OT: Neighborhood Group Opposes Third Wrigley Concert

by flachimesa on Feb 24, 2009 7:13 PM CST Comment 80 comments

Al recently wrote about a third July concert at Wrigley Field, stating that Rascal Flatts would perform on July 18 between two Elton John / Billy Joel concerts July 16 and July 21.

Now, a neighborhood group is opposing plans by the Cubs to hold three concerts at Wrigley, stating the concerts violate an agreement with the Wrigleyville community that previously has limited Wrigley Field to two concerts a year.

Jill Peters, president of the Southport Neighbors Association, added

the Cubs don't hold Saturday night baseball games because of neighborhood resistance. And her group's Summer on Southport Festival always is set for the weekend of July 18---the same night as the [Rascal Flatts] country music concert.

The Lakeview Citizens Council, an umbrella group for Wrigleyville neighborhood groups, won't discuss the three concerts until next month.

Comments

Reed Johnson

should lead the opposition to concerts at Wrigley Field…I hate damaging the field in the middle of the season.

Ohhhh I don't know, I got a guy on the other line about some whitewalls - I'll call you back.

by kifaru37 on Feb 24, 2009 7:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It pisses me off

when neighbors complain about anything that happens with the Cubs and or events at Wrigley. You know what the park has been there a lot longer than most of the residents. They didn’t just all of the sudden decide to move into the area. They know what they were getting into when they moved in. I live right behind the park and I have no qualms because a) I’m a die hard fan and b) i knew full well that by moving into the neighborhood it wasn’t going to be peace and quiet with a major league baseball team residing across the street. To those people bitching and moaning about having to deal with the crowds, noise, etc. I say you don’t like it move. The Cubs have been around these parts a lot longer.

Someday we'll go all the way.

by Cubbinstrongsince86 on Feb 24, 2009 9:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Part of the charm of living near Wrigley is that you live near Wrigley

When asked where she lives, my friend almost always says, “North Sheffield Ave, a few blocks from Wrigley.”

Not as wow as Clark and Addison, or even Waveland, but it’s still “near Wrigley.”

"Every team will win 60 games, every team will lose 60 games, it's what the team does in the other 42 games that decides the season."

by flachimesa on Feb 25, 2009 7:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

and loud, sustained applause to everything stated here. These Lakeview Citizens groups, or whatever they are, need to move to the suburbs. It’s a win-win for them, and a win-win for the people who realize that the neighborhood is called Wrigleyville for a reason. It’s because the ballpark, and the activities therein, set the agenda for the neighborhood. If these people thought they were renting or buying in an area like Rolling Meadows (no disrepect to Rolling Meadows, or any other suburban area), they are not only stubborn, they are clueless.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Feb 26, 2009 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Couple things.

First, the Cubs are allowed by ordinance, 30 night “dates”. When they have a concert, they give up one of the night game dates — and probably make more money doing so.

I don’t think the neighborhood group has a leg to stand on here.

Also, this post isn’t really off topic, as it does involve Wrigley Field.

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

by Al on Feb 25, 2009 3:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The thing that irks me is how these whiners'

property value escalated along side the Cubs’ popularity. Even in this downturn the real estate prices still staggering. Wonder what the whiners would do if/when the Cubs ever moved.

The Cubs must exercise due diligence and make sure there are no field problems from non-baseball events. They must leverage their revenue streams. This is a big example since the Cubs are not exposed to any MLB revenue sharing for concerts at the ballpark like they are with their 81 home games.

If the night game / day game issue arises again the Cubs should approach the city with making the number higher. There’s always a price for these things and everyone has a price. My mantra is, “money talks, BS walks”.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 25, 2009 6:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

What gets me

is they will happily sell roof top seats for the concerts while bitching and moaning about the concerts taking place.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 25, 2009 3:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Who, you mean the neighbors?

Those rooftops aren’t the little apartments where people invite their friends over. They are big businesses. I assure you, none of the rooftop owners are bitching about the concerts.

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

by Al on Feb 25, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They are not part of the same neighborhood group?

I know they are big business, but I assumed (if I am wrong, forgive me) that they were part of the Neighborhood Group

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 25, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not those who bitch & moan, I don't think.

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

by Al on Feb 25, 2009 9:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

F@k the f@king neighborhood

I am so sick and tired of hearing about these yuppie bastards who live in Wrigleyville crapping on everything the Cubs do. If not for the Cubs then Wrigleyville would be nothing but a shithole neighborhood of decaying brownstowns and tired businesses. These a-holes can thank the insane appreciation of their property values and desirability of the area to the Cubs.

by BLou on Feb 25, 2009 10:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i agree

i understand that there is an agreement in place with the resident associations but i don’t understand WHY. why would the Cubs ever sign an agreement with the associations limiting the Cubs’ rights? when was this agreement signed? how much money did the associations pay the cubs to sign this agreement? or what other rights did the associations give up?

i understand zoning and land use restrictions, but that is a state police power to be wielded by elected reps.

hi everyone

the pink hat guy is my father

by joeschmitt on Feb 26, 2009 2:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i now note Al's comment that the # of night games

is limited by ordinance, which was my understanding. i doubt there is any separate agreement between the Cubs and the residential unit owners of the area (besides the revenue sharing agreement with the rooftop owners) that would operate to restrict the commercial activities of the Cubs. The residential unit owners would have had to come up with a crapload of $$$$ to induce the Cubs to enter into such an agreement.

the pink hat guy is my father

by joeschmitt on Feb 26, 2009 2:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's correct.

Looking at this more carefully, the objection appears to come from a neighborhood group that is sponsoring a street festival on the same date as the Rascal Flatts concert (Saturday, July 18). I’m not sure if they have a leg to stand on, but their objection appears to come from the understanding that the Cubs were going to limit the # of concerts to two in any one season. The Rascal Flatts and Elton John shows were scheduled, and then the 2nd Elton John show was added afterwards.

