Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan: No tax hike mandate
Next Post: Bean concedes
Posted in:
* Joe Ricketts talked earlier this year about why he forked out all that money to buy the Chicago Cubs. Check it out…
The most interesting part of the video was Ricketts’ description of a conversation he had five years ago with his son, Tom, who is now the Cubs chairman.
“Why would I want to buy a baseball team?” Ricketts said he asked his son.
“They sell every ticket, every game, win or lose,” Tom replied.
“Now you’re talking about a business,” the elder Ricketts said. “Now you’ve got my interest.”
Cub fans have changed a bit since that fateful conversation. Attendance is down the last two years, even though it’s still abnormally high for such an awful team. Fan dissatisfaction appeared to grow this year with every horrific loss. They have a ton of overpaid, underperforming players and they can’t find the right managerial mix.
“If you take my money, and you start this business, you buy this baseball team, you have to come over and run it because I don’t want to be exposed to risk,” Ricketts told his son Tom. Well, the risk has injected itself anyway.
* Reading a Tribune story this morning about the proposed Wrigley Field renovation plan gave me an idea…
Ricketts said the more than $200 million in proposed ballpark renovations and another $200 million the family would commit to redevelopment surrounding the historic ballpark would create 1,000 construction jobs and hundreds more permanent jobs in the next five years.
Here’s the layout of the proposal. Click the pic for a larger image. Notice the “Triangle Building” to the west and “Cubs Alley” between the triangle and the park…
The Triangle Building will include parking, concessions, shopping, dining and Cub offices. It may also include a hotel. Cubs Alley will have a retractable roof and will feature shops, restaurants, etc…
The Ricketts see that development as a way to make more money. Understandable. But they can apparently afford to spend $200 million. So, how about they just put their cash into the stadium and find private investments for the ancillary stuff like the Triangle Building and Cubs Alley? There’d be no need for a government bailout and the park would be remodeled.
* Anyway, back to the Statehouse, where things got a bit confusing yesterday…
House Speaker Michael Madigan (D- Chicago) told reporters in Springfield on Tuesday afternoon that the team’s owners, the Ricketts family, withdrew their proposal to finance a $200 million stadium renovation with a state bond sale that would be repaid with the anticipated growth in the 12 percent amusement tax levied on tickets sold at Wrigley.
But a Ricketts family spokesman denied the family had scrapped the amusement-tax plan. […]
Later in the day, after Madigan’s comment, his spokesman, Steve Brown, seemed to leave the door open to more deliberations, but he did not elaborate on the state of negotiations.
“Mr. Ricketts has called the speaker … and the speaker has reiterated that he is prepared to try and be helpful,” Brown said.
When even the Speaker is confused, things aren’t going well.
…Adding… Joe Ricketts penned an op-ed for Politico this week…
The voters sent a clear message to stop reckless spending. Yet the earmarking system that perpetuates the power of incumbency, fosters a culture of dependency on the government, and produced the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and influence-peddling scandals that sent many to prison, still exists. Washington keeps borrowing and spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.
I suppose what Mr. Ricketts ought to explain is how government borrowing that allows him to build a big shopping mall and parking garage next to his ball park is something we really need, unlike those federal earmarks.
* Jon Greenberg at ESPN also took a look at the elder Ricketts’ ironic fight against federal earmarks…
“An earmark is something that’s appended onto a federal bill which is never debated, never discussed, just thrown in,” [Tom Ricketts] said. “The fact is, what it does is it jeopardizes the integrity of the federal budgeting process. You can tell by the people in the room today this isn’t a private process we’re going through. We’re trying to be as open as possible. This is a decision that will be made by elected officials and the people in this room.”
No this project isn’t an earmark, per se, but it’s close. If you bend the meaning a bit, you can see how some people would see that above statement as an exercise in semantics and this plan as hypocrisy.
After all, who would benefit the most by the Cubs getting a new park? The owners, of course. This isn’t a nonprofit. While Ricketts has claimed he wants the team and the park to stay family-owned for a century, a new Wrigley Field would increase the team’s value significantly. Astronomically, even.
According to [Taxpayers Against Earmarks, the group funded by Joe Ricketts], the point of railing against earmarks isn’t really the way they’re put together, it’s that they’re tailored to benefit the people who are sponsoring them. Sound about right?
Here’s what it says on the website: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”
Now, you can see the similarities.
Yes, we can.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan: No tax hike mandate
Next Post: Bean concedes
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Ricketts rollout was about the biggest bellyflop for a first-time dive into the Illinois political pool in a long while. Confusing for all, painful for some.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:11 am
1,000 construction jobs? Strange. I heard somewhere that government spending could not create jobs.
The statements from that family get more bizarre by the day. It is right out of the Nixon Whitehouse: “This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:15 am
The area around Wrigley is expensive, and at this point would probably be expensive regardless of whether Wrigley is there or not.
If the remodeling creates 1000 jobs, how many jobs would be created for a complete demolition, plus remodeling of the site, plus the building of a new stadium in the suburbs?
Comment by Frank Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:18 am
If some Republicans want an Illinois state loan, then maybe they should call for an Illinois State Bank?
/not sure if snark
Comment by JN Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:18 am
Shouldn’t we off-set the jobs created by those lost in the surrounding bars and restaurants?
Plus, the constuction jobs will br created whether the State kicks in $200 million or the family raises it privately. Can’t they float a corporate bond ornate on new investors if it is such a good business deal? The only way those jobs don’t get created is if they don’t build it because they don’t get state financing. That would tell me it wasn’t financially worth it to build it on their own, so why do I want to pay for it.
Comment by Edison Parker Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:19 am
HILARIOUS Skeeter.
Not to defend the Cubs, but overall attendance is down across the major leagues, and the White Sox saw a similar dip in attendance this year, despite fielding a much more competitive team.
The biggest losers were the Mets, who saw attendance drop by nearly 600,000.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:20 am
Rich, its wrong of you to continually attack Joe Ricketts, who has no operational control of the Cubs. On the other hand, Tom should’ve taken in to account his dads government bashing when he and his team rolled out their bond plan. The crux of this issue is that yes, the Ricketts have money to develop Wrigley and the area around it, but they also have to pay back some of the loans they took out to buy the team. Now, they didn’t buy the Cubs with all loans, but they did cover the difference with some bank monies. It’s possible they are in no interest to take out loans, but the more likely possibility is that they are playing a game of competitiveness: if we invest all our money in renovations/upgrades/new development, we can’t invest it in the team itself and the ultimate product on the field. Also, this bond deal would be used to make massive renovations and overhauls at Wrigley Field, not the kind of piecemeal thing that goes on year to year. I also think the Ricketts family would have been helped by having a firm, concrete plan for the development and remodeling of the field itself and being able to say “Hey, here’s the plan, show us the money!”
Then again, that “show us the money” tone isn’t working now, albeit partially because of a purposeful media disinformation campaign.
Comment by Aaron Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:25 am
@Aaron didn’t the kids borrow something $400 million from Joe? No operational control? Yeah right.
Comment by wndycty Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:27 am
–The biggest losers were the Mets, who saw attendance drop by nearly 600,000.–
The Mets were also in the second year of a new ballpark, and lost a lot of opening season mojo. Plus, they were a lousy, unlikeable team in a bad economy in a market where they’re the clear second choice.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:32 am
How about we spend the $200 million on the money the state still owes the schools and hire back some of the teachers who were laid off. I dunno. Something in me balks at spending money the state does not have to help a lousy ball team make money. Now, if we’re talking about Chicago footing the bill, well, you guys can do whatever you want with your money.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:33 am
===How about we spend the $200 million on the money the state still owes the schools and hire back some of the teachers who were laid off.===
Your comment would make sense if…
1) This was all cash and not all borrowed money,
2) This was state money funded by state sources that could be used for operations,
3) You had a clue.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:36 am
Give the cubs the money. Wrigley is a shrine, and a serious money generator for the City and an important piece of Illinois living history. The debate over this issue is contrived and ridiculous.
Comment by Living in Oklahoma Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:45 am
Rich is spot-on attacking Joe Ricketts … it’s the Old Man’s dough … the Kids are (loosely) running the show over there and alienating the fan base at every turn, and now alienating even non-fans by this stupid proposal which goes against what Joe believes is …”criminal”… Goodness!
