Wrigley Sale - Interesting Points

by blackhawk24 on Jan 10, 2008 10:52 AM CST Comment 9 comments

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 | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It is a business.

Look at the LA Clippers, just to skip over to yet another major league sport. They're never going to win an NBA championship. Never. They make barrels of money being the second team in the LA market.

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...

...the naming rights situation reminds me of is the Rose Bowl, now known as the "Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi." Even though a sponsor was added to the name of the game, it does not take away from the storied history of that game. If the Wrigley Field naming rights were actually purchased by a sponsor, I would have no problem with it being "Wrigley Field presented by At&t" or something along those lines. As long as it brings us a championship...

by GreatIn2008 on Jan 10, 2008 2:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Zell has one priority

and that is to maximize his profits. As he has done in the past, he intends to minimize his net cash investment in the Trib. He has committed to putting up only $350M of his own dollars into the $8B+ purchase. By selling Wrigley to the state, he will reduce his $350M investment even further.

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."

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Jan 10, 2008 4:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The state...

... as you know, has a lot of other pressing issues, including the CTA, which is down to its third "doomsday" date, January 20.

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).

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Without knowing

all the details, I'd guess there is no advantage to Zell from selling to a private corporation. The big edge the ISFA has is their ability to sell bonds as a tax free municipal thus reducing the interest rate of the bonds.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Jan 10, 2008 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

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.

I must be WAY out of the loop. Wrigley was about to be torn down but Ueberroth or Giamatti stopped it?

PERRY!!!!

by Goat Whisperer on Jan 11, 2008 8:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

No...

... it wasn't about to be torn down; Tribco was making threats to leave if they didn't get approval to put in lights. Ueberroth was the commissioner who stopped them, and then behind the scenes along with Tribco helped lobby the city and state to pass the legislation allowing lights.

Clearer now?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 11, 2008 8:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh Guys....

The State owns U.S. Cellular Field. Who gets that money for the naming rights? I'm sure the White Sox have been making money by paying rent to the state and not owning the park. Working with the club the past decade to remake the park into a more friendly place to watch a game. Gee, they even won a world Series along the way. Let's not confuse sentiment with reality. MLB is a business. The State should be run as a business. If they can work together perhaps both the fans and the citizens can be winners. I don't know Zell but as far as him being an evil owner I think he is just the opposite. He has said from the very beginning of the deal with the Trib that he did not want to be a MLB owner and probably would not do the Cubs any justice which is why he is trying to sell the club in the first place.

by Chodes on Jan 11, 2008 8:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Legal Theory

Under what legal theory could MLB order the Tribune Company not to sell Wrigely Field? Even under the broadest possible reading of the Antitrust Exemption, this would be far beyond the power of the Commissioner. At "best" he could "strip" the Tribune Company of the Franchise if they sold Wrigley Field, but that would likely just buy a major law suit for MLB (and of course would cost the league a location for one of its most popular franchises).

by frustratedfan on Jan 11, 2008 11:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs