Wrigley sale to state officially dead
by cubsscoop on Jun 9, 2008 5:53 PM CDT
Email
PrintThis was a terrible idea from the beginning, and now thankfully it looks to be officially dead. Hopefully with the book going out this week, they can finally move the sale forward. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-080609wrigley-isfa,0,2452470.story
The state's efforts to purchase Wrigley Field slammed into an ivy-covered wall Monday as talks with owner Tribune Co. reached an impasse, according to former Gov. James Thompson, who has been leading the charge.
The Illinois Sports Facilities Authority was attempting to pull off the deal without any use of taxes, and Tribune said no way, according to Thompson, chairman of ISFA, which owns and operates U.S. Cellular Field, home of the Chicago White Sox.
Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Tribune, believes the acquisition "requires either the transfer of future sales and amusement tax revenue from transactions at Wrigley Field for the next 30 years, or the imposition of new taxes, or the transfer of existing ISFA funds now pledged to projects at U.S. Cellular.
"ISFA cannot agree to this," Thompson said in a prepared statement late Monday afternoon. "In our judgment, there are no votes in the City Council or in the Illinois General Assembly for transferred or new taxes for Wrigley Field. And we cannot break the promises we have previously made to the White Sox under our lease terms."Chicago Cubs Chairman Crane Kenney agreed that the two parties were at an impasse.
"We appreciate Gov. Thompson's interest and involvement," he said, adding he did not expect a resumption of talks.
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.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good.
There’s been enough monkeying around with TIF’s and such without this creating yet another City Hall/Springfield slush fund.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
I wonder if...
this news will shorten the list of bidders? Wrigley has got to raise the total price tag substantially; perhaps even to the point where some of the pre-approved bidders won’t be able to afford it.
"I always tell the truth....Even when I lie." -Tony Montana
I doubt it.
These guys are smart enough that they’ve probably prepped two bids: one with the park and one without the park
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
Agreed.
This is good news, I think; virtually all of the buyers have indicated they want the park, which to me indicates a willingness to do what is needed to renovate.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Who's gonna pay for it?
I’m pretty sure teams can deduct ballpark investments from their revenue sharing bills—kind of like a tax write-off. But a $400 million renovation is a hell of a lot of money, especially when the city and state appear to have ZERO interest in pitching in.
"I always tell the truth....Even when I lie." -Tony Montana
Most likely...
... the buyer of the team buys the ballpark in a separate transaction. That has tax advantages, as you note. They rent the park to themselves. I’m not well versed enough in these types of transactions to give more details, but that’s the gist of it.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
The Kennedy Trust
does this with Merchandise Mart., but as you say, I’m not well-versed enough to explain how this works.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
Maybe..
..they’ll do it like the Dodgers’ $500 million renovation to Dodger Stadium. Which is more than Frank McCourt paid for the team. He must be up to his ears in debt—probably why he raised parking to $15, and beers to $10..BASTARD
"I always tell the truth....Even when I lie." -Tony Montana
$10 BEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he’s not serving Chimay Cinq Cents, that’s a ripoff….and even then…
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
NOPE...
..thats for Bud Lite - and if you want the tall boy beer (24 oz) its $12.50! Drinking in the parking lot was banned as well - and IT’S STRICTLY ENFORCED! Frank McCourt is a piece of SHI# - it perplexes me how he pulls in 45,000 a game. Thats why I ONLY go to 3 or 4 games a year - sometimes the Cubs come for 3 game series; this year it was 4.
"I always tell the truth....Even when I lie." -Tony Montana
All I can say is:
BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And damn him for makin’ drinking hard under the guise of an Irish name, Protestant though it is.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
Protestant?
Maybe recently, but not historically. It is from Ulster, but it’s older than Protestants.
"Let's not get too giggly." ~Lou Piniella
Recent, yes.
All our names are older than Protestantism, yes? :-) I did some research last summer on how many, many Irish surnames were Anglicized. It’s a fascinating and sad history. Beidh ar la linn!
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
True
Guess I was thinking “older than the Plantation”. When I think of Protestant Irish names, I think of Scottish-sounding ones that you don’t see here in Leinster.
"Let's not get too giggly." ~Lou Piniella
Gotcha.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
Wow. That looks great!
Very similar to what I saw when I went to Turner Field… and also the new Busch.
