Illinois Legislature To Consider Bill To Preserve Wrigley Field
by Al Yellon on Nov 11, 2010 1:46 PM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print
The Cubs today sent out an email to season ticket holders and Wrigleyville neighbors in which they revealed that the Illinois legislature will be considering a bill, in its next session, to take part of the 12% city of Chicago and Cook County amusement tax and set it aside for the purpose of renovating Wrigley Field.
Chairman Tom Ricketts, in the email, said that if the bill is approved, the Cubs would spend $200 million over the next few years on Wrigley improvements and a comparable amount in the neighborhood.
The complete email is after the jump.
November 11, 2010
Dear Season Ticket Holder,
When my family and I took ownership of the Chicago Cubs just about one year ago, we committed to being good neighbors and to preserving Wrigley Field. We're excited to tell you today about an opportunity to achieve both.
As the third largest tourist attraction in Illinois, the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field account for more than $600 million annually in impact to the local economy, including almost $400 million in annual new spending - spending which would not take place but for the team and the ballpark. This spending supports more than 7,000 jobs and generates more than $230 million in annual personal earnings. The Cubs and Wrigley Field also generate nearly $60 million in tax collections each year.
For many years, Wrigley Field has required millions of dollars in annual maintenance and, partly as a result, the team-owned campus around the ballpark has remained largely undeveloped. The Wrigley Field campus development, the centerpiece of our future, has been on hold for nearly a decade.
In the next few weeks the Illinois General Assembly will consider a bill to preserve Wrigley Field. Simply put, the plan allows a portion of future City and County amusement taxes, the 12% currently added to each ticket price, to be invested directly in the preservation of the Friendly Confines.
The plan is fair, simple and focused. Most importantly, it will not increase taxes you currently pay and will not create any new taxes.
This plan will preserve the historic character and tradition of the Friendly Confines for the next generation and will enhance the Lakeview community. If approved, the Cubs will undertake more than $200 million in renovations during the next five years and, in addition, the Ricketts family will invest a comparable amount in neighborhood development. The team will commit to play in Wrigley Field over the long run and to remain in the field during construction so, in this difficult economy, local businesses will continue to enjoy revenues the Cubs help attract.
We understand the importance of community and fan participation in this process. Wrigley Field renovation designs are being developed and we look forward to input on our surveys, discussions in forums and other communications we will send to you in the weeks and months ahead.
We have an opportunity in this upcoming legislative session to begin the process of renovating and restoring Wrigley Field and securing its continued future. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and hope you, like me, see this as a fair and straightforward way to accomplish our mutual goals. If you would like to support our legislative proposal in the fall session, please contact us at renovatewrigley@cubs.com.
Sincerely,
Tom Ricketts
Executive Chairman
230 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Amen!
I, for one, am glad to see this tax going to good use. In a way, it’s giving back to the people that buy the tickets and sit in the park. At least we will be getting the benefit, which makes me feel slightly less ripped off.
How is this a good use...
When only a small subset of cook county benefits? Even though it makes Wrigley nicer for me, this is not what that money should be used for.
Rays/Cubs fan - AnotherCubsBlog.net
Cool.
Does “neighborhood development” mean the Triangle Building and things like it?
"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto
"They played like son of a guns......lord have mercy." Mike Quade
No, that's the Cubs part of the deal.
I assume they mean off-property stuff in the neighborhood like shops, bars and restaurants.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Is there
anything that Ricketts IS willing to pay for?
Did you even read the letter?
It doesn’t say this tax will fund the ENTIRE $200 million. Neither does this article, which also says:
To deflect criticism, the family said it will spend about $200 million of its own money to redevelop land around Wrigley Field, which will create jobs and future sales taxes.
Ricketts did not provide specifics Thursday about the development plans outside Wrigley. Tribune Co., the Cubs previous owners, had pledged to develop a parcel west of the stadium as part of gaining city approval to expand the bleachers in 2005.
But the plans to create a so-called "triangle building" with parking, retail and offices remained on the drawing board, as Tribune put the team up for sale in 2007.
The Wrigley Field improvements do not call for an increase in the stadium’s capacity of about 41,000. The family said Cubs fans will see greater amenities, expanded concourses and more opportunities for family-friendly entertainment. Above all, the renovations will preserve the historic character of the 96-year-old stadium.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yes, I did.
Seems like a knee-jerk reaction against Ricketts no matter what he does, on your part.
Seems to me like they’re doing the right thing, not raising any additional taxes AND spending quite a bit of their own money.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
you
just take anything you read from them at face value.
Do you really think that the city of Chicago won’t recoup the revenue they would lose in future amusement tax $? With balance sheets being what they are in the state right now? C’mon Al be realistic.
Ricketts can SAY he will spend whatever he wants. What holds him to it? Is he going to disclose his spending to the public that he asks for $ from?
There isn’t anything “knee jerk” about my response. Its reality.
This is going a little off topic here
And I haven’t been around these forums enough, but is there any truth to the rants I have been hearing about how Ricketts is the next PK Wrigley or McCaskey, or whatever cheap chicago sports owner you want to name?
I love Ricketts attitude and the way he has been running the team but am somewhat off put by his reluctance to spend. YES YES YES, I know we have some terrible contracts on the books. But the Yankees have some awful ones as well. You are always going to hit on some and miss on some – but you have to try to do either. Okay, so we aren’t and never will be the Yankees.
But, everyone wants to aspire to the Red Sox with all the analogies between the two teams. Look at some of their contracts. Hell, John Lackey was just last year. Dice-K before that. JD Drew isn’t exactly the greatest K in the world. They still seem to be going after Crawford, Werth, etc. Make money to spend money and vice versa.
I mean, yes, there are teams like the Reds, i.e. bottom in payroll, top of standings. But that’s 1 time and took 15 years. Even as Al showed us the other day, most of the teams in the playoffs had high payrolls. Just a fact.
Anyways, /rant. Just wanted to see if that is the consensus or just some fans wanting to sign Cliff Lee.
by KButler on Nov 11, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
For me it is a wait and see
My only initial concern regarding money is the lack of money spent on the last draft. One thing Boston always does is spend on the draft.
I’m not convinced that spending all that money on Lee considering his age and the Cubs current state is the best option so I’ll give him a pass there. Let’s see what this year’s salary is and how much gets allocated for the upcoming draft.
I don’t see this as a sign of anything. What owner would pass up gov’t money?
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
What has Ricketts done that
makes you love the way he’s running the team?
by troutfishin on Nov 11, 2010 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I can't think of a single example
of where Ricketts did NOT take the least expensive option when it comes to the on-the-field product. We got the cheapest manager, kept the same ineffective GM rather than buying him out, the cheapest draft picks, didn’t spend much internationally, traded away some expensive players without getting much in return, and we’re rumored to have a lower payroll next year despite being horrible this year.
I’d like to believe that Ricketts isn’t cheap when it comes to the on the field team, I’ve just yet to see a single example of him not taking the least expensive option.
I hold out hope that this is just a transition time, but I’m getting nervous.
DEJESUS!!!
Exactly
I understand that not every team should be the yankees or red sox, nor can they be. But if you want to consistently win, you have to spend money. Yes we have bad contracts on the books but what are you going to do? Wait till they come off? Then sign more, with the probability that at least a few will be bad, and then be back in the same situation? It’s ridiculous.
I just fear we are going to be the brewers in a few years.
What they are asking for is bascially what Daley has all over the city-
TIF’s. It keeps the tax dollars in the community.
Cal, I assume you have no knowledge, just an opinion that you should run the Cubs and probably the city.
I'd really like to see the state
pay down some debt rather that it going to the Cubs.
I mean no offence here, Tom and Co knew what they were buying.
I’ve always been against a team getting public funding. Thirty-five years to pay off the bonds? I’d rather see that go to pay off the debt.
Per capita, IL is more broke than CA.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 11, 2010 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
AMEN....and for those
that say that public funding went to Reinsdorf or Soldiers Field, that does not make it okay. I don’t think anyone realizes just how deeply in debt this state is, Ricketts should pay as he goes.
Al, for those of us not Illinois residents,
what is your take? It appears this makes a lot of sense. Money already collected going back to the reason the money was collected. Almost sounds too good to be true for the Ricketts’.
Sandberg for manager!
Here's my objection
Ricketts bought the team stadium included. If he was planning on using state money just a year later to fix the problems of the stadium he purchased he damn well should have said so at the time. Ricketts is asking both the county and city to forgo future amusement tax $ at a time when the entire state of IL is running a historic deficit. Sound like a good idea?
Further, Ricketts can say they will spend 200 million or 8 billion dollars but there is nothing to hold them to it. Its just projection & claims- the money he is asking is very, very real. And its my opinion it should come from the guy who just spent 800 mill + to buy the thing.
by CalCalender on Nov 11, 2010 2:35 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
That will clearly be an issue
Everyone talks about CA being broke. IL (per capita) far exceeds CA in “brokeness”. Is that a legitimate financial word, brokeness??
Just win the next game...!
its
outrageous really. Within 1 year he has raised ticket prices twice, reduced payroll and now is asking people to help foot the bill to fix it.
If were the gov I would say hell no and see if Tom has the stones to do something about it (move the team? doubtful)
by CalCalender on Nov 11, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Should tax money should be used to
help billionaires renovate their venues? Hmmmm….
Sure the Cubs are helping the state coffers. How much tax savings as an owner do they already enjoy?
And the biggest question is: If the Cubs didn’t use that
…portion of future City and County amusement taxes…
where would it have been used?
It’s these questions’ answers that could rile up some folks.
Just win the next game...!
This is wrong
The plan is fair, simple and focused. Most importantly, it will not increase taxes you currently pay and will not create any new taxes.
It will indirectly increase taxes and cause new taxes to be considered. If the amount the city & county is capped, they won’t see any growth in that revenue stream and will need to make that up in other ways. Essentially it sounds like they want to create a TIF based on the amusement taxes, and look how well TIF’s have turned out for everyone. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if Rham becomes mayor (Cubs fan) they don’t try and do a TIF as well.
I know he is just doing what every other sports owner in America does, but that doesn’t make it right. You should read about the awful deals Cincinnati got stuck with when they built those 2 new stadiums.
by cubsscoop on Nov 11, 2010 2:48 PM CST reply actions 6 recs
spot on
The state will find a way to recoup that lost money because they have to with the financials being what they are.
As a Cook County/Illinois taxpayer...
….I vote no. The Cubs are a multi-hundred million dollar a year profit generating machine. I’m sure that they can fund stadium renovations themselves — selling their own bonds, selling more naming rights, imposing an extra “renovate Wrigley” surcharge on all tickets/merchandise bought, whatever…..
They don’t need tax dollars (even the amusement tax dollars, which are currently going to other pressing state and local budgetary needs) going into paying for an amusement experience that not everyone can afford to go to when schools are suffering, the CTA is in shambles, the roads are pock-marked with potholes, and the murder rate is climbing.
(And I’d say the same thing about any renovations to any other amusement locations — Sox, Bears, Bulls, etc….)
by Chadnudj on Nov 11, 2010 3:18 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Note that the letter says "a portion" of the tax.
It doesn’t say ALL of the tax. Yes, it would be nice to know how much, but it’s not all of it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
here's something
else to think about Al. Under this plan the Cubs would guarantee 16.1 million in tax revenue. However, if attendance is lower in the next fear years (which due to the economy, rising costs and the quality of the team is certainly possible) then the Cubs would be making less $.
If that happens where do you think Ricketts will come up with the lost revenue? Will he open his wallet and cover the difference? NO! Ticket prices will have to go up again.
Honestly, how can you support this?
If that happens where do you think Ricketts will come up with the lost revenue? Will he open his wallet and cover the difference? NO! Ticket prices will have to go up again.
How do you know Ricketts won’t come up with it? Have you spoken to him personally?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
for gods sake
you REALLY believe he wouldn’t raise ticket prices in that scenario?
and if it happens
fewer tickets will be sold. There IS an equilibrium point out there.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 8:39 PM CST up reply actions
They are already pushing the envelope...
…and if the team continues to be a non-playoff contender, raising ticket prices further would only accelerate the loss of revenue downward.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I agree
As much as I love the Cubs, now is not the time to be doing this. The state simply cannot afford tospend this money on Wrigley when there are far more important Financial issues to deal with in the state right now.
Ricketts bought the team and Wrigley, and now he needs to foot the bill to fix it. The team certainly brings in enough revenue to do so.
When Notre Dame Stadium needed a massive renovation, they issued their own bonds.
Is that an impossibility here for some reason? You’d think that the Cubs can guarantee a pretty substantial revenue flow to potential bondholders for the next 20-30 years.
There’s no obvious reason that the Cubs should be stumping for an amusement tax increase that they’re going to get to keep.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
These are the places that generate revenues for our stupid politicians to waste.
The CTA is a POS transit system that needs REFORM, not more money. The state needs REFORM and not more money, etc. Start cutting expenses in the state and then talk.
Hey...
….you’re preaching to the choir. Lots of graft/waste that needs to be fixed on all levels politically….
That doesn’t mean using taxpayer dollars to subsidize changes to Wrigley Field (a private amusement facility that is only used by a minority of state residents able to afford tickets…just like ANY professional sports park) is right….
#1 and #2
As the third largest tourist attraction in Illinois
Does anyone know what are the #1 and #2 largest tourist attractions?
Baseball is the only major sport that appears backwards in a mirror. ~George Carlin
Navy Pier
and the Sears Tower? Soldier Field? It can’t possibly be that what used to be Comisky.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions
Agree
with Navy Pier. I would think that it gets a ton of tax money. Sear Tower maybe. Soldier Field is doubtful with only 8 games a year. Perhaps US Cellular Field?
Baseball is the only major sport that appears backwards in a mirror. ~George Carlin
If forced to guess
I’d say Museum Campus and Navy Pier.
The Willis Tower might be top 10.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 4:21 PM CST up reply actions
Navy Pier
Is run by Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) , a municipal corporation created by the Illinois General Assembly. Its Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 11, 2010 4:49 PM CST up reply actions
Stamp, how the heck could the Cell be ahead of Wrigley? Ever check their attendance
and who goes to that neighborhood for anything?
this link has old data but it is interesting
Chicago’s Most Popular Attractions
surprised none of us mentioned
Six Flags
Art Institute
not sure if it would be usable, but what about the McCormick Convention Center, since they have an insane amount of people thru the year go there
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Great America even being on that list proves how bad it is...
the methodology is jack.
Although if I’m gonna be shocked about those totals, I should probably be willing to discount the Insitute numbers as well.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:19 PM CST up reply actions
Magnificent Mile?
But probably the "Michigan Mile" per Sweet Lou.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
Brookfield Zoo? Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio?
just two more i could think to add to the list, both get a lot of visitors annually.
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
I don't think the FLW home is pushing those kinds of attendance numbers.
at 12 people per tour, 7 hours daily.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Almost the same number of people that ride those
double deck buses also go to Six Flags, maybe that’s how they all get there.
It has to be...
- - Leaning Tower of Pisa in Niles.
- - World’s Largest Catsup Bottle in Collinsville
- - Wrigley Field in Chicago
- - Mecca of Albino Squirrels in Olney
Been to three of those
I’ve missed the Leaning Tower. I’ll have to make plans.
Baseball is the only major sport that appears backwards in a mirror. ~George Carlin
I've missed the Catsup Bottle.
That sounds like a must-see.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
i used to live three blocks from it
when it was erected, my mother knew the owners of the property (not a YMCA) and she used to watch the fireworks from the top of it.
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
You should come visit us in Woodstock
to see all the plaqued sites from the movie Groundhog Day. You can see Gobler’s Knob, Bill Murray’s puddle, the movie theater where Bill Murray dressed like Clint Eastwood, the bowling alley, amongst other things.
lol
I’ve been meaning to go up there someday to check all that out.
"It's important in life to not give a shit. It can help you a lot." - George Carlin
Oh, and...
I’m good with this one. Wrigley is a historical building, part of the state’s responsibility is taking care of such buildings. Wrigley brings in far more than it costs.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
Agreed
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 11, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
This City has the highest sales tax rate of major metropolitan areas
and the State of Illinois is bankrupt.
Laughable.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
well, City sales taxes
don’t go to the state.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 4:21 PM CST up reply actions
the point is
a longstanding record of gross mismanagement of funds.
City and State level.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Don’t forget county level.
My brother has a bigger house on a 1/2 acre in Lake County than I have on a 1/4 acrein Cook and he pays 1400 less in property taxes.
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 6:26 PM CST up reply actions
no doubt
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:01 PM CST up reply actions
that's not necessarily
an indication of money mismanagement. Lake County has less infrastructure to maintain, fewer schools, fewer social services, etc, etc, etc.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
and Cook County has more revenue streams to tap into
I don’t disagree with your point about costs. But Cook County also benefits from significant advantages in revenue.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:45 PM CST up reply actions
absolutely.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 9:14 PM CST up reply actions
I just realized how badly I abused that conjunction in my comment...
In this case it didn’t get me very far.
My original intent wasn’t to correlate Chicago sales tax money with a bankrupt state. I should have written “also” or something else.
-1 to me for bad writing.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 9:19 PM CST up reply actions
drew, the city is broke also as is Cook County. The corruption and waste
is sucking up every dollar available and they want more to p*** away.
I'm not necessarily debating that
I’m simply pointing out that city taxes don’t go to the state.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 8:41 PM CST up reply actions
If the alternative is leaving Wrigley
I’ll come there and vote a million yeses. I mean really, the people who read this blog are supposed to be the ones enjoying the fruits of the thievery in this case…who cares?
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 11, 2010 4:22 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Stupid Idea...
If the Ricketts are willing to spend all that money, why don’t they use it for a nice down payment for a new state of the art baseball stadium with all the amenities that almost every other MLB franchises enjoy.
Yeah Yeah several will flame this but the Cubs need to change the way they do business as a whole and there’s no better way than to start with a up to date stadium. Like it or not Wrigley is turned into a money pit which in turn the cost is being handed down to the consumers(us)!
by cubsluver22 on Nov 11, 2010 4:32 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Since you asked
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 11, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
cubsluver, I agree 100%
and I’ve been a season ticketholder for 27 years and gone to games since the early 60’s.
um...
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 5:14 PM CST up reply actions
no, really.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 8:45 PM CST up reply actions
im mixed on this
but if it means a world series do it
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Don't connect the two please CT
because they can’t be connected. The salaries of the team right now should tell us that spending doesn’t equal championships.
Public funds shouldn’t go to billionaire team owners, period.
In other words, this dumb-ass state should PAY DOWN ITS DEBT.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 12, 2010 6:10 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
i knwo they cant
but the additional revenue IF used for the team from a more modern stadium MIGHT help
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
There are 2 problems with all the new stadiums
1) they are expensive.
2) They bring no guarantee of attendance and therefore ticket revenue.
Even in 2010, the Cubs ranked 7th in MLB attendance. That’s ahead of a lot of teams with new stadiums.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 11, 2010 8:00 PM CST up reply actions
It depends
There’s so many variables including the teams’ market where they play.
In the Cubs case, they’d stand to benefit hugely if they had carte-blanche to add big time revenue generating items such as 100+ skyboxes and a mammoth scoreboard.
The Cubs ranked high still because of the unique situation that is Wrigley-ville, WGN etc etc.
Just win the next game...!
Agreed
The Yankees, old stadium or new, are still the Yankees.