Where the group may have a point is the fact that Ald. Tom Tunney is apparently going to introduce another ordinance allowing a third concert this year. That’s kind of disingenous after they’ve already done it, wouldn’t you say? Retroactively allow something that wasn’t permitted when they did it?

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

by Al on Feb 26, 2009 3:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So is that Charlotte Newfeld

and C.U.B.S. still the group pushing back on the Cubs or did they disband since the bleacher agreement or mutate into another carbon-based life-form?

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 26, 2009 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

there are so many neighborhood "groups", I've lost count...

If something is being promoted that runs counter to someone’s (or someones’) interests, voila! A new group is formed – and most likely with a sympathetic sounding name that probably has nothing to do with whatever they really want.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 26, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right.

It’s not the C.U.B.S. group — I think that’s long gone.

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

by Al on Feb 26, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Somebody needs to drop kick Mrs. Charlotte Newfeld

by BLou on Feb 26, 2009 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Never thought of it that way

but it’s one way to muzzle her.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 27, 2009 7:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy there, big fella...

Must you always be this foul? At this rate, your spleen will be gone by the season opener!

btw, I’m one of those “yuppie bastards” as you put it, who live in Wrigleyville, although I am neither a yuppie nor a bastard. Maybe if you did live here, you’d have a better understanding of the issues involved and be able to see both sides of the argument. But that would mean being calm and rational, so perhaps I ask too much.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 26, 2009 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I believe its

the whining and crying from certain folks that gives the whole area a black eye in the view of some.

Many of us outside the immediate area (for me that’s 45 miles outside) feel the Cubs are sometimes being held hostage by the city and their number one sox fan. Because the Cubs are the last neighborhood team in MLB they are exposed to restrictions and limitations no other team has to face.

The rooftop battle-royale that went the full 15 rounds is a sound example why so many of us outside the immediate area tend to side with the team. I know I had a strong desire to favor the bleacher expansion. As a long time bleacher-goer increasing the capacity by 50% intrinsically increases my chance to get tickets to any given game by 50%. When the rooftops cried foul about losing their free view – a view they handsomely profited from – it irked many fans.

it’s these kind of objections that lump the entire area into a single core group of complainers and unfortunately for some folks like you Ballhawk brands you with that label. I’m not condoning this but it is the way many folks feel about the constant objections to many of the things the Cubs want to do.

I guess I’d like to ask these people who complain all the time; how would they feel if the Cubs moved out of the Clark and Addison location?

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 26, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I seriously doubt there's anyone in the neighborhood that supports the rooftop owners in their current incarnation...

…unless of course, they’re directly involved (own, rent, work, friends with, etc.).

Now if you rewound back to 80’s(?) and earlier, when it was just crude bleachers, lawn chairs and coolers, no money was charged, and it was just a matter if you lived/rented there or knew the owner, well that’s a different story. But those days are long gone.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 26, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and that was the 'charm' so often envoked

which was good. I could remember those days very well, like the ’84 season closer when the entire team took that stroll around the field after the game.

I’m all for making money and am probably the most staunch capitalist on this site. But the way the rooftops went about it P’d me off.

So who’s the voice of this neighborhood group? I see from your and Al’s comments above, C.U.B.S. is likely disbanded. It’s not Tunney himself, who by the way made a world of difference in a positive light once he took over for Hansen.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 26, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

THE BALLPARK PRE-DATES THE NEIGHBORHOOD !!

I think it insane that Tom Tunney and the neighborhood are able to hold the Cubs hostage on so many points. The people live in the neighborhood BECAUSE of Wrigley Field, not in spite of it. And the people who own in the neighborhood have seen their property values skyrocket because of the Cubs the last 15 years.

And you just wait. Just as soon as Tom Ricketts wants to begin a major renovation of Wrigley the neighborhood groups will be coming out of the woodwork to serve as fly in the ointment and make the whole damned process a years-long bureaucratic nightmare. It doesn’t help that Richie Daley likes to stick it to the Cubs whenever he can, bless his heart otherwise.

If you don’t like the traffic and the congestion and night baseball and money making uses of the ballpark, then MOVE.

by BLou on Feb 26, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The ballbark does NOT pre-date the neighborhood

Just nearly all the current residents. I am little stunned by all the hostility to residents. These folks live there 365 days a year
TENS of THOUSANDS of them. They have real concerns about traffic, drunks messing up their lawns etc. The rooftop owners are greedy bastards and few live there at all. I used to live a few blocks from Wrigley but left shortly after night games came in however I still have many friends there. It might shock to know that many don’t really care about the Cubs but they love their streets and houses. One of my good friends runs the Music Box Theater on Southport and like many businesses around that again operate 365 days a year and keep the area going , they have a huge problem getting people to come given the traffic issues especially at night. Contrary to the belief in most of this thread the Cubs are not the economic engine for the VAST majority of residents .
The specific issue in question of the conflict between a third concert that exceeds the number agreed to and a longstanding
neighborhood festival is not trivial to people who live year. Last year the schedule had the areas largest festival Halstead Street Days, the same weekend as a Cubs Cardinal Series and the airshow. It was the worst traffic I have EVER seen in the area so a little more co-ordination on dates would help everyone

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 26, 2009 10:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bull

If not for the Cubs and the explosion of interest in the team since the 1980s then Wrigleyville would be a rundown neighborhood of decaying brownstones and boarded up businesses.

I have had it up to hear with all these mamby pamby neighborhood associations gumming up the works for the Cubs, and Tom Tunney bending over for them.

This is a big reason why I mock the sentimentality attached to Wrigley even though I have sat in those stands for hundreds of games since 1977. Part of me wishes Tom Ricketts abandons Wrigley and builds a brand new ballpark elsewhere. Every time the Cubs want to install a new lightbulb at Wrigley there needs to be 12 months of neighborhood focus group meetings and a bureaucratic nightmare to wade through.

Cubs should be playing 50 night games at Wrigley. Yep, that’s right. Being a competitive baseball team in the modern era smacks up against the warm fuzziness of day friggin baseball.

Move the team Ricketts. Stuff it to the neighborhood, Tunney and Richie Daley. They are your enemies.

by BLou on Feb 26, 2009 11:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is bull and you know must know nothing about the area

The Cubs bring business to a few dozen bars, ticket brokers and parking places. The neighborhood as well as those to the North , South, East and West are thriving on their own with restaurants, shops , theaters etc that are there 365 days a year. How many of the tens of thousands of residends there rely on the Cubs for income ? You think Magnolia, Alta Vista, Southport etc would be “run down " & "boarded up” save the Cubs ? That really is totally ignorent. Sure find a way to spend a billion dollars to build a park in the burbs. I am sure Mr. Ricketts can afford that. It has always been an empty threat as the Cubs derive much of their famous image FROM being in a residental neighborhood. I don’t think the neighbors are being unreasanable in objecting to scheduling a concert that exceeded the number that had been agreed to and conflicts with a major area event. My guess is that it is too late to change this but it is not a frivilous issue and they are not a bunch of selfish, clueless, morons as suggested by you. This is where they live, many of them have lived there for decades and all of them live there year round.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 26, 2009 11:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We shall have to vehemently disagree on this one

Wrigleyville owes is monstrous property values and thriving business community to the explosion of the Cubs since the 1980s. The neighborhood I remember as a teenager attending games in the mid 70’s could be labeled rundown and downright dicey. Harry Carey and the Tribune Company ownership made Wrigleyville. And what gets my goat (and also many others) is how the bulk of these concerned neighborhood groups are hellbent on being a fly in the ointment of the Cubs at every step. They get away with it because they are smart and because they know they have an alderman in Tunney and a Cub hating mayor in Daley who will side with their mamby pamby cause.

The Cubs have been a TREMENDOUS neighbor. If it was my team then I wouldn’t be so nice and would have gone to court by now demanding the right for me to schedule as many night games as I damned well pleased. I would have also been no so nice in not gobbling up property, tearing down buildings and building the biggest damned parking deck this side of the Loop.

What pisses me off also is the impending battle when it comes time to make major renovations to Wrigley. You watch. These neighborhood associations will make the process a bureaucratic nightmare for the Cubs and add years and many millions of dollars to the process. Time wasted and dollars spent that could otherwise go to fielding the best possible team.

So yeah, call me jaded on this subject. And yeah, I wouldn’t mind one damned bit if the Cubs abandoned the drippy sentimentality attached to Wrigley and the obstructionist neighborhood in order to build a brand new state-of-the-art ballpark near the Kennedy or up in Palatine adjacent to Arlington Park Racecourse.

by BLou on Feb 26, 2009 11:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So every area that is next to Wrigleyville

which just happen to all have gentrified and had huge developement in both residental and commercial use is a fluke. Little old Wrigleyville would be a dump surounded by all those yuppie neihborhoods MILES in every direction ? The tens of thousands of folks who live there would be in run down houses and the shops and restaurant from Halstead to Ashland would be boarded up. For the YEAR round residents and businesses of Wrigleyville the Cubs are more negative than positive. I don’t think most of the folks would miss the few dozen bars etc that make their money catering to Cub fans 81 plus days Like Lincoln Park or Lakeview etc they would replaced by other businesses.
I don’t think the Cubs have been that bad a neighbor but they did not have a whole lot of choice either. If you ran the Cubs and wanted to waste your money in court be my guest but there is no legal right to bypass laws because you want more business. Heck lots of bars would like to stay open 24 hours and make as much noise as they want but they can’t . Per above the Cubs leaving Wrigley is an empty threat they can’t afford to and they would not want to as again Wrigley AND the fact that is it in a residental area have been the major marketing plan of the team.
The team should have bought the commercial buildings on Addison when they had the chance because if they had more space for parking and various off field enterprises the residents might have a lot less to complain about. I don’t think there will be big fight over renovations unless a very large number of additional seats are involved.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 27, 2009 12:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

property values near the ballpark

are higher due to the Cubs. With that, everyone is better off; even those there 24/7-365. One may argue that until you cash out real estate sale, its only paper gain. True, but I’d rather have a realizable gain than be in the hole. Or like thousands of owners now, negative equity. Which in turn resulted, “jingle mail”.

No one can argue the local area’s immense value increase the past 25-28 years is mainly due to Wrigley, Harry & Ryno. The area was run down in the 60’s and 70’s. With that comes crime, drop in business and stagnation, if not all-out decline.

There was a neighborhood in place in 1914 when the ballpark was built. However a vast majority of business there now were not there then. And it is rather clear many businesses set-up there because of the thriving area which thrived because of the Cubs.

The yuppie neighborhoods are not continuous in all directions. They are sporadic and driven by large land plots redeveloped by folks with low cost basis. Those people developing those types of properties made an absolute killing.

If the Cubs really wanted to move, they would simply put in requests / demands the city and area could not meet; things like continued seating expansion via a complete over-haul and/or 50-55 night games. You know night games, like the rest of the league plays nearly 2/3rds of their [home] season, not 3/8ths.

This one little episode will not make any life-changing decisions come about. It’s only a microcosm of a larger more delicate issue. As much as I’d like to see the Cubs stay there and win the WS in the ball park I attended games with my father, grand father and great grand father, I would not be totally opposed to seeing the Cubs play elsewhere. It happens all the time and many other major league teams have moved out of their fabled homes. Ask fans of the Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Red Wings, Blackhawks, Bruins, White Sox, Tigers, Pirates & Cardinals (pre-Busch); plus numerous football and basketball teams.

