Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
No question.
The Cubs will now occupy Wrigley without having to pay rent for the next 17 years. You are also liable for all future renovations, taxes, and maintenance with token revenue routed your way.
I'll pay for that with other events and concerts and the huge per ticket fees the Cubs would owe me for this year when they have massive attendance numbers.
So, just to be clear, you believe that Ricketts would have been smart to sell Wrigley Field and get a good deal on rent the day he bought the team?
Other events and concerts wouldn't be allowed under an arrangement similar to the White Sox. IFSA needs White Sox consent as there needs to be certain buffers between game days to fix the field post events. Ever wonder why Cell never has events?
Good luck servicing debt for the $500M renovations. Your agreement would have the following structure:
Paid Attendance Range in Season Fee Per Paid Attendance Ticket
0 – 1,925,000 $0
1,925,001 – 2,425,000 $3.00
2,425,001 – 2,625,000 $4.00
2,625,001 – 2,825,000 $5.00
2,825,001 and above $7.00
It's a fantastic heist of taxpayer's coffers.
But who cares! We have a bar like the Cubs do! Also we now have a Jumbotron like the Cubs do!!!!
Can't wait for Jerry to hit up State of Illinois to get his own hotel at our expense!
Other events are allowed at US Cellular. There aren't many there for other "reasons" but they do happen. And, with the Cubs as good as they are, the per ticket attendance fees would be quite good. Considering the record for attendance at Wrigley is 3.3 million and they added seats since then I think I'd do pretty well. I'd also own a hotel and other outside entertainment since that was part of the $500 million.
I don't think you answered this before. Would it have been smart for Tom Ricketts to sell Wrigley Field when he bought the team?
Why was it considered absolutely vital in all deals that Wrigley and the Cubs were sold together? Why is it that Tom Ricketts never, even for a second, threatened to move the Cubs to any venue but Wrigley Field and never even considered rebuilding it from scratch?
You just can't win this one. The Cubs owning Wrigley Field is better for them than ANY public stadium deal that exists. Do you not realize just how much money Ricketts is going to make off of Wrigley Field in the next 20 years? Elmhurst Steve laid it out well.
You can't honestly make a case that the Cubs would be in a stronger financial position if they had the same deal as the White Sox. I understand you have a strong desire to hate on that deal, and it has downsides and benefits for both parties, but the Sox would trade with the Cubs in a second for what the Cubs have. I mean, I'm pretty sure if the city/state offered to sell US Celluar Field right now to Jerry for $1 that he would jump at the chance.