Higher ticket prices … idiotic “updating” of the ballpark thus far (car manufacturer sign in left-center), lower payroll & horrible roster … and Quade over Sandberg …
Rich, you became a Sox fan, and as I recall had a post or two about the “legality” and such … how were you able to do, “the switch” almost ala Jerry Seinfeld with the roommates and dating an ex’s roommate … can you give the Cliff’s Notes version, I may have to re-thing he Cubs because OF the Ricketts!
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:54 am
A shrine? I thought there was sep. of church and state. Also, I never heard of a church asking for government money for rehab.
Nothing makes me hate baseball more than fans who consider it a religion. The sport is boring enough as it is.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:55 am
===can you give the Cliff’s Notes version===
I stopped being a Cub fan and became a White Sox fan. Pretty simple, actually.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:00 am
Let’s cut the BS about the Ricketts family members being “independent” of each other, when it’s convenient for them.
It’s one pool of money. And they keep everything intertwined.
Look at the incorporation documents on Laura Ricketts’ EcoTravel.com. It’s mostly her sibs and a sib’s significant other.
Laura, the lesbian sister (and Team Ricketts has used LR’s lesbianism as part of their marketing), got to run a business with daddy’s money. Since I can’t find an active website associated with the business, I assume it failed.
LR gives lots of money to Democrats, especially Democratic women. But when she formed a business, not one of her board members is a Democratic contributor. For EcoTravel.com there are multiple Republican contributors on LR’s board, but not one Democratic contributor.
For a Democrat, she sure seems to have an aversion to working with Democrats when daddy’s money is in the picture.
It sorta seems like LR is the one who is supposed to keep relationships with the Dems. Tom handles the moderate Rs. And daddy and Todd handle the wingnuts.
Team Ricketts has all this money to drop on anti-gov’t ideology and opposing Democrats.
Maybe Team Ricketts should have done some internal opposition research to how their politics would play in Chicago, which is the most Democratic county in the country. This is especially true since their business model seemed to involved getting lots of government subsidies from the beginning.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:06 am
Thought you “rasseled” with it … thought there was more to it … I am close to flipping, and I never thought … NEVER thought I would, but these guys (Ricketts), and it also pertains to the issue at hand, are the worst Chicago owners and are ruining what they claimed to be “perserving” when they bought the Club … The building was empty for the last 20 or so games. I will only speak for myself, although the product was horrible, I did not want to give another dime to the Ricketts in beer, hot dogs, etc., let alone a ticket, so I refused to go because of the Ricketts and their handling of Sandberg, even then! The Ricketts will lose fans more becuase of who THEY are, and not solely because of the Ball Club.
Do I have to buy a Hat, or Jersey …learn to speak “Ozzie” … boy, I wish those questions were snark!
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:06 am
Hey Skeeter, take a breath would ya. I don’t think baseball is a religion, its a figure of speech. BTW, I’m a Methodist.
Comment by Living in Oklahoma Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:12 am
Maybe the White Sox should start a promotion.
Buy tickets at reduced price to bring a Cubs fan or a former Cubs fan to see the Sox in April.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:12 am
After reading this i am more covinced than ever the seniore Ricketts will have them throw it into bankuptcy. I am sure it is structured so teh creditors cant get his money. If the Dodgers are struggling under 400 million in debt how can the cubs not be sinking under twice the amount?
Comment by western illinois Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:13 am
I sure hope so, Oklahoma.
Stil bugs the heck out of me when people act like Wrigley (or baseball generally) really means anything. They don’t. It is a nice ballpark. Nothing more.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:16 am
===It is a nice ballpark.===
It’s not a nice ballpark, and hasn’t been for decades. The food is awful, the bathrooms cramped, the concourses packed. The field itself is fine. Everything else needs to be replaced.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:21 am
As a Cubs season ticket holder and Lakeview resident (within sight of the ballpark) this proposal has me at the end of my patience with the ball club.
They are no longer interested in compatibility with the neighborhood, just squeezing as much cash out of the operation as possible. That’s fine for a business but if you want to have an amusement park, move it out of a long-established, densely populated urban neighborhood.