The pure business perspective illustrates the Cubs have nearly run out of revenue streams at Wrigley. It’s more and more sentimental reasons to stay there as each year passes. One only has to look at the comparison between Chicago Stadium (zero skyboxes) and United Center (216 skyboxes). No one loved being at Chicago Stadium for a Blackhawks game more than me. No place can never, ever match that. But from a revenue perspective, the old barn could not have ever matched the UC. Money is where it is at, always.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 27, 2009 8:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The streets immediately around the park

Clark, Addison, Sheffield and Waveland pretty much contain the bars & rooftops that do indeed directly benefit from the park but this is a FRACTION of the neighborhood and none of them are going to complain about more concerts and night games. The majority of Wrigleyville residents live on streets like Magnolia, Greenview, Alt Visa etc and for them the park is often a major problem. The businesses on Southport, Irving,Halstead derive at best sporadic value and again for places like The Music Box theater or the yuppie restaurants, the parking problem kills off FAR more business than a few straggling Cub fans give them especially during night games. Also can you tell me one "run down " area within 2 miles of Wrigley ?The last holdout where bits of Uptown that Helen Schiller refused to allow to be changed but that had ended . The entire area is totally yuppie and it had nothing to do with park. Heck my parents bought a house in Lincoln Park in 1959 and the area was SO BAD the bank refused to give my father a loan but gee even without Wrigley Field the house is probably worth nearly 2 million now.

The Cubs don’t stay at Wrigley because of sentimentality, they stay there because it is a cash cow and a major reason is it’s location. Good luck moving a stadium to the burbs and expecting 2 million folks to show up the first season they have a losing record. Enjoy the marketing campaign for United Airlines Park in Arlington Heights even assuming in the middle of a depression they find a billion to finance it.

The truth is most of the residents do like having Wrigley problems and all but over 3/4 of the year it flourishes with no help from the Cubs. As I said I don’t think the Cubs have been particularly bad neighbors but without ordinances in effect limiting night games and other non baseball activities it would be a disaster. If they want to exploit and market Wrigley and Wrigleyville they need to work closely with the residents. I noticed they threw a carrot by offering residents early access to Billy Joel tickets. Smart marketing move.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 27, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There are no run down areas close

to the park and the Cubs are a big – but not sole – reason why.

A reason the Cubs expose the park for it’s natural baseball beauty and require 3 million in attendance is because the do not have any significant revenue generated by real skyboxes. You think they would have done the UnderArmour on the outfield doors if they have a UC-like skybox situation? Absolutely not.

The parking problem you reference is only a small fraction of time over an operating schedule for these business in a calendar year. The Cubs games like you mentioned are only 81 days and a few hours a day. And think of how property values have increased around the ball park mostly because of the Cubs. The Cubs brought that area back from a face off with the abyss. Everyone who owned property nearby benefited from what happened from the time TribCo bought the team, through Harry’s arrival, Ryno’s arrival, the 1984 season and a nationally marketed team via WGN.

Why do you think all these clubs in the 4 major sports all build their places with the emphasis on suites? Have an idea on their cash flow percentage generated by skyboxes? It is staggering. Take a look at the UC, it is the absolute perfect example of cash flow generation.

The park has everything to do with the yuppie influence. It’s the place to be, just like many events of that nature are. The real fan has had a hard time keeping up with price increases and in many instances it’s those that can afford that go more now than 20-30 years ago rather than those who are diehards. I saw it with my own eyes right around me in the last 4-5 seasons at Chicago Stadium. Real ’Hawks fans were driven out by the higher prices and in came those who waltzed in 3 minutes into the game, got up during the play, left before the end of the period and worse yet before the end of the game. They were there to they can say they were there, not because they wanted to see a Belfour shutout or a Roenick hat trick.

I guess my whole point is in America people have choices, lots of choices. And one of those choices is the right to leave if one is not happy with their current situation.

Just like someone who lives in the heart of the city wouldn’t give it up for nothing? That is their choice and I wish them all the best with that choice. I choose the far out suburbs in a sprawling house, huge lot, with peace and quiet along with tranquility. It’s about choice.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 27, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs have nothing to do with the value

of Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Boystown etc. There positive financial impact is 99% to the business and apartments that are IMMEDIATELY next to the park which is a small fraction of the neighborhood. I have many friends and know several businesses in the area. The yuppies who live on Greenview and shop on Southport do not really care about the Cubs.They would do better if the Cubs were not there but they too are mostly sentimental and don’t mind having them there as long as it is not too disruptive. Tens of thousands of people who live in the area year round as well as the businesses that support the area are not going to up and move and they should not have to. The teams in the 4 other sports are not able to market their location or tradition so if they start to lose ( as most of them are now doing) there ticket sales are bad. Take the $60 spend by 5.000 folks on BLEACHER seats for big games and you can live without skyboxes. You know another team with $60 bleachers. The Yankees charge $10.

Like I said if the Cubs can find a burb willing to build a skybox filled stadium that would attract 3 million fans in down years because Arlington Heights is the place to be they are free to move but of course they never will.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 27, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Those aren't necessarily the people complaining though

It’s right around the park. Where’s the complaints coming from; from an address perspective? It’s not people over a mile away is it?

The yuppies you mention about on Greenview and Southport (at least if they own the bldgs for some time now) have a huge increase in property value due in a notable part of the Cubs popularity.

I’m simply saying if the close-by neighbors complain too much and the Cubs cannot leverage their revenue (concerts’ money is NOT subject to revenue sharing) they will eventually have to seek other alternatives. My guess is a concert would generate net profit of $500k-800k more than a ball game because they don’t have to share that money with MLB.

You have 2 flaws in the bleacher pricing comment. (1) is not all games are $60, only 14 are that price. This season’s total is worth about $19.3M; ~$46.7 avg x 81 games x 5,100 seats. The ~2,800 UC’s skybox seats are worth more than double that and they still have plenty of regular seating. 2,000-5,000 skybox seats are the norm for many high-end arenas/stadiums. (2) The Yankees have some of the most expensive tickets in all of MLB and a stadium that seats many thousand more than Wrigley. They also have a TV revenue stream unmatched by any single pro team in all of N.America. Hate the Yankees all you want. As a pure capitalist I applaud them for their [business] model.

The Cubs have to eek every revenue opportunity out of that old park. The UnderArmour ad’s I think was worth $2M a year and look at all the uproar over that. The sign behind the plate is another $4-5M a year and that nearly caused many people to go into cardiac arrest.

Never is a strong word and no one would be willing to bet that, even if it meant only 25-30 years.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 28, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate to keep this up

but no the people who live past the IMMEDIATE Wrigley field area have not seen their values skyrocket because of the Cubs. These areas skyrocked because EVERYTHING for miles around has done so. The idea that these homes and business would be worth less if Wrigley were not 3-8 blocks away causing them traffic nightmares and in many cases significant loss of bussiness related to that is simply not true and again the fact that homes on the same street FURTHER away from Wrigley are worth as much or more are proof of that. It is nuts to give Wrigley and the Cubs credit for gentrifying the entire north side east of Ashland.
Again one of the great "tricks"of Wrigley is that they can sell bleachers for $40-60 precisely because they have marketed them as part the unique experience and they sell in good times and bad. I expect many teams will have trouble selling their pricey seats. the Yankees are most definately having trouble with this. They are nowhere near selling out the expensive plans and seats. In any event you can’t expect to operate in the middle of a totally residental neighborhood and not expect the views of the residents to influence how you operate. They are totally free to move and build a new park with lots of skyboxes ( and $10 bleachers).

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Feb 28, 2009 9:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

EVERYTHING for miles?

Are you kidding me? There’s mediocre areas intermingled with the “yuppie areas”, as you so call them. Those areas are ‘upscale’ because some developer found a way to purchase crappy old warehouses and generally larger plots of land and convinced people those 2,300 sq ft “lofts” truly were worth $550k.

It isn’t a “trick” the bleachers go for $40-$60 a ticket. It’s supply and demand resulting from good marketing; something folks like me like to call Capitalism. Whether you want to believe it or not the Cubs are missing out on a significant 8-figure revenue stream each season by not having skyboxes like the UC.

If the Cubs had 53k-56k seats like the Yankee Stadium(s), skyboxes galore and the YES Network (what brilliance!), then they could be in position to charge less for the bleachers since the bleachers would not be a big attraction.

I don’t expect zero influence of the surrounding area but don’t expect whining and crying for every single concept the Cubs propose.

I never thought I’d agree somewhat with BLou on a heated issue like this.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 1, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you know that whining and crying goes both ways...

Rooftop owners raking it in – Cubs want their share.
Ticket scalpers raking it in – Cubs set up their own operation.
Hotel development across the street – Cubs don’t want it so high.
T-shirt & souvenir vendors everywhere – Cubs sic police on them.

None of the above situations have any impact on the ambience and experience inside the Friendly Confines yet the Cubs have taken action in each of them. It just so happens I agree with Cubs on all of these situations, but still…

It goes to show that there is pretty much a symbiotic relationship between the Cubs and the neighborhood. Money is the central theme throughout it all, but respect & communication (or lack thereof) have a lot to do with it as well. Most of the time it’s the old “it’s not what you say/do, it’s how you say/do it” principle.

The Cubs have gotten a lot better in the respect & communication areas over the last few years – they just had a brain fart with this 3rd concert.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Mar 1, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not a concert goer

at least with their current and previous attractions.

But the concept isn’t a brain fart as you put. Maybe it being on the date because of a scheduling conflict but the concert date can be changed.

Since it’s more and more obvious the Cubs missed their target that night games far out draw day games, they should leverage more concerts and cough up the night game dates. The only thing to preclude pulling out of more night games is if their ad revenue far outweighs ad revenue for day games. I don’t know that and it could vary by day of the week.

As long as there is no field damage, the team can generate more profit from a concert since those monies are not subject to the MLB revenue sharing contract; a percentage I believe that for the Cubs is in the low 30 percent range.

Again, its the Cubs trying to squeeze every revenue stream out of an antiquated facility in order to keep it viable for another decade or two.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 2, 2009 7:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the brain fart is in scheduling/announcing the 3rd concert date...

…when they clearly had an agreement in place limiting them to just 2 concerts. That’s where somebody screwed up.

I don’t know if this agreement was an actual legal contract – my guess is no, otherwise there’d already be talks of lawsuits and court challenges. But even if it were only a “friendly, handshake” agreement, it’s still a bad move to violate it like they did. Cubs need to make nice on this one.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Mar 2, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Does the agreement say only 2 concerts

Or does it say the team has to cough up a night game for every concert? Guess that’s what I don’t know.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 2, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know for sure either.

Just going on what I read in articles and from memory of previous years, it’s my understanding the agreement was limited to 2 concerts. This was an agreement with the neighborhood (however that’s defined), separate from the night game ordinance with the city.

I’m guessing the reason a separate agreement was needed was because now we’re talking concerts, which are a different from ballgames. Yes, it’s still an evening event like a ballgame, but the setup/takedown is decidedly different as is the noise level.