Open outdoor areas with great entrance ways to the park that give you a grand view. Then, tons of outdoor courtyard like consessions and patio like seating areas.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
Thank god... no owner would want to have to "rent" the park...
The park is the revenue machine here. And having to lease that out would seriously diminish profits… which would in turn cut down operating costs (payroll, and organizational). The Cubs would never be the big spenders that they are now, if they had to lease.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
If they do the deal right...
... the same entity will buy the team and the park in separate transactions. Then the entity buying the park will “rent” it to the team owner.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
If the bidders really want it...
then no reason to think there would be resumed talks with the ISFA. I thought Zell wanted to sell the team and park separately for favorable tax treatment.
I’m also wondering whether Wrigley Field becomes more “endangered” when privately owned. New owners might build another park that seats more and offers more amusements and do something else with the land Wrigley Field is on. The park has landmark status, but I think the City Council would lift it for a sports facility that is too expensive to rehab.
Doubt that would happen.
I think the team buyers understand the value of Wrigley Field to the franchise.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
I wouldn't be so sure about that
Times change. What makes financial sense now may not make sense in 20 years. Certainly, 25 years ago, Wrigley’s prospects looked much different than it does now.
I’m extremely happy that this deal fell through for the Cubs and for Illinois taxpayers. The benefits for IL taxpayers are obvious. The benefits for the Cubs is that they won’t be artificailly forced into residence at Wrigley field for the next 30 years, when they don’t have control of the facility.
I’ll concede that in all likelihood, there will be a renovation of Wrigely and new owners will probably stay at Wrigley for quite some time, but at least there won’t be government interference that forces them to do so. This is a very good day if you’re a Cub fan, though not such a good day if you’re more of a Wrigley fan.
Formerly NO100
by jerry morales rules on Jun 10, 2008 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
I seriously doubt...
any new owner would consider gambling the stability of the Chicago Cubs by building a new park. Also, the tourism aspect - It would alienate baseball fans all around the world that travel to Chicagoland just to visit Wrigley Field. Not to mention, the economics of the whole thing - a renovation has been estimated to cost around $400 million, why would a new owner prefer to build a new stadium that would probably cost well over $500 million, when they can keep the people happy and save at least $100 million. They’d also have to find the land, which would add to the bill.
If my understanding of baseball economics is correct, the Cubs would be able to deduct such costs from their revenue sharing payments—essentially forcing the Pittsburgh Pirates, and Florida Marlins type franchises, the biggest takers of revenue sharing, to subsidize the costs.
"I never drink water because of the disgusting things fish do in it" -W.C. Fields
Agreed, but all I'm saying
is that economic conditions will be different 20 years from now than they are right now. I can’t predict the future and if you ask me right now I would say that I fully expect that the Cubs will be in Wrigley 30 years from now . I would also say, right now, that it would be the best idea for them to stay there. I am neither proposing that they will nor that they should leave Wrigley.
However, I am saying that a government mandate that forces the Cubs to stay at Wrigley is a bad idea. Removing that mandate increases the possibility (if only slightly) that Wrigley will someday within the next few decades not be the Cubs home. It may just be one tiny pebble in a mountain of red tape, but it’s at least a tiny pebble.
Like I wrote, I can’t predict right now what will happen though I do agree with you that it most likely will not make sense.
Formerly NO100
by jerry morales rules on Jun 10, 2008 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't know that they could deduct those costs
from the revenue sharing?
If so… does that require some kind of vote? Then again… did the Pirates do the same thing when they built their new park? The Pirates have been staying afloat for years on the revenue sharing with the Cubs.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
PNC Park...
..was built almost entirely with tax dollars, as was Nationals Park - aka, corporate welfare. On the other hand, the new Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, and the upcoming renovation of Dodger Stadium will be MOSTLY team-financed - with the exception of infastructure improvements in NY, which is being paid for by the city and state of NY – The Dodgers project will be 100% team financed. The Giants and Cardinals also self financed their parks, mainly because their city and state refused assistance.
Incidentally, Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers are powerhouses when it comes to revenue; therefore, they are among the largest contributors to revenue sharing. For that reason, it makes sense for them to invest in their respective ballparks with funds they would otherwise waste on revenue sharing.
"I never drink water because of the disgusting things fish do in it" -W.C. Fields
More importantly... they understand the value it has to their own pockets.
Yes, some renovations are sorely needed… we’ve all discussed them before. But, the classic nature of the park, and it’s special characteristics would likely never change.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