So then the question of were and what type of Stadium. Are the Cubs a big ticket draw if the new Wrigley Field is moved from Wrigleyville?
But the questions appear to be moot, as there are no indications of the Cubs moving from the current Wrigley Field.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 8:52 AM CST up reply actions
Are the Cubs a big ticket draw if the new Wrigley Field is moved from Wrigleyville?
This is a real issue. And my answer would be, “No.” New stadiums have proven to be draws for a year or two and then stop — if the team doesn’t win. Just look at Pittsburgh for an example of this.
Besides, we are in the same boat if they did propose a new stadium, which would cost far more than any proposed renovations to Wrigley. Who pays for it?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
A new place would no doubt
place greater pressures on the team to do well with the draft system and minor leagues. For a Cubs team that year or two would likely be closer to three or four.
But please don’t compare to Pittsburgh. That’s been a poorly run franchise top to bottom for over two decades.
Lastly, owners shall pay for their stadiums. Look what taxpayer money got us on the lake front. A revocation of a landmark.
Just win the next game...!
Except, Pittsburgh is a good example if you want to isolate only the effects of a new stadium
Since they were consistently bad both before and after, the influx in ticket sales and decline afterward would seemingly have to be tied (largely) to the stadium.
How about AZ?
The D-backs have won a WS, have a new stadium, and have been declining in attendance over the past 5 years.
And the Bears don’t own Soldier Field – I don’t think they ever have. Chicago Parks does. Soldier Field might have been a landmark, but it looked terrible. Porta-johns? I saw an orange extension cord running over one walkway to provide power to food or beer vendor.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
Not completely apples to apples...
AZ has been around since 1998; the Cubs have over 100 years on that. I’d say demand for Cubs tickets is far more inelastic than most teams, and is generally right up there with the Sox/Yankees etc.
Rays/Cubs fan - AnotherCubsBlog.net
True
I don’t know how inelastic that ticket demand is if the Cubs moved into a new stadium. I’d say this:
Cubs at new Wrigley Field in same location = still high demand
Cubs at new Wrigley Field in different Chicago location = not as high demand. Depends on where and what is around the ballpark.
Cubs at new Wrigley Field in location outside city of Chicago = big drop in demand.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 11:37 AM CST up reply actions
I agree.
Wrigley Field is as much a part of the team as any of the players.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 12, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions
Besides, we are in the same boat if they did propose a new stadium, which would cost far more than any proposed renovations to Wrigley. Who pays for it?
I’m not so sure it would “so much” more. I mean…can’t recoupe what as already spent over the last few years on renovations. Not sure the exact number but it has been quite a bit. Now they’re talking about at least another 200 million.
I realize alot of Wrigley is new and has been restored/updated etc but were still talking about a 100 year old stadium. It’s like an old car..it’s gonna keep costing and costing and costing. So my question is….is the sentimental value or the “nickle and dime effect” outway building a state of the art ballpark and biting the bullet and paying for it in one lump sum?
Would building a new park attract better players? I mean over the years several players have said publicly they love playing at Wrigley and over the years I have heard players say they hated it due to the amenities and lack thereof and for things like hitting their heads leaving the dugouts. I’m just throwing it out there cause I guess none of us really know.
The whole if we moved here or there the Cubs wouldn’t have the same following is a load of crap. The Cubs are gonna attract just like always. I think it’s time we stop living in the past or operating as such. It’s time to stop placing band-aids on everything and start planning for a good future.
According to sunshinereview.org,
the state of Illinois has a total state debt of over $120 BILLION!!
My point is, IL is bankrupt. The state has unpaid bills going back months.
The state clearly has more pressing issues the legislature needs to focus on. Renovating Wrigley Field is not something that should take up any of their time right now.
Hey, it's a new century!
I'm surprised they even paid out the St income tax refunds for 2009
Totally surprised. This year won’t be so good…
Glad I set myself up so I owe every year; then I make an electronic payment on 14-Apr.
Just win the next game...!
I love the Cubs
and really love Wrigley, but I wouldn’t support this measure in a million years. And shame on Ricketts for those " no cost to taxpayers" comments. Who in their right mind believes that a functionally bankrupt Illinois will shift a couple hundred million off the books, and won’t get it back elsewhere? I mean, really? REALLY?
by Damen Jackson on Nov 11, 2010 5:00 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Its a tax
It’s a tax we chose to pay by attending events. Discretionary income.
IT’s not like the ridiculous property taxes, the soon to increase income tax, the ridiculous sales tax but those often are necessities.
IT’s worse of all in Cook County. I work literally a block north of the Lake/Cook county line. Amazing how much you save if you go to the Speedway on the Lake County side as opposed to something several miles down on the Cook side.
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 6:24 PM CST up reply actions
Green this.....
I would if I could from my mobile
Those comments are insulting to me as a taxpayer and STH…
by JB 23 on Nov 11, 2010 8:23 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Well, Al may not like this
turning into a blog on economics, but so what? Do you really care if the state defaults on its bondholders? Don’t worry, the Feds will bail them out.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 11, 2010 5:00 PM CST reply actions
We probably shouldn't go there...
I still can’t even think about “Build America” bonds without either snickering or getting angry.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 11, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions
Question to those who oppose this use of the Amusement tax
In 2007, before the Ricketts bought the Cubs, the Tribune Co was negotiating with the State of Illinois to buy Wrigley Field and lease it to the Cubs.
If the sale of Wrigley field to the State of Illinois had gone through, would you still be opposed to a portion of the Amusement tax going towards renovating Wrigley Field?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
No
Because the state would own the stadium. Asking for the state to repay to renovate Wrigley now is like asking them for $100,000 to make improvements to my house.
Zeo, that is one of the dumbest responses ever. You are just jealous that you really don't
add much revenue to the state. The amusement tax is nothing but a scam.
It's on the way
If the bankrupt state is handing out free money, you might as well get in one the action!
So does your house
host over 3 million people each summer who spend money there?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 10:26 AM CST up reply actions
For state-owned property
and a profit generator at that? No. I would have accepted it as a OpEx, and moved on.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 11, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions
With the way our state handles things I’m so glad they don’t own Wrigley. It would be destroyed in a minute.
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't blame the Ricketts for asking
but I’ll probably blame them and the politicians that approve if it goes through.
I don’t know if the BOLD was original to the letter or put there by the poster, but I’ll say this much…if no new taxes or revenue is being created then this is a shell game.
If you really believe that this money is currently being misallocated to such a degree that moving it into Wrigley Field is a better use of the funds, then god help us all.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 5:14 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Thank you for clarifying.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions
I'm going to have to recommend this...