You could argue the crowd is probably different as well, but to me that’s a wash, although now that I think about it, there was definitely a lot more folks on Waveland & Sheffield throughout the evening than for a game.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Mar 2, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Virtually every area east of Ashland

Has increased expedentially in the last 20 years and for the last time Wrigley had nothing to do with it save the few streets directly around the field . So my friends who bought condos in OLD building in the 4000 block of Greenview,, the 2900 block of Sheffield who have seen their prices go up many times over and my aunt who sold her house on Stratford for 40 times what she paid for it 35 years ago or my mother whose house in Lincoln Park is worth roughly 200 times what she paid for it 50 years ago owe all of this to the Cubs or developers who bought warehouses. I don’t think so. Lots of factors in the exploding value of real estate on the north side of Chicago but the Cubs are not one of the ones that matters.

Of course the bleachers crazy price is the result of good marketing and supply and demand but it only WORKS because of the neighborhood and Wrigley. This post started because some residents were upset that the Cubs added a 3rd concert which was against an EXISTING agreement on a day when a local event has taken place for MANY years. They had every right to object and to try to make sure something like this does not happen again.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Mar 1, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Believe what you want

and I bet there’s not one of those bldgs sold the last 20 years that had “close to Wrigley Field” on it. Yup, that’s it.

So I guess the (5) 3-flats my uncle and I bought 22 years ago, completely renovated, rented for obscene amounts then finally sold in 2004 had nothing to do with the Cubs. Especially so since none of the tenants were Cubs fans.

The conclusion I draw from this entire discussion is you don’t like to see a big corporation make profits if it appears there is just one “victim” in the process.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 2, 2009 7:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh ?

I don’t have anything against the Cubs making a profit but Wrigley sits smack dab in the middle of a completely residental neighborhood so it can’t have 60 night games and 30 concerts. It is a give and take. If they want to stay in the field that they market for BEING a a cozy place in a safe convenient to public transportation neighborhood than they have to WORK with the residents. Tens of thousands of folks are effected by events at Wrigley in terms of traffic, parking, security etc.

I am utterly confused by your latest real estate information but I agree the majority of people who live in Wrigleyville are not there because they are Cubs fans and thus the skyrocketing value of the property is not due to the Cubs

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Mar 2, 2009 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The buildings were mostly my uncles

and everything we did with them we marketed them with: “Close to Wrigley”. While my $ gain was much, much smaller, my uncle retired with the revenue and subsequent sale of these bldgs, at the ripe old age of 49.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 2, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am glad for him

But he would have just as well doing the same in other areas of the city that gentrified very quckly. I remember that I rented A HUGE beautiful apt near Wrigley through mid 1989 for $455. I have a great deal in NYC because my Apt. is rent stablized by my whole Apt would fit in the big kitchen of my Wrigleyville apt.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Mar 2, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

re: other areas of the city - see Cabrini Green for example.

Roscoe Village, Wicker Park, and Bucktown are other areas that have seen explosive growth. Ukrainian Village is getting there as well.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Mar 2, 2009 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No....

Because the other bldgs he had in other areas away from the ball park didn’t do nearly as well, not even close.

You’re misguided if you think the Cubs don’t have a notable affect.

Here’s another nugget for you. A certain restaurant chain has one of their locations right near the ball park. It’s not coincidence it has one of the highest margins of any of the locations in NE Illinois. The owner there says they’d be screwed if they were not right in the path of game goers. Their comment to me last season was they wish the Cubs played over 100 home games a year.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 3, 2009 6:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A certain "grocery chain"

Has the highest grossing location in the US ACROSS from the park. My point has always been business RIGHT NEXT to the park do a bang up business. Those more than two blocks or more away are often HURT by the park. I am glad your uncle did well but there are many areas in Chicago whose values have far surpassed Wrigleyville . I have no idea where your uncle had his properties but areas mentioned above by Ballhawk where ones that had fairly low value 20-25 years ago whereas much of Wrigleyville was already fairly yuppie. I lived on the 3700 block of Magnolia which is one the many lovely blocks near Wrigley. Prices have gone up a lot but it was always a very nice . Again the neighborhoods mentioned by Ballhawk are among the many that were totally transformed in that same 20-25 years.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Mar 3, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure those that sell/lease/rent their property use the words "Wrigley Field"

somewhere in their marketing.

Why not? It’s a huge selling point.

"Every team will win 60 games, every team will lose 60 games, it's what the team does in the other 42 games that decides the season."

by flachimesa on Mar 2, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh BTW

I’m not trying to rip on you and side with anyone else.

Should have said that in one of the posts. I just think we’re taking a much different view of the situation.

No hard feelings….

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 27, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine

You know what the “solution” is? Build a brand new ballpark someplace else. There is a nice fat piece of property just perfect for a new ballpark and with road infrastructure already in place right next to Arlington Racecourse. A nice area that is perfectly situated for many Cub fans and readily accessible from the city by taking the Kennedy.

Wrigley is falling apart. Thursday morning I detoured on my way home from the loop and walked around the park. You get a different perpsective when the weather is crummy and there is no baseball yet. Well, Wrigley looks like crap from the outside is about the only charitable way to put it. And we all know the insides are need of modernization.

So screw the neighborhood. And screw the 100 year tradition of Luvable Losers and people liking the ballpark more than the team. Sure I’ll miss Wrigley and the 30 years plus of my attending games there. But I’ll get over it when I’m sitting in a state-of-the-art new stadium that can incorporate much of the charm contained at Wrigley. And it will be easier for me to get to. Plus this way the Wrigleyville neighborhood wont’ have anything more to bitch about and Mayer Daley and Alderman Tunney won’t have concern themselves with those evil Cubs anymore.

Ricketts needs to say screw it and move. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but will get over it just as soon at the Cubs hoist a World Series banner in the new palace at Arlington.

by BLou on Feb 27, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The bottom line is...

… first, you are overstating the degree of “crap” on the outside. The concrete panels look bad, yes. They can be replaced. It’s not “falling apart”. As I posted a couple of weeks ago, a contractor who does a lot of work there says the park is in generally good condition. It has been extensively renovated over the last 25 years.

It needs work, yes. But that work can be done, and will cost far less than a new park. Just how is Ricketts going to finance this? He’s already going to be leveraged by buying the team, and the chances of the city/state ponying up money for a new park in the current economy is exactly zero.

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

by Al on Feb 27, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is this...

I’m sick of the neighborhood groups being powerful obstructionists. The Cubs literally can’t change a light bulb at Wrigley without the political need to have 6 months of neighborhood focus group meetings. It’s ridiculous. And if I owned the Cubs then I would put two ultimatums out there.

1. Cubs are going to play 60 night games a year, and if you don’t like it then either sue me or watch me move this team. NO political negotiation and years of bureaucracy getting in the way.

2. Cubs are going to do an extensive renovation of Wrigley and add a parking deck, and if you don’t like that either than watch me move this team. NO political negotiation and years of bureaucracy getting in the way.

by BLou on Feb 27, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Powerful obstructionists"?

Get real. First of all, the Cubs shouldn’t play 60 night games. What’s the point? They sell out all the day games, too. Yes, I know, there’s TV money involved. You want them to play all night games in April when it’s freezing?

Also, no one in the neighborhood is obstructing the renovation and triangle building, which I do believe will be resurrected as soon as the Ricketts group takes over.

Move the team? Where? Charlotte? Louisville? Portland? That’d be blitheringly stupid.

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

by Al on Feb 27, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They should play the number of night games...

commensurate with the league average. So what is that? About 2/3rd’s correct, 55 games or so. But do it from a competitive standpoint, not just more gate monies if that is to occur. Other teams play in cold weather at night at home: BoSox, Phils, NYM, NYY, Det, Cle, CHW, Pgh.

Look at what the Cubs have to deal with: Can’t play Fri night (look how many times they come home to Fri afternoon after a road Thur night game), can’t play Sat night and the Sun night ESPN games are usually draws the ire of the neighborhood.

I can see the city and sorts being in the Cubs’ ear if the team has taxpayer monies financing their stadium. But they do not. And it’s bothersome when these whiners say the Cubs are mostly bad for the neighborhood when we all know it was a run-down PoS before TribCo, Harry & Ryno.

I hope the neighborhood doesn’t whine about the triangle bldg, if it ever gets off the ground.

Move the team? Yeah, only in the metro area.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 28, 2009 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Repeating myself.

There’s no place to move them and, in the current economy, no money for a new park, especially public money.

You’re right in that they could play a few more night games. 40 — half the schedule — is probably the optimum number, given the neighborhood issue, the day game tradition, and TV ad money (attendance doesn’t enter into it, because virtually all games are sold out anyway).

I think the Friday issue is going to be dealt with eventually, by allowing the Cubs to play Friday night home games IF they have to fly from somewhere where they play on Thursday night. Incidentally, the number of times that this is an issue in 2009 is zero.

About Saturday nights, the Cubs would probably be wise to NOT play Saturday night games, because Saturday night, particularly in the summer, is the LOWEST-rated TV night. People go out on Saturday nights, not stay in and watch TV. Day games are the best idea for Saturdays.

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Repeating, so am I

Even if they decided today to re-locate, it’d be 4-5 years and the economy would have stabilized and begun its long climb back upwards. It took nearly that long from 1st plans to 1st game to move the ’Hawks across Madison St.

There would be plenty of places the Cubs can look at and if Ricketts were smart, he’d do what Wirtz did and build via private funds, just like the $175M United Center.

I’m glad to see the Thur nite to Fri day games not an issue this year. I hadn’t checked the schedule yet. As for tradition, I’d love to see all day games, but that is just me; one fan’s opinion. The orders-of-magnitude larger pictures suggests the Cubs’ night schedule be commensurate with MLB’s avg.

I do think the Cubs have to get to about the same number of night games as all other teams. It simply makes less of a transition to players that are used to 2/3rd’s night games; going from ~55 to only 30.

However TV ad money is much greater for night games than day games. Yes the ballpark’s attendance is about the same (contradictory to what the Cubs’ said a few years ago), though I agree with you on Saturday. It’d have to be a marquee game with playoff implications to really rake in the TV ad revenue.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 1, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we're close to the same point.

I know they have to play more night games and are likely to be able to increase to about 40, if they do the negotiating right, after Ricketts takes over.

Building a new park comes with this risk: if you stop winning, people will not come. At Wrigley, people come even when the Cubs don’t win.

Further, times have changed in the ~15 years since the UC was built. Building a new baseball park could cost close to $1 billion, even in Chicago — look at the cost overruns in NYC.

It’s a far better idea to renovate Wrigley, and I believe that is what will happen.

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

by Al on Mar 1, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You know something about the 40 night games?

Or is it simply a guess since it’s half the home schedule?

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 2, 2009 7:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"What pisses me off also is the impending battle when it comes time to make major renovations to Wrigley. "

Umm…

What doesn’t piss you off???

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 27, 2009 12:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think with the Music Box Theater

there is an additional issue which has nothing to do with the Cubs. Single-screen or twin-screen movie houses are a dying breed. I don’t know too many theaters like the Music Box that are doing particularly well in the era of big multi-screen structures like River East 21, which has plenty of parking available nearby. Even on days or nights when the Cubs are not playing, there is not a great abundance of parking in the Lakeview neighborhood. True, people can always cab it, but when movie tickets already cost a decent amount, that might be a deterrent to some.

"I've got an idea...an idea so smart my head would explode if I even began to know what I was talking about." ~Peter Griffin

by Goodie1969 on Feb 28, 2009 9:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Music Box shows specialty films, not first-run mainstream films.

It has its audience, many of whom can walk there in the neighborhood. I think the Music Box can survive.