And don’t claim this won’t cost the taxpayers. It many not be funded by general revenues but it will be covered by amusement taxes which are still paid by the public. These dollars Ricketts is asking for will be spent to the exclusion of something else.
Rich, your point about private financing is dead on. This deal could be privately financed, (not as cheaply of course) and it would be much more fair. If Ricketts overpaid for the Cubs and is in a pinch, too damn bad. Suck it up or sell the team at a loss and learn a lesson.
Just stop trying to gain a financial advantage by using tax-generated dollars.
Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:34 am
If the Rickets family spends its own money then the city should stop telling them how to run the park! Let them have as many night games as they want and rehab the building any way they want to. For now the city wants to tell them what to do with their ball park. If the city forces itself into management of the teams assets, and its future building choices then it should also help pay.
Comment by nortsider Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:38 am
===That’s fine for a business but if you want to have an amusement park, move it out of a long-established, densely populated urban neighborhood.===
Another NIMBY heard from. Adam Smith, do you know what your neighborhood is without Wrigley Field? Think Uptown. Don’t move next door to the airport and then complain about all of jet noise. Didn’t you notice that big thing at the corner of Clark and Addison when you moved in? What made your neighborhood attractive to you in the first place?
===Just stop trying to gain a financial advantage by using tax-generated dollars.===
Cubs ticket buyers are the ones generating a good portion of those tax dollars. Why shouldn’t some of that money be reinvested in Wrigley Field?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:42 am
===Cubs ticket buyers are the ones generating a good portion of those tax dollars. Why shouldn’t some of that money be reinvested in Wrigley Field? ===
By that logic, since some of Springfield’s property taxes are paid by me, then the city ought to put a new roof on my house.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:44 am
I love it when people who live in Oklahoma want to spend the money Illinois doesn’t really have.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:45 am
Years ago I spent more than several afternoons out in the cheap seats at Comiskey and Wrigley. Beer was cheaper. Sun was great. Play? Well it was supposed to be the pros. Going there was affordable. Now, the discussion is how much a pro sports team is worth, facility costs, and long term support for surrounding businesses. Overpaid under performing players and $6 cheese nachos hold zero appeal. The Ricketts paid a lot of cash figuring they would make some good bucks in the long haul. Good luck with that. The product has simply priced me out of the market. Pay even higher ticket prices for a remodeled park through add on ticket fees? Yeah, that’ll be happening real soon now. Zero sympathy for the Ricketts. They bought the product, they own the problem. Amazing how what you say often circles around to bite you later.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:51 am
It makes sense. My neighbor put nothing down and lived in a $600K (allegedly) home for 3 years before defaulting, stripping every saleable item (wiring, counters, etc) and then leaving town?
Whoops… but hey the neighborhood will pay if he isnt bailed out (everyone’s home alleged home value drops). The idiot has us over a barrel. Bail that behavior out, or the entire neighborhood suffers.
The Ricketts are just the corporate version of that. Whoops… we paid more than the revenue streams will support. Bailout or the whole neighborhood suffers.
Shrug.
Comment by Mike Ins Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:57 am
The Ricketts can save a few bucks by leaving the marquee purple in honor of the Wildcats upcoming home game vs. the Illini.
Wrigley Field has the record as host to the most NFL games by a single home team — 365 by the Bears from 1921 to 1970.
The Bears won eight NFL titles while their home field was Wrigley. The Cubs have won zero World Series while playing at Wrigley.
Maybe the Ricketts should move the Cubs to Soldier Field.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:03 pm
@wndycty
MLB requires that a clear, managing partner be established for every ownership group in the association. The MLB point man for the Cubs is Tom Ricketts, who exercises that control. Even Joe’s video that Rich posted seems to make it known that Joe is an outsider when it comes to running the club. The family (meaning Joe and his wife) did sell off some TD Ameritrade stock to finance the purchase of the club.
Comment by Aaron Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:24 pm
I figured that the Cubs sale from the Trib to the Ricketts family was a good thing. I thought that having the team owned by a family rather than an entity would result in accountability. Moves like this stadium proposal and to a lesser extend passing on Sandberg as their manager have alienated many of the “casual” Cub fans. They should have saved this move until they have a winning team or at least a team on the rise.
Comment by Stones Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:28 pm
“If the Rickets family spends its own money then the city should stop telling them how to run the park! Let them have as many night games as they want and rehab the building any way they want to. For now the city wants to tell them what to do with their ball park. If the city forces itself into management of the teams assets, and its future building choices then it should also help pay.”
The city tells EVERY business owner how they can operate or build their buildings to some degree, in terms of ensuring they follow regulations for zoning and health requirements, for example.
Do you think because the city regulates a bar by controlling whether it can have and the terms of its liquor license that the city should have to pay for improvements to the bar?
Do you think because the city tells a restaurant it has to control its rat problems and keep things clean so people don’t get sick eating the food that means the city has pay for improvements to the restaurant?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:29 pm
The price the rickets paid for the cubs was discounted to accoun for the condition of the stadium. We should not increase the value for them at taxpayer expense. They have the cash and can borrow the cahs to get this done. let them pay for it.
I would consider a different deal if they promised to give the State an ownerhsip interest so that any increased value would be held by the State and could be recouped by the State selling off its interest. They bought a fixer upper, let them fix it up!
Or let them sell shares in the ownership of the enhanced value of the cubs to get the funds which will enahnce the value.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:37 pm
I would like to see the improvement made to the ballpark. Couldn’t these improvements be funded by tax incentives instead of tax payer funding.
Putting aside all Cub hating, this is a huge economic engine for Chicago and needs to be treated as such.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:45 pm
I work and live close to Wrigley Field and second Adam Smith that the new management has done a truly horrific job selling their need to develop and improve Wrigley Field with new improvements and new events. And I even think they have a good argument, just one that’s been terribly made.
The way they have dealt with the neighborhood isn’t just putting the cart before the horse, but putting the barn before the cart that’s before the horse.
Considering the extra office space that has sprouted on the west side of Wrigley Field in modular trailers for more front office staff this botched proposal process is even more baffling than their century of World Series futility.
Comment by Irked in the Right Field Bleachers Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:46 pm
star bonds
Comment by LES Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:09 pm
If the Cubs want to raise a quick $200 million they should charge a fee for talking on your cell phone in the stands.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:19 pm
===By that logic, since some of Springfield’s property taxes are paid by me, then the city ought to put a new roof on my house.===
C’mon Rich, that is a poor analogy and you know better. If you and only 4-5 other Springfield neighbors were the only ones paying into a tax fund specifically created to build new roofs, and everyone except you got a new roof financed by that fund, you’d be first in line for yours.
The Amusement tax is not a general tax, but you knew that already. Don’t let your legitimate stand against the hypocrisy of the Ricketts proposal cloud your keen understanding of government finance.
And FWIW, if a precondition is a public ownership stake in Wrigley, then in my opinion, the Ricketts should swallow hard and take the deal.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:39 pm
YDD!!!! yes!!!! hey how about a charge for wi fi so the yuppie workers can keep the Mac Air and the iPad humming?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:26 pm
47th I disagree. The underlying premise is that collection of public funds from any individual should not be given ack to that individual for their private holdings.
I pay amusement taxes as well, can I get my house fixed up by using that money?
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:36 pm
—And FWIW, if a precondition is a public ownership stake in Wrigley, then in my opinion, the Ricketts should swallow hard and take the deal.
I believe Major League Baseball’s rules preclude public ownership. It’s a nice racket they have.
The Rickett’s plan appears to be to make Wrigley like every other ballpark in every other city surrounded by businesses catering to fans, but not the neighborhood.
Wrigley is great because it’s organic to the neighborhood, not being an attraction with separate facilities for fans from the burbs. The neighborhood has changed a bit for the worse, but it’s still far better than any other park in terms of fitting in the neighborhood. Apparently the Rickett’s want to destroy all of that on the taxpayers’ dime.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:47 pm
Arch, I don’t think MLB has any prohibition against the public owning a stadium. Jerry Reinsdorf got MLP to agree to the original ISFA plan to build New Comiskey.
As for destroying the neighborhood, I really don’t believe that’s the Ricketts intention. If they wanted to destroy the neighborhood, they’d simply move the team out.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:05 pm
Oh look, another topic where folks complain about Wrigley Field being a horrible ballpark, in spite of the fact that pretty much every single non-White Sox and non-Cardinals fan universally loves the thing….
And again, I’ve got to say, I wonder why the White Sox getting multiple government loans and outright payments over the past two decades in what has to amount well over to $200 million for the construction of New Comiskey and the subsequent renovations to the thing and yet the Cubs asking for money is worthy of front-page editorializing on websites and newspapers…..
Comment by TJ Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:06 pm
As I said before, I think the logical solution is for the Cubs to line up for TIF funding like everybody else.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:08 pm
===As I said before, I think the logical solution is for the Cubs to line up for TIF funding like everybody else. ===
Everyone that’s not the Speaker Sox, you mean.
Comment by TJ Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:13 pm
UPDATE:
Alderman Tunney Pulls Rug from Under Cubs
Alderman Tunney wants ‘rigorous’ analysis of Wrigley plan
The Cubs have put Senate President John Cullerton in an awful position by not lining up the support of the Speaker, Governor, Mayor…even their own Alderman first.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:13 pm
“Oh look, another topic where folks complain about Wrigley Field being a horrible ballpark, in spite of the fact that pretty much every single non-White Sox and non-Cardinals fan universally loves the thing….
And again, I’ve got to say, I wonder why the White Sox getting multiple government loans and outright payments over the past two decades in what has to amount well over to $200 million for the construction of New Comiskey and the subsequent renovations to the thing and yet the Cubs asking for money is worthy of front-page editorializing on websites and newspapers….. ”
TJ - Wrigley is beloved by those who see unique images on TV. I hear from many Cubs fans who lothe the place for things like lack of parking, poor concessions, no jumbotron and overall lack of modern conveniences. If you are a casual fan it’s great to go to a throwback place but if you are a regular it would be nice to have something more in line with the times.
Regarding the parallels between US Cellular and Wrigley - US Cellular is owned by the Illinois Sports Facilities authority, not the Reinsdorf family. Apples and oranges.
Comment by Stones Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:17 pm
@Rich -
CapFax needs its own version of Godwin’s Law for cases where commenters invoke the omnipotence of Mike Madigan.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:33 pm
Joe’s hypocrisy is mildly interesting but really neither here nor there.
These kinds of things are just wrong and should never be entertained. Whenm the family bought teh team and the facilities, it could have made its bid conditional on this financing, and we could have had a proper discussion/debate on the subject and if the decision went that way, even put legislation in place.
But they didn’t and pulling this now is just low.
Many teams have extorted much money from many cities and states over the years, but that doesn’t make it right and that doesn’t mean those projects were in the best interests of the public. Mostly, very rich guys were made even richer at the expense of the public, and this would be no different.
Comment by Marty Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:53 pm
@Irked: Don’t you need a barn to store the cart in?
Also, one thing that hasn’t been mentioned in this thing is Daley. The man says he doesn’t want to saddle his successors with less revenue, yet he takes a ton out of the “reserve” funds meant for whom? Future generations of Chicagoans.
Comment by Aaron Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:55 pm
I think I hated the Ricketts from the word “go” and this latest fiasco confirms that I was right. I was so annoyed by all the BS “I used to go to the Bleachers all time,” blah, blah, blah. Nice to see these people for who they really are. Smug oppurtunists, who are from out-of-state.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:25 pm
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:19 pm:
If the Cubs want to raise a quick $200 million they should charge a fee for talking on your cell phone in the stands.
- and Amalia’s rabid excitement for the post too -
=================================================
Honestly, that is the most tired line ever, no, beyond tired, it’s expired. The whole “people have cell phones at Wrigley”! I mean, seriously, while that might have been a devastatingly clever (not really, but let’s pretend) observation in, oh, 1997, for the love of god, you may have noticed cell phones are everywhere now, and have been for the better part of a decade. And let’s just continue to pretend that an Iphone or an android running phone is still just a cell-phone too, while we’re at it. Heh.
I mean, seriously, I get the joke, it’s just dumb. Do yourself a favor and update your material maybe like once every decade. What’s next, complaining that Cubs fans get their tickets on that new-fangled “america online” thing? Tsk tsk, such yuppies, computers, cell phones!
Comment by Mike Ins Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:30 pm
- Amalia - Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:26 pm:
YDD!!!! yes!!!! hey how about a charge for wi fi so the yuppie workers can keep the Mac Air and the iPad humming?
================================================
Posted on a wonky “insider-ish” state political blog.
Um, yeah, Amalia… I am sure that was posted on your break time at the coal mine down near Mt. Olive. Blogs! Cell-phones! Computers! Oh my!
Gotta go pick up my junior-high daughter and her friends now, those yuppies middle-schoolers just called to tell me basketball practice was over!
Comment by Mike Ins Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 5:08 pm
TJ says that: “fan[s] universally loves the thing.”
i’m not sure this is an argument for diverting public resources towards the thing. given the fan’s love for the park, then why should anybody fix it up? why not leave it like it is? then the fans won’t be disappointed.
i’m fairly sure that, given that “fan[s] universally loves the thing,” we don’t need a professional ball club there to make it profitable. why not little league games? no money required to change a thing!
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 5:47 pm
Cubs attendance fell 2.5 percent from 2008 to 2009. They averaged 40,743 to 39,610. The 2008 team won 97 games whereas the 2009 team was a respectable 83 win club.
The decrease in 2010 was more dramatic as the team was horrible the first half of the year. It fell 39,600 to 37,800 — a decrease of 5 percent. The team went from 83 wins to 75 wins. Of course, the 37,800 does not take into account of empty seats as now both the National and American Leagues use ticket sold rather than actual fannies in the seats.
Although some on this blog will argue over the sematics, every major professional team has received hundreds of millions of dollars from either the city or the state in the last 20 years.
The Sox play in a park that was built entirely with taxes after they threatened to go to Tampa. And of course no one has the guts to point out the irony of Reinsdorf calling the day the Brooklyn Dodgers moving to LA as the single, worst day of his life — and he was willing to do to Sox fans after the 1989 season. Why? Because the move to Tampa would have made him more money than staying in Old Cominskey.
The Bears received over $400 million from the city/state plus “raised” $200 million from PSL’s.
The Blackhawks/Bulls received over 20 acres from the City. Granted it was the projects but still.
Again, everyone loves to take shots at all and any things Cubs. They’re a punch line. But this is over the top. Everyother professional team puts their hands out, gets something — the Cubs get the finger. What else is new?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 5:53 pm
@Mike Ins…..you sure seem passionate about your comments, you posted twice in succession. do you have a problem with my family living in the coal country, albeit in another state? or are you just
unhappy that fiscal sanity is reviewing the proposal for the Cubs Mall where you could go shopping while Soriano/Fukodome/designated overpaid Cub player disgraces the uni?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 6:19 pm
Amalia - I am against the proposal… I am also pro-updating tired lines every decade or so. Your crack about wi-fi I am down with. The idea that cell phones are for yuppies? Just kinda dating oneself.
No problem with coal country… and no problem with yuppies. That’s how I roll. Peace.
Comment by Mike Ins Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 6:58 pm
–Reinsdorf calling the day the Brooklyn Dodgers moving to LA as the single, worst day of his life — and he was willing to do to Sox fans after the 1989 season. Why? Because the move to Tampa would have made him more money than staying in Old Cominskey.–
Reinsdorf later admitted the Tampa move was all bluff. The dome there is a dump, and they have a young, talented team that won a pennant a couple of years ago, and were in the race with Yankees all this year, and they still can’t draw flies. It’s a loser baseball market.
Before the Tampa threat, Reinsdorf threatened to build a new park in Addison. A non-binding referendum there lost.
For a new stadium, the Sox had the backing of Gov. Thompson, Speaker Madigan, Mayors Washington and Sawyer, State’s Attorney Daley and Chairman Vrdolyak. Yet it took years to line up the votes to get it done.
The Ricketts might have to wait a while.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 9:39 pm
From the Omaha World Herald, March 2006 (article since pulled, so via Wiki): “Ricketts senior let it be known that he wanted his children to establish themselves through their own hard work and would not be allowed to join TD Ameritrade until they reached the age of 30.”
He bought his son a baseball team.
Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:51 pm
@Mike -
I never said ‘cell phones are for yuppies.’
I initially suggested they raise the cash by charging 25 cents more for beer, but nobody liked that idea.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 7:06 am