I mean, this is Econ 101 stuff. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 11, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions
With Year One in the books, Team Ricketts may not have won over many baseball fans...
…but this shameless drive for public financing surely will help improve their already high standing in the investment community.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
I might be reading between the lines a bit, but....
The team will commit to play in Wrigley Field over the long run and to remain in the field during construction so, in this difficult economy, local businesses will continue to enjoy revenues the Cubs help attract.
And if the bill doesn’t go through, then Ricketts won’t commit the Cubs to play in Wrigley?
It's a threat. A veiled threat, but a threat.
Almost weekly, the Ricketts do something that erodes my faith in them as stewards of this franchise. I can’t be alone here.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You're not
This is a leveraging tactic. It’s just like kids do with parents. See what they can get away with. Cubs are the kids, Gov’t is the parents.
Google the Ricketts family and you’ll quickly see what I mean.
Just win the next game...!
Well, for one thing, they're not stewards
playing to the notion of the Cubs as public trust, and Wrigley as historic landmark is only in the their interest when they want to change sentiment for a questionable decision. It’s really not the case. They’re owners of a profit-maximizing enterprise. I expect them to ask, but I also expect politicians to say no; or at least structure a deal that has honesty, transparency, and ensures that all parties have skin in the game. Which is pretty much where this initial pitch goes off the road. And frankly, I’m honestly left wondering who the hell is handling marketing and PR over there.
I would feel much, much better about this conversation if the family was committing some hard dates to their capital renovation expenditures.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 12, 2010 9:35 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
As far as I know
As far as I know this amusement tax goes into this type of thing anyway.
The CUbs are a cash cow for the state of Illinois and until now have not taken one penny from it, unlike the Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and White Sox.
The other teams have already taken from this tax while not giving back nearly as much to the state as the Cubs.
It always irked me that I was helping to pay for the Cell when attending Cubs games,.
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
Really?
Have you seen the police presence around Wrigley on game days? The traffic tie-ups? The costs to clean up the neighborhood? The strain on public transportation capacity caused by having so many games end/begin right at rush hour (not unique to the Cubs, I know, but still)?
Not saying that the Cubs don’t add to the coffers of Illinois/Cook County in a variety of ways….but saying that the other teams got state money (in, perhaps, better economic times) as justificaiton for the Cubs taking it now is a non-starter to me. It’s wrong for ANY professional sports team to take tax money/support from the public.
(And, if you were curious, I also think Mesa is foolish for footing the bill to pay for the Cubs complex there too….)
How much?
Also how much would the Cubs get of this?
It’s almost like the park district whining when the Bears wanted improvements done to soldier field when Bears games are a cash cow to the park district.
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
There's the rub.
I’ve tried searching for it (bad google skillz, i guess) but I’d love to know the size of the Amusement Tax pot, and where those funds are distributed.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 7:48 PM CST up reply actions
My take
I just had to lend a friend 300 dollars because her paycheck is delayed because of the state defaulting on payments to her employer.
But one doesn’t have to do with the other. It’s time the Cubs ask for something back with all the money they generate for this state.
I was against the building of the cell but if the Sox had moved to Florida the state would have lost about 10 times more money than they spent in the 20 years since. On that subject can you guys believe the cell will be 20 next year?
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
The Cubs
don’t generate revenue for the state. The fans do. The same fans who keep getting their ticket prices jacked up. And again, if the city loses revenue they would have got from the tax they will simply tax something else higher. If Ricketts makes less due to lack of attendance he will just raise prices.
Either way its the fans who get screwed on this one.
cal, You are pathetic. Are you in college?
The state, city and county are broke for several reasons-incompetence, corruption and over -spending. Why does the amusement tax truly exist? You obviously don’t believe that those who pay the tax and the job creators who pay the tax deserve anything for their tax dollars.
you sir
are a shining example of intelligence and class. In the face of your infallible logic and steadfast focus on the facts I must withdraw from the conversation.
PS- Maybe the taxpayers could enjoy a nicer Wrigley if Ricketts paid for it himself considering its his damn property.
well cal, if the city didn't make it a landmark, he could do much of it.
But if the city wants to limit what you can do and still collect an "amusement tax’ which goes to nothing the Cubs cotribute, I see why the Cubs ask for something.
You still didn’t answer the questions- are you a taxpayer or a tax taker? Are you in college?
You seem to think the city and county tax should bailout the state. Stupid.
BTW, as Al suggested, you read the letter and see this quote-
“If approved, the Cubs will undertake more than $200 million in renovations during the next five years and, in addition, the Ricketts family will invest a comparable amount in neighborhood development. The team will commit to play in Wrigley Field over the long run and to remain in the field during construction so, in this difficult economy, local businesses will continue to enjoy revenues the Cubs help attract.”
But then again, you seem to know everything and if you leave, good riddance.
That quote is a mismash of veiled threats and weasel words.
What is a “comparable amount”? What is the “neighborhood development” the Cubs are going to invest in? Buying out nearby bars and businesses?
More to the point, the Ricketts’ “commitment to play in Wrigley Field over the long run” is implied as contingent upon the creation of their own public slush fund for capital improvements.
Why can’t the Cubs do their own bond issue?
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I just read that quote and was wondering
f approved, the Cubs will undertake more than $200 million in renovations during the next five years and, in addition, the Ricketts family will invest a comparable amount in neighborhood development.
I just read that quote as well and was wondering, does this mean The Family plans to spend ~ $400 million of their own money? Because the letter says the Cubs will undertake more than $200 million not spend/invest/etc, and with the recent developments I guess we see the meaning behind that phrase.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
You're quick to name-call and attack, but pretty short on actual points
We get it: you trust blindly that the Rickets will do what they say, and just want this to happen…. well, just because.
Cal’s a smart guy, and questions the use of public money for private stadiums. A lot of smart people question this. In general, economists agree that the use of public money on stadiums is a losing endeavor for the state, and really only benefits the teams.
I’m not going to do your homework for you, because judging by your attitude you won’t read the links I’d post anyway. But if you’re actually interested in an educated point of view on this, I highly suggest starting with Sabernomics.com and searching his archives for all the articles he’s written on the subject. Spoiler alert: there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that it’s in the public’s best interest to pay for private stadiums.
by Wreckard on Nov 12, 2010 10:09 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
So if it were up to me as a fan
Yeah, I would rather see part of that 12% amusement tax go towards renovating Wrigley Field. A 12% tax is outrageous. It might as well go towards something I enjoy.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 11, 2010 7:44 PM CST up reply actions
It's going to be more than what you're paying now.
The state still gets their 16 million. The Cubs are going to increase the taxable base by raising ticket prices, and now they’re incentivized to so so, b/c they get to keep everything over and above that 16 million in amusement taxes.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Vs.
If the Cubs paid for all the renovations by themselves. I get the feeling tickets prices could rise in either scenario.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
uh
without the Cubs, those fans don’t exist. It’s kinda like cause and effect.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 8:43 PM CST up reply actions
I'd love to see a frontpage Poll...
What would you rather have:
A) Wrigley Field….improved
B) New stadium with new revenue streams
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
I bet that would cost
a LOT more in taxes. There would have to be a bond issue, you’d have to buy the land, oh, it would be huge.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 11, 2010 8:44 PM CST up reply actions
This isn't a question based in reality
it’s philosophical.
We’ll deal with cost in the next step.
Or people can synthesize the two when deciding their choice.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:47 PM CST up reply actions
The owner
as it should be…
Please do not be swayed by the albatross that is “Soldier Field” and US Commiscular. Just because those were done a certain way doesn’t make it right.
This is the same stance I had about the ST situation.
Just win the next game...!
As a non-resident
The Ricketts are in a tough position. Like it or not, Wrigley is a landmark, and if they dont do some updates, they will be criticized, if they were to talk about replacing it, they would be run out of town, and if they do nothing to it, they would be criticized. If Wrigley is that big of a deal, which it is, to the state, then they should help with the cost. Heck, NY just put 1 billion + into 2 stadiums. Alot more than 200 million was funded by the state.
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra
by imacubman on Nov 11, 2010 6:35 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
The entire stadium is NOT a landmark.
Certain elements of the stadium (scoreboard, marquee, OF walls and ivy, elements of exterior walls) have landmark status. That didn’t stop the Cubs from knocking down and rebuilding the entire bleachers a few years ago.
ND rebuilt their football stadium with a private bond issue.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
See that's what gets missed by too many folks
blinded by either the BS flying around or sentimentality:
ND rebuilt their football stadium with a private bond issue.
Just win the next game...!
Let's not get in Church and State here...
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 9:46 AM CST up reply actions
Not intended one bit
Just a sports entity paying for their stadium as D98 cited.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 12, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
Problem is
ND is run by a religous institution and ND may enjoy tax-exempt status (I’m not sure about that).
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 11:31 AM CST up reply actions
But Northwestern...
…is not a religious institution. It’s a private university (just like the Cubs are a private company), and its sports teams generate Cook County/Illinois amusement taxes just like the Cubs for tickets sold.
Yet will Northwestern get ANY tax money for the upcoming planned renovations to Ryan Field, Welsh-Ryan Arena, and other athletic facilities? No. Of course they won’t.
Northwestern’s alumni and boosters (i.e. the “owners” of the program") will make donations/raise funds to pay for these changes. Which is what the Ricketts should be doing — either paying it themselves, or getting Cub fans to “buy” bonds in a private bond offering.
Universities should use their Endowments
NU has an endowment. of over $6 Billion ND has over $5.5 Billion.
As D98 pointed out below, NU like ND has a tax-exempt status. And If I donate to NU or ND, I get a tax deduction for that donation.
The Cubs pay taxes on their revenue.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
And Northwestern does that...
…because it’s a non-profit endeavor.
If the Ricketts wanna forego all profits on the Cubs, they’re free to turn them into a non-profit and avoid paying taxes on their revenue (assuming that’s possible….).
No, I don't think that's possible
Unless on of the following occurs:
1) The Cubs reinstate the CDollege of Coaches
2) The Cubs and Wrigley Field are actually deemed a religous institution.
So the Cubs pay taxes, and in this case the fans pay a tax on that ticket. What should the Cubs and their fans expect in return for paying taxes?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 4:53 PM CST up reply actions
ND is tax-exempt under 501(c)(3) as a nonprofit educational institution. The religious thing is irrelevant.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Thanks
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
Who is the non-resident?
Are you referring to yourself or members of the Ricketts family?
Tom Ricketts lives in IL and is the CEO of a Chicago based investment firm.
Laura Ricketts is a lawyer on the northside of Chicago.
Todd Ricketts lives on the northshore and owns a bike shop
Pete Ricketts – He may still reside in NE. Not sure.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 9:45 AM CST up reply actions
Yes, the hypocrisy of it all
How dare the billionaire ask for a piece of an over-sized tax (12% really?) to renovate a landmark that is one of the top reason that tourist visit Illinois.
I would much prefer a millionaire making a campaign contribution in order to get a state contract in a pay-to-play scheme.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 11, 2010 7:10 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Ain't no difference between the two
It’s the Chicago Way.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 7:41 PM CST up reply actions
Read the letter and see what he really wants to do -
“the plan allows a portion of future City and County amusement taxes, the 12% currently added to each ticket price”
(Highlights mine)
12 percent currently. And in the future that will be…?
Neitehr the city ir the state will allow ANY portion of their tax revenue to leave their hands – this is simply paving the way for an increase in the amusement tax.
Doubt it.
That tax has been that high since at least 2005 and it was at least 10% since 1997, according to the breakdown of prices printed on my season tickets.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
A correction to my previous post -
- After reading more details this morning, it is clear that this is a way to somehow get back the tax revenue increase that will come from increased ticket prices, and that the tax rate itself will (should) remain the same.
But it still is not a great idea, as it blocks the city and county from any future expected increase in revenues. It’s not horrible public policy, but it’s not exactly great either.
by paul_reuschel on Nov 12, 2010 8:38 AM CST up reply actions
It also incentivizes - in fact, practically mandates - Cubs ticket price increases.
They aren’t going to make anything over and above the current taxable base by selling more tickets – they’re already sold out for all practical purposes.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Not any more on the sellouts
I have a hunch – only a hunch – that Ricketts knows of how poorly ticket sales are going to be for 2011 and how the player contract situation is, so he’s going to try to leverage the local & state gov’t bodies to “help out”.
Just win the next game...!
Can you imagine the death spiral that declining attendance would cause in this tax model?
Ticket sales drop in 2011, the amusement tax brings roughly the same as the $16M it brought in 2010, all that goes to the state.
Of course, that means that prices increase for 2012. Ticket sales drop farther. Less than $16M is generated, so the Cubs raise prices more for 2013.
They’d better be playing some f-ing great baseball if they’re going to fund $200M worth of capital improvements on just the amusement taxes earned over and above 2010 levels.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Yes, I can and for just that I worry
You chose excellent wording in the title:
death spiral
Reminds me of a few Dilbert’s:
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 12, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
I know this math is simple
$16M / 12% = $133,333,333.33
$133,333,333.33 / 81 home games = $1,646,090.53
$1,646,090.53 / 32,000 average attendance = $51.44 average ticket price.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 4:25 PM CST up reply actions
I read the $200M
renovation as upkeep. As a small business owner, I could never receive any money for that or have my legislature present a bill allowing me to be reimbursed. The Cubs are a for profit corporation. There should be no special rules for some businesses and not for others.
The Cubs currently are allowed to deduct those expenses from profits, same as all businesses. The Ricketts family has a net worth of $2.6B. In these economic times, it strikes me as arrogant to suggest they need the money more than other priorities.
It also seems the other $200M would be an investment in new businesses. Good for them. But it should have nothing to do with getting tax money for their Cubs investment.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
by tharr on Nov 11, 2010 8:23 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Not to sound like a jerk...because what I'm going to say sounds jerkish...
But yeah….there are special rules for some businesses and not for others.
It’s always been like that.
Saying that is why I’m convinced this is going to go through no matter the objections.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:29 PM CST up reply actions
I not naive about these things
However, as long as we all accept that these things are inevitable, they’ll never stop. We all criticize government for be crappy but all too often a business is part of the problem. I have a simple philosophy. No special deals for special interests.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I'm with you.
I’m just too cynical.
;(
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:56 PM CST up reply actions
That's your brain talking about the way you want things to be
But it never will. So appreciate that on this one, you’re winning. You get to have a clean urinal to p$s* in after your 5th Old Style and the cost gets spread out amongst all your neighbors! It’s beautiful!
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 11, 2010 9:26 PM CST up reply actions
Tom Ricketts, is that you?
Even with a couple hundred million dollars in taxpayer money, the day I see a clean urinal at Wrigley Field is the day I see Matt Murton win a batting title whilst riding a unicorn in front of a rainbow.
wait……
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 9:34 PM CST up reply actions
If I’m going to obsess about bathrooms I’ll stay at home and watch it on tv. Am I the only one who goes to the bathroom in Wrigley does my business and leaves without obsessing on it?
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 10:53 PM CST up reply actions
No...
The johns at Chicago Stadium (often with a half inch of “water” on the floor) were far more cramped and the beer/fan rate was much higher. Some how some way all us managed to get back to our seats before puck drop of the next period.
Just win the next game...!
Does your company generate 60 million in tax revenue for the state?
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 10:52 PM CST up reply actions
What has that got to do with it
Unless you feel that size has anything to do with fairness. Is that your position?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Yet you fools don't mind the state and city subsidizing the
Bears and White Sox. Pathetic.
Obviously you've taken a poll
and have the results. Otherwise you wouldn’t have been foolish enough to generalize. Please let us all see your numbers.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
It's a topic I'm genuinely interested in and don't have the answers to
so if you have info I’m all ears.
But I don’t see any subsidizING of these franchises.
They were subsidizED and it’s a function of the current reality as well as a general idea that’s been growing since those deals were completeted that public handouts for professional athletics are bad business.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:54 PM CST up reply actions
Again as I commented to Blackhawk
that wasn’t imho okay then and it’s not okay now. The deal Reinsdorf got btw was pure highway robbery. Basically the deal was setup that in the first few years of Comiskey’s opening, if the White Sox didn’t meet a certain attendance number the State would pick up the bulk up the tab. Using tax dollars for to build private enterprise is never okay.
Big Jim Thompson in all his glory.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
And if the Sox had left the state would have lost about 10 times more than they’ve put in.
Although when the Sox hid behind AM 1000 for the sign in 97 about major league baseball 8.1 miles south I would have countered with “Wrigley Field you pay for the ticket you didn’t have to buy the ballpark too!”
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 10:52 PM CST up reply actions
Says who?
And if the Sox had left the state would have lost about 10 times more than they’ve put in.
For once, I’d like to see someone substantiate this, as I’m COMPLETELY unsold on professional sports teams actually generating revenue for cities/states, or, at minimum, bringing a return on investment for the state as, oh I don’t know, improving schools, building infrastructure for business, or offering tax cuts to individuals and/or all businesses across the board.
Think about the police, fire, traffic control, cleanup costs….throw in pre- and post-game traffic (not a “cost” necessarily, but it is a loss for all non-game-going citizens caught in it)…add in (okay, just for the Bulls/Blackhawks/Sox relatively recently) the cost of victory parades….
Are we sure these generate money? Or more money/benefit than putting those funds to work elsewhere?
Check out Sabernomics.com
Or the book “Baseball Between the Numbers”. Both are good sources of information on this. Specifically regarding stadiums, new stadiums only positively impact the team, don’t help the neighborhoods or city overall.
Rays/Cubs fan - AnotherCubsBlog.net
Exactly...
…I know I’ve seen studies on this….
But all these businesses also pay sales tax. If you can't get services for the taxes paid
then why should you pay taxes? The city has to do something for the money they get.
But now the city is being asked to pay for the services they are providing.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Thanks for the gross generalization
Frankly, the lease the Bears have with the City of Chicago for Soldier Field is pretty much a disgrace. The City took out a $400m loan to pay for renovations to Soldier Field and, from all accounts, the Bears kicked in next to nothing to help cover those costs. Granted, the City is the landlord and is responsible for those improvements, so it’s not like the Bears did anything legally wrong. However, considering the Bears were kicking, screaming, and whining for stadium improvements for years while threatening to skip town, I’m unhappy with how that was resolved. I’m also unhappy with the fact that the Bears got a sweetheart lease.
When it comes to IL and Chicago, they should have told the Bears and White Sox to go fly a kite in a thunderstorm when those teams came begging for a free handout. This is one of the largest media markets in America. Had the Sox or Bears left, new teams would have taken their places within a few years. There’s too much money at stake and there’s no way anyone would pass up that sort of an opportunity.
Now, what strikes me about this particular situation is this bolded passage:
If approved, the Cubs will undertake more than $200 million in renovations during the next five years and, in addition, the Ricketts family will invest a comparable amount in neighborhood development.
It’d be one thing if the Ricketts family was demanding a $200m handout in exchange for nothing. I’d be really angry about that. However, if the Ricketts family is willing to invest $200m in “neighborhood development,” that interests me. If they have concrete plans, projections, and analysis that would show this neighborhood development would allow the State to recoup its money, if not profit from this reimbursement, then I’d be willing to listen.
I have a hard time seeing that happen, but I’m open to the possibilities.
by Outshined_One on Nov 12, 2010 1:13 AM CST up reply actions
probably just timing luck, but Jim Edgar didn't suck
Illinois needs a downstate Republican Governor to offset the Chicago Machine.
and I know politics is taboo and a can of worms not worth opening. That’s what I have to say about that question and THE END.
WWOZ.org - New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Station
by Gibbon Jockey on Nov 11, 2010 9:12 PM CST up reply actions
We need a governor named Jim. Of course we could have had 4 more years of Jims but the state elected Blagojevich in 02.
Formerly known as cubstoseriesby100. Thanks Al for letting me change my outdated screenname.
by puckishcubsfan on Nov 11, 2010 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
I want to know why I never go the email.
I am used to all the nice email to season ticket holders.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
Cubs never end up in spam folder
Maybe they are afraid I will make a stink. I don’t really have a strong view besides it is surprising it took the Cubs this long to join the taxes should help us teams. They might be the last MLB team that did not use local taxes for something. Can’t blame them for wanting them when they see what Sox/Yankees/Mets get.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 12, 2010 8:55 AM CST up reply actions
Maybe they booted your season ticket account
Better pay up now! Now! Now! Now!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 9:19 AM CST up reply actions
I got a confirmation
They get my Amex Payment in Jan.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 12, 2010 9:29 AM CST up reply actions
I don't blame Ricketts...
…for trying to get some state money, especially considering Wrigley and the environment drives a lot of state, county and city tax revenues.
With that said, this is real bad timing to be asking for tax dollars to upgrade the ballpark. I realize it wouldn’t mean a new tax or an increase, but it does mean those tax dollars would be pulled from somewhere else.
The state is in financial dissaray and it will be interesting how this unfolds.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Do you think it's time they start shopping for naming rights to the ballpark?
I know we’d all hate for it to be called Motorola Field or Walgreens Park it’d sure help pay for the renovations without using taxpayer money.
Perhaps
But I’ll tell you one thing for sure, one of those names you mentioned will NOT happen.
Just win the next game...!
Probably not Motorola?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
You're probably correct....!
ding, ding, ding…
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 12, 2010 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
I'm in "solutions" and with our mgmt
I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Just win the next game...!
Honestly...
…I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already. Maybe Ricketts is trying to get the state to commit first, and then he will go after naming rights for additional money.
The market is down now for this sort of thing, but they could fetch at least $200 mil over a 20 year period for naming rights, probably more.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
If they do naming rights...
… it will likely be for the Triangle Building. Those rights could go for as much as the ballpark, because they would be put on a building that gets exposure on Clark St. year-round.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I don't see...
…the naming rights of the Triangle building fetching as much as the park, but I may be wrong.
Every time the park is mentioned (national TV etc.) the name of the company is stated, and that has extreme value to a large corporation.
They may end up doing naming rights for both with seperate companies to maximize their return.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Agreed...
local eyeballs driving down Clark St definitely wouldn’t fetch as much as having the announcers on Fox/ESPN saying “Live from So and So Park”.
Selling the naming rights would be a major mistake.
Remember the reaction to Zell’s talk about selling the rights in 2008? Not one but several organizations sprang up to try to stop it. The bad publicity for both the Cubs and whoever buys the rights would all but eliminate the money brought in. There is a significant percentage of the fan base that would hate such a move. With each negative move the owners make, such as the Toyota sign, they alienate more and more fans. A company that sells things to consumers cannot afford to keep letting a percentage here and a percentage there of their base get away. You don’t think it will hurt in the long run? All I can say is the White Sox owned this city in 1959. A series of bad marketing moves helped kill that and even when they won the World Series, the Cubs pulled in more attendance by I think almost 800,000.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Nov 12, 2010 10:18 AM CST up reply actions
1959 =/= 2010
The Cubs can’t always be concerned with what fans will hate, especially in regards that don’t affect the team itself. Yes, some idiots will not like it, but it’s better for the team’s fiannces, and eventually the roster, in the long run. You make a lot of assertions with very little proof; all sorts of famous stadiums have gone down or been renamed in the past, and its usually a hiccup if that. And if Cubs fans care that much about how their urine-soaked antique of a stadium is named, then F them anyways.
Rays/Cubs fan - AnotherCubsBlog.net
Not too sure the Ricketts can maintain an attitude of F the fans and succeed.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Nov 12, 2010 10:44 AM CST up reply actions
And let's compare attendance for two years the Sox played in the World Series.
1959
Sox 1,423,144
Cubs 858,255
2005
Sox 2,342,834
Cubs 3,100,262
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Nov 12, 2010 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
Oh agreed
There’s no reason to disenfranchise the base. Still, as a responsible owner, he has to realize where fan input matters and where it doesn’t. If someone is that disenfranchised by a name that they won’t attend, I don’t think they are legit revenue stream for the Cubs in the first place. Nothing about Wrigley Field’s “value” or “history” is compromised by a name change from where I stand; still the same bricks and scoreboard and what not.
Rays/Cubs fan - AnotherCubsBlog.net
No one...
…can stop them from selling naming rights and I’ll guarantee people will get over it – especially if they can start winning with regularity.
If I was Ricketts, I would do it in a minute.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
They no doubt waited until after the election to announce this.
And they need a governor on their side like the Sox in 1988. They should have at least given the governor a call.
This quote from this article:
Gov. Pat Quinn said Thursday that he had no knowledge of the plan. "I haven’t been briefed at all. It’s news to me. … I don’t know anything about it right now."
One of Lee Elia's 15%
Maybe
They only briefed Bill Brady
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 12, 2010 10:20 AM CST up reply actions
Totally agreed.
Just a couple of local companies that’d be contenders. If I remember correctly, the going rate for the new Mets Park was $20 mil/year by Citi. I know that was a) a few years ago before the recession and b) a NY market which can attract higher prices. But what if you signed some big company to a 20 year deal, I’m sure it’d help pay the bills.
Apparently
Repair the steel and concrete.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 13, 2010 5:09 PM CST up reply actions
As much as I love the Cubs
I’m against corporate welfare. If they want to renovate Wrigley, let them pay for it.
Well I don't believe in Government welfare either
Chicago has one of the highest sales tax rates in the US. Up to 10.75% until it was recently lowered to 9.75%.
I have friends living in Chicago and their property tax bill just went 50% from last year. Don’t tell me that’s right. Mine in a nearby suburb – up 9.3%.
I’m tired of politicians telling me how bad Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois are in debt. It’s like they’re flaunting – “Look how crappy a job we did running these places.” It’s like no one ever planned for a rainy day (like today).
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 13, 2010 5:06 PM CST up reply actions
Wrigley is perfect as is
what are they going to do with the money?
Win a pennant, sell a bunch of t shirts, theirs a revenue enhancer for you.
13- Warner, 23- Sandberg, 40- Tillman, 11- Walter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
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 Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
