the work of the Tribsters. The contracts are in full force and effect now, but are due to expire within a decade or so.

Chicago and Alderman Cinnamon Roll can overplay their hand all that they want, but the Cubs owners can literally take their bat and ball and move away. It happened in Brooklyn and it can happen here. Ultimately, I think what Tom Ricketts stated at the City Club is true — the Cubs could move if Chicago makes it impossible for the owners to operate their own ballpark.

Comment by Esquire Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:22 am
they can always sell…

Comment by bored now Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:24 am
Rahm took credit for a lot of stuff he didn’t do because Ricketts wasted 12 million. I doubt he was going to waste 100 like Adelson

I am going to steal from a late friend for the Cubs to win the “Sentimental Bubble” (Wrigley) must be burst……
And I am going to agree with Dave Kaplan . they need to take the Rosemont deal and use Wrigley for a couple of Sox Games and use Wrigley for the public league ,colleges ,minor leagues ,concerts and museum.
Then they have focus on business not nonsense and get a winner

Comment by RNUG Fan Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:25 am
“they can always sell…”

Nah. Ricketts are way too smart for that. Like I said, the CSN negotiations are likely to be most interesting.

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:30 am
Move the team to Nebraska! The Lincoln Cubs…I like the sound of that.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:30 am
CSN deal runs through 2019. The Ricketts family has a 20% share of CSN. Here’s the breakdown:

“It is jointly owned by Comcast subsidiary NBCUniversal (20%), the family of J. Joseph Ricketts (owner of the Cubs, 20%), Jerry Reinsdorf (owner of the both the Bulls and the White Sox, giving him a 40% stake), and Rocky Wirtz (owner of the Chicago Blackhawks, 20%).”

Link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet_Chicago

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:40 am
Read this about the deal the White sox have and then tell me again why the Ricketts should put up with this?
http://www.chicagosportandsociety.com/2013/04/24/rent-in-the-white-soxisfa-agreement/

Comment by votecounter Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:44 am
–The new stadium will be the last piece of the puzzle. If it can’t be there on that time frame, got to look seriously at relocation.–

Got to look at about $1 billion for a new stadium and a location that will draw close to 3 million for a last place team.

The Yankees were never seriously moving anywhere other than across the street. The Bronx was desperate to keep the team as an anchor, and that defined the political equation.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:45 am
Let’s just put the whole “move the team” threat to rest. Doing so would: 1) Effectively waste the money they spent in purchasing the field and stadium as part of the original team purchase 2) Waste the tens of millions they have already invested in upgrades and repairs to Wrigley 3)Devalue all of the land adjacent to the stadium they have just purchased 4)Still leave them with the need to privately finance another new baseball stadium that would cost hundreds of millions or dollars. Do you think any Mayor of Chicago would ever allow state money to spent on behalf of the team that abandoned the city? It is an empty threat. Selling the team is more realistic than moving it.

Comment by Cubs Fan Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:48 am
I don’t consider the Ricketts rubes. They knew what they were buying, they just thought they would be the exception to the Old Man’s opinions about governments bailing out companies. Woops.

I also am of the opinion Jerry Reinsdorf ought to have to pay back what the state gave him.

Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:53 am
VoteCounter, the Sox deal beats the taxpayer like a rented mule. That’s hardly the model to use going forward.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:55 am
I have no compassion for the rooftop owners…..they’ve made a profit from a product that wasn’t theirs for years. Sure they have a revenue sharing agreement now, but that contract doesn’t keep the Cubs from blocking those views. The contract just calls for the Cubs get X% of the rooftop revenues. If the team decides they can make more money by building a scoreboard which blocks the views of the rooftops, there’s nothing that should stop them from doing so.

Comment by TCB12 Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:57 am
“Got to look at about $1 billion for a new stadium and a location that will draw close to 3 million for a last place team.”

Word, you’re missing the point. “Last Place” team (in division) today, unlikely for 2015/2016. Need to be able to showcase all that talent to go to the top.

Here’s what it is about:

“Los Angeles Dodgers launched their own cable sports network, striking a deal with Time Warner Cable that will pay the team a reported $7 billion to broadcast its games over 25 years.”

“Based on the $60 million revenue fee for combined broadcast rights, the Cubs get about $400,000 per game, far below the market value potentially set by the Dodgers. Under their reported new deal, the Dodgers will be getting about $280 million per year, or about $1.8 million per game.”

Note: The $400k per game the Cubs get currently is from both the WGN and CSN deals.

Link is: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-19/business/ct-biz-0219-cubs-20130219_1_wgn-cubs-games-broadcast-rights

By 2019/2020, there’s like to be a whole new market out there for sports broadcast rights - Internet TV, with the content purchasers including the likes of Google and Apple. Maybe even the likes of Intel and Samsung.

The Cowboy’s are (supposedly) “America’s Team”. How about the Cubs as the “Internet’s Team”? That’s real money….

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:01 pm
“We’re not gonna protest! We’re not gonna protest!” - Wrigleyville Residents

I take slight offense to the “Nebraska Rubes” comments; I went to college there. There’s more to do than just tip cows, trust me.

Also, Pot calling Kettle, Omaha already hosts the College World Series every year. They just built a stadium in the downtown area, close to one of the hotel and bar districts. And I’d probably say that most Nebraskans are either KC Royals fans or Cubs fans due to the minor league teams (Omaha Royals and Iowa Cubs). There is already a built-in fanbase if Ricketts were to move them west. Careful what you wish for…

Comment by ChrisB Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:05 pm
“Can you go over that again?” a man asked. “I oppose it, but I want to make sure I know what I’m opposing.”

I love this line. A CAVE person for sure -
Citizen Against Virtually Everything

Comment by Huh? Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:07 pm
It’s a little more complicated, but generally speaking, Rich is correct. The various sides in this are both right and wrong in some respects. The people who show up to community meetings like these are the ones opposed. People who are neutral, or think the renovations are fine, don’t bother to show up and speak out in support. That’s community organizing 101.

Chicago has had a long and storied history of community input into major developments. Sometimes that works well and improves a development, sometimes not. Since Alderman have final say in zoning issues, they can either buck the community or block the zoning application.

Good Aldermen try to build community consensus that aligns with long-term community goals (density, parking, traffic issues). Bad Aldermen try to extort as much as they can from willing developers to sell out the community. It’s a delicate balance and Tunney is a good Alderman.

I haven’t seen the roof-top owners’ contract, but I don’t have much sympathy for them. I also think the neighbors are overplaying their hand to an extent. You moved into Wrigleyville, why do you think it’s called that? Don’t move next door to an airport then complain about jets taking off and landing.

I support allowing the Cubs to put up their signs and have more night games. If a rooftop owner or two has diminished views because of new signs, the Cubs ought to provide some reasonable compensation. But the roof-top owners knew their was risk involved with their parasitic business model. I’m not losing sleep over their concerns. I can’t wait for the Cubs to start investing money in the area and getting this done once and for all. Jobs and economic development will be huge at a time when its needed most.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:23 pm
It was my understanding that the contract with the rooftop owners states that they can be overridden -if- the landmarks people / full City Council approve the deal.

If that isn’t the case, what is all the hubbub for? The rooftop guys are gonna sue no matter what. If the contract doesn’t allow for a city council override, is everyone just expecting the courts to say, “Yeah, but that was then…” Or is the contract just really vague.

That’s the part I’m confused about, if this wound up going to court. Would it be a close call even if it reaches that stage?

Comment by ZC Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:24 pm
For What It’s Worth, this post sounds like a young person speaking his mind.

Comment by Anon. Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Wrigley Field, itself, has sold more tickets for decades than most of the mediocre players on the Cubs roster (playoff seasons excepted).

Across town, the White Sox have to be subsidized with a sweetheart taxpayer funded stadium lease in order to stay in Chicago. I am in my middle years and the Sox have threatened to move elsewhere four times since my childhood. The most recent threat was to move to Tampa. Before that it was Seattle and on and on.

If the Ricketts want to spend their own money to remodel, let them do so.

Comment by Continuing Crisis Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:13 pm
Too many people want to play the game of “The Cubs can’t afford to move out of Wrigley”. That’s probably true today, but by 2018/2019 or so, it’s probably the reverse.

Imaging a ‘GooglePlex” built in Rosemont, housing the Cubs, Hawks, and Fire. All the games are shown on Internet TV (free or minimal cost). You have the Cubs being the ‘face’ of Internet baseball in places like Asia and South America (both places are baseball crazy), the Blackhawks being accessible in Canada and Europe (where Hockey is considered to be a primary sport), and the Fire being accessible worldwide (where Soccer tends to also considered to be a primary sport).

You just gave the startup Internet based TV environment a giant boost with substantial sporting content (and that’s real money!), and you just expanded Google’s search and ad business into worldwide markets, and even local markets. It’s a game changer. You could even watch the sporting events on Google Glass.

And it only costs them say, $1.5 or $2 bil to get there. Even if it’s $3 bil, it’s still a big time move.

Money? No problem. Why? Because it’s a ‘whale’ if they make it happen. Business opportunities like this one don’t come around very often.

You think the Ricketts don’t see that?

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:19 pm
Rich, how long do you have to live in a place before you’re not longer an out of town rube? My understanding is that the Ricketts’ siblings have lived in Chicago for 15-20 years or so.

Comment by slow down Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:21 pm
47th Ward summed up my feelings on the residents of “Wrigleyville” the stadium has been there a very long time, it’s older than any of the residents. I have no sympathy for them, they knew, it’s not like the place sprouted up overnight.

Almost all the rooftops are on all brand new buildings, I can remember when there were older smaller buildings there. But now there are legal issues if things change between Wrigley and the Rooftop owners, something the Ricketts inherited with the purchase.

As far as Wrigley renovations, didn’t the Ricketts have something similar to a home inspection when they bought the place to know what they were in for? (Stadium building inspection?) Most future homeowners do that, so that should be on the Ricketts (all building problems).

If they go to Nebraska they will have a lot of fans, people come from all over the state for Corn Huskers sporting events because that’s all they have. They would certainly support the Cubs.

As far as money goes for a new stadium, I didn’t hear Rosemont taking their offer off the table.
They still have that sweet deal.

But seriously, most of us are sick of these battles going on. Hopefully the Ricketts are too and they will really do something about it. Selling, relocating, anything.

Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:33 pm
Also when the rooftop owners belly ache, keep in mind that most are owned by big corporations, Jones-Lang LaSalle, real estate, and property management own quite a few. These properties were bought up for big bucks years back by big companies, and these are mostly (if not all) corporate entities.
So we aren’t talking about a Mom and Pop outfits that will be hurt by any roof top income loss.

Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:57 pm
–Imaging a ‘GooglePlex” built in Rosemont, housing the Cubs, Hawks, and Fire. –

That’s quite an imagination.

I don’t think Wirtz will be moving the Hawks out of his United Center. Reinsdorf with the Bulls, either.

As fire as the Fire’s 12,000 a game — what? Toyota Park is already killing the taxpayers of Bridgeview.

But if you can find financing for three different venues for those teams at a site in Rosemont, have at it.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Word, you didn’t read the post. Rocky (Hawks) just might, because as a draw into Internet (IP) TV, their potential audience skyrockets - they become a player, because it’s no longer just the USA. They become the ‘face’ of the NHL worldwide, and all the sudden the media rights to pro hockey becomes a bidding war for those rights to NHL games.

Remember, both the Cubs (Rickets) and Wirtz (Hawks) only hold 20% each of CSN, and in a deal as Sports headliners for Internet TV, they become players. Right now, they both just get to ‘follow the leader’.

Jerry Reinsdorf won’t move (he’s got a 40% share and the United Center), so why would he want to move. He’s already the big player in CSN. But under my scenario, there’s a new sheriff in town come 2019 and JR gets to stay “status quo” or take an opportunity to make some serious money.

Again. You seem to be focused on local attendance (like with the Fire). It can be lots, lots bigger than just that - if your market medium becomes the Internet.

Re: Financing. Like I said, it’s a scenario (as in “not yet”). But the changes I’m talking about are coming, they’re just not here quite yet. But soon.

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:39 pm
JD, believe me, I read your post.

If you think Rocky would ever leave the United Center, I can’t help you.

And as far as MLS ever being an international broadcast draw, well, I can’t help you there either. The real leagues around the world are quite established.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 20, 13 @ 3:21 pm
Word:

The NHL has a 10 year media deal (ending 2021) for $2 bil over 10 years, $200 mil per year for TV rights. That’s up from $ 77.5 mil a year in the previous contract. That $200 mil per year is split between teams, but not sure of the exact details.

But it’s chicken feed compared to the NBA (over $900++ mil a year; expiring in 2016), and pennies compared to the MLB and NFL media agreements.

If the NFL sees a deal where they can double (if not more) their existing annual media deal by just having the Wirtz’s create competition with CSN (by moving), just wait for the dust cloud to blow by you as they relocate. If there’s no long term lease for the United Center, they’ll be gone for those types of numbers.

You really think the Fire wouldn’t like even a small piece of that action?

And the MLS needs to start somewhere. Like you said, the Real leagues are already well established. So, MLS is going to have to take a different approach and work it. Go to a media venue that isn’t so tilted against you.

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 3:40 pm
“NHL”, not “NFL”….

Comment by Judgment Day Monday, May 20, 13 @ 3:41 pm
Every one of your several “right and wrong” points is correct to some extent. The Ricketts really do actually hold the best “hand” in this Card Game, however, if you will, because they ARE the Owners and can offer deals, adjust or modify the big and small picture however much they want, because although the City IS too intrusive re. a legit. Business, they sure won’t let it fall through to the point where the Cubs would actually leave Chicago–they need the Revenue too badly, the Ricketts can either offer the Rooftop Owners globs of $ or settle THAT end of it in Court (where it’ll likely go) (or the Ricketts could, say, modify and make smaller the size of the Jumbotron to mollify those folks–so again they hold the cards), and, lastly, you’re right–the Neighborhood Assns. will ALways whine about change but, really, in the end, have the least clout in all of this, and the Ricketts can either throw THEM a carrot to pacify ‘em, or use their rightful Power as Owners and just ignore ‘em–cuz Millions of OTHer Cub fans who live nowhere NEAR Wrigley Field will still fill the Seats there no matter WHAT chatter those groups make, as in–the Ricketts don’t really need them anyway…!

What a beautifully ugly Perfect Storm of sorts–and all surrounding America’s favorite pastime! And from the outside lookin’ in, just gotta say–gotta love it ‘cuz it sure is entertaining!!!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, May 20, 13 @ 7:21 pm
JD, I’m not making your connection between broadcast rights and new venues.

I am quite sure new venues ain’t cheap. Los Angeles hasn’t been able to build one for the NFL forever, leaving the nation’s second biggest TV market dark for the most profitable TV sport.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 20, 13 @ 8:33 pm