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Very spirited discussions

"Every team will win 60 games, every team will lose 60 games, it's what the team does in the other 42 games that decides the season."

by flachimesa on Feb 27, 2009 10:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

heated but...

good discussion. I have a solution to the problem. Move them 5 minutes away from me to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Yeha I know—will never happen but won’t stop me from dreaming about it 5 days a week.

I dont care who the new owner is as long as he/she/them come equipped with a Jake Peavy and a Joe Beimel!!!

by cubsluver22 on Feb 27, 2009 9:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Since you live near OKC...

… maybe you can explain how a city that small can support a NBA team. It’s the 45th TV market, the smallest for any major league professional franchise.

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 4:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

suprisingly

about a 2 years ago I read an article that OKC is a 43 billion dollar market. I think I agree with that because there is alottttt of old as well as oil money here. People like EK Gaylord and places such as Chesapeke, Devon energy etc. Majority of the high rollers are not real known but there are many.

I’m only 27 and I’ve seen this area triple in size. This is a pretty bold statement but this area seems to be recession proof as it has not slowed down building at all. I’ve been to several Thunder games and surprisingly alot of elderly people(50+) range love basketball. Just as they were when we had the Hornets. I’m not a huge B-Ball fan but looks like they won’t have any problem selling out.

I doubt we ever have a football team here due to the Sooners but I think we have a chance in my lifetime to get a baseball team.

I dont care who the new owner is as long as he/she/them come equipped with a Jake Peavy and a Joe Beimel!!!

by cubsluver22 on Feb 28, 2009 6:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the analysis.

Interesting. I did not know that about OKC. When the recession ends it may be well-positioned for real growth (not just in sports but otherwise, too).

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and please stop calling 50+ people "elderly".

:-)

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lemme guess

your b-day is pre-1959…. :^)

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 28, 2009 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

My age has never been a secret here.

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Guess I missed it before

and know it’s not far down the road for me too.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Feb 28, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking for all of the other pre-1959ers, with age comes wisdom. All of my parts are working

fine and as Al can attest, 50 doesn’t mean you are out of the game. My fastball doesn’t quite have the pop it used to, but I can still hit the corners when I need to. Trust me, there is life after 50.

"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris

by willie mays hayes' gloves on Mar 1, 2009 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Without a doubt buddy

Most days my mid-40’s body feels like mid-late 20’s. But a good part of that is because I hung up the skates in my early 30’s.

I can still however run down a 16" ball hit anywhere near 1B or CF.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 1, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Question Al

I thought about this today and I’m not real smart on the whole tv market issue whatsoever. What decides the tv market ranking? Is it per capita or what have you. Is it overall money?? Please enlighten me cause I know nothing on how that works. If it’s judged on how many watch a certain program or certain sporting events I think it’s flawed.

For instance baseball—-Were in a weird area. In the middle of Astro, Card and Ranger country. They show the majority of all their games. Then of course we got the Cubs on wgn and the Braves were on tbs growing up. So in that respect everyone is extremely divided thus making the TV aspect diluted IMO, if you understand what I’m trying to say.

Football here is king. Not sure and I may be exaggerating this a bit but 80% of the population watches college football. Your either OU or OSU for the most part. Sooners sell out almost every single game. OSU does pretty good also. Those not at the game are watching or listening to their respective team period.

The Redhawks get great support and thus far Basketball as a whole is extremely popular. They don’t make enough season tickets for the Thunder as they like the Hornets are a smoking hot commodity.

Basically what I’m trying to say is every team we get, are doing exactly what they set out to do and that’s get 100% or close to it-support. I look around at major franchises like the marlins, pirates, so on and so forth. How is it teams like this, that you see no one in the stands branded a better TV market or what have you?

Again I’ve always wandered how all this works and please make your response dummy(me) proof.

I dont care who the new owner is as long as he/she/them come equipped with a Jake Peavy and a Joe Beimel!!!

by cubsluver22 on Feb 28, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

TV market rankings...

… are by population of the metro area.

Here is a list of the 210 official DMA’s (designated market areas) for TV in the US.

Hope this explains it somewhat.

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

by Al on Feb 28, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Washington D.C. and Baltimore (~35 miles apart) are listed as two separate markets

while San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose are listed as one. San Jose is over 40 miles from Oakland and SF.

Combine the D.C.-Baltimore markets and that falls in at #4, just behind Chicago. I was not aware of that.

Thanks for that link, Al.

"Every team will win 60 games, every team will lose 60 games, it's what the team does in the other 42 games that decides the season."

by flachimesa on Feb 28, 2009 8:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Part of the reason for SF/Oak/SJ to be one TV market...

… is that San Jose doesn’t have the full complement of network affiliates, or even enough broadcast stations, to be its own market. San Jose has an NBC station — which used to be ABC, but switched a few years ago — which is now the primary NBC station for the entire market. Before, when it had an ABC station, it was the secondary ABC station for the three cities.

Washington & Baltimore have full complements of network affiliates and each city has multiple TV stations.

Here is a list of metropolitan areas in the USA by population which gives a slightly different picture.

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

by Al on Mar 1, 2009 4:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Al

but heres a question for you guys that work in tv——How do you tell who’s watching what or percentages what have you?? I guess basically what I’m asking is this…..OKC has roughly 1.2 million according to your link……….How do I find a close estimate to what percentage— how many of that population watch a OU sooner game on a given day. or a Thunder game???

I would like to see a breakdown of what were doing compared to other cities. If there is a way. Sorry if this bothers you but I’m starving for this knowledge and don’t have a clue how to find it or how to read it if I did. So basically asking you to teach a dummy(me) some TV knowledge that I’ve always wandered about lmao.

I dont care who the new owner is as long as he/she/them come equipped with a Jake Peavy and a Joe Beimel!!!

by cubsluver22 on Mar 1, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs