Wrigley Sale - Interesting Points
Barry Rozner - the best Chicago sports columnist IMHO - in his Herald column today wrote about the potential negative impact on the team and its fans by having Wrigley sold separately from the team.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=110335
His reasoning is (with the state owning the park) by a new team owner having now to pay rent, not get any naming rights revenue or revenue streams by altering the park, the opportunity for profit is limited; perhaps to the nine-figure range per season!
Thinking about what he wrote, I jumped on the impact to the fans, us, those who truly bleed cubbie blue. Without those additional revenue streams and now having to pay an eight-figure per-season rent will us fans see even higher ticket prices? Will the payroll suddenly stop growing or worse yet, drop?
I feel that Zell doesn't give a crap about the fans, its cut throat business. Sound like another owner in this town from several decades past? Don't know who that is, here's a hint: See my user ID.
What I was thinking earlier, mostly due to Rozner's writing a few months ago was how Selig can actually come in and do something that in the end, benefits us the fans.
Back in the 80's the commish (obviously not Bud) used his "best interest of baseball" clause and disallowed Tribune Co. from tearing down Wrigley.
Well Selig may have to use that clause again, this time not permitting the sale of the team without the ballpark as part of the package. The sale value is much higher with the park and it's what Selig would want, greater team value. It has a trickle down affect for the other clubs.
I agree with Barry. The state can't run their existing enterprises. Do we want to trust them with the old North side ball yard? I don't think so.
I fear this little deal with the state is simply a way to generate more revenue so they can get the awful transit crisis solved. Here's $50 million bucks CTA, will that help you? Hey, I have an idea, how 'bout the transit outfit learn how to run a business?
I want the Cubs to stay at Wrigley. I'd prefer limited changes to the park but know some change is inevitable. I also want to see the Cubs continue to grow their payroll and act like the big market club they are. I also feel it's fair that the new owner (please let it be Don Levin) be able to manage their own revenue streams and costs without uncontrollable circumstances. So here I am hoping Bud Selig does something good for the game again - like the wild card - assure the sale of the Cubs includes the old North side ball yard.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
9 comments
Comments
It is a business.
The real problem is that the money* to be made from team ownership is just too much, and it brought in the sharks.
* Ticket sales are only part of the income stream - there's TV money, in-park ad sales, merch tie-ins, and more. And once the first guy figured out that getting the state or city to pay for the new stadium or arena made business sense, because it's possible to threaten to move a team, while buildings tend to be rather stationary, the horse was long gone, and the lock was missing from the barn door.
by MN exile on Jan 10, 2008 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Something...
by GreatIn2008 on Jan 10, 2008 2:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Zell has one priority
That's a great deal for Zell but it is at the expense of the new owners, the citizens of Illinois and Cub fans everywhere.
Rozner, however miscalculates the profits to the state from ownership. The state should be operating Wrigley at a zero basis. In other words, if the state takes in additional income from selling the name or placing ads in the Park, then the needed rent should go down by that same amount.
In reality, I doubt that Zell will end up with more than $40M-$50M by unbundling Wrigley from the Cubs sale. That's significant but not extraordinary in a $1B sale.
Bottom line is not to wait for Selig to decide what is in the best interest of baseball. This deal is dead unless the State Assembly approves the purchase. They are the only ones with power to authorize the sale of bonds to finance the purchase. Contact your representative and tell him you are unalterably opposed to the deal. Otherwise we're likely to awake one morning and dead the Tribune headline.
"Wrigley Field purchased by the ISFA in an effort to keep the Cubs fans happy."
by tharr on Jan 10, 2008 4:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The state...
If Zell is serious about selling by Opening Day, he's going to have to listen to offers from private parties to buy the park and the team (likely the same entity in separate transactions).
by Al Yellon on Jan 10, 2008 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Without knowing
by tharr on Jan 10, 2008 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
I must be WAY out of the loop. Wrigley was about to be torn down but Ueberroth or Giamatti stopped it?
by Goat Whisperer on Jan 11, 2008 8:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
No...
Clearer now?
by Al Yellon on Jan 11, 2008 8:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh Guys....
by Chodes on Jan 11, 2008 8:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Legal Theory
by frustratedfan on Jan 11, 2008 11:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















