The Future Of Wrigley Field
by Al Yellon on Nov 16, 2010 3:05 PM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
PrintThis is a very difficult post to write because, from the beginning of this site, I have asked people to stay out of political discussion. This is because regardless of our political beliefs -- and there are many of us here, so those must be varied -- we all want the same thing, for the Cubs to win the World Series.
That is one of the three things that Tom Ricketts stated were his family's goals when they bought the team -- to win the WS, to preserve Wrigley Field, and to be good neighbors.
The proposal made by the Cubs to have a $400 million public/private partnership, however, teeters on the edge of political discussion because of its very nature. The Cubs are asking to use some public money. The current economic climate has led some people to think this is a bad idea, no matter what the purpose. It's not quite as simple as some make it out to be when they say, "This is public money for a private project." Nor is it "an even larger entertainment tax", as stated by The E-Man in his FanPost.
It is a difficult time for anyone to ask for public money to be spent on anything when cities, states and other government entities are in financial crisis all over this country; we all know Chicago, Cook County and Illinois are not immune to that. However, one of the other things we know is that this is in part due to high unemployment. The proposal made today by Tom Ricketts -- and supported by dozens of labor leaders and community leaders who were at today's news conference -- I believe addresses this without taking money away from anything else. The projects the Cubs want to undertake here will create at least 1000 construction jobs -- admittedly, those would only be for the length of the project. But jobs would also be created by the then privately-owned shops, restaurants and other things in the Triangle Building project -- and those workers would pay into the taxing system. That part of the project is being privately funded by the Ricketts family. It doesn't make sense unless the other portion -- which would renovate Wrigley Field -- is also done. This is not being paid for directly by tax dollars.
The way I understand it, the amusement tax generated about $16 million in 2009. That amount of amusement tax is guaranteed in perpetuity. It is only the incremental amount of money above this amount, each year, that would be used to retire bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority -- the same entity that financed the Cell, helped with the United Center, and paid for the Soldier Field rehab -- to pay for the Wrigley renovations. Cubs president Crane Kenney told me that tax revenues that would be generated by the economic activity that is created by these projects is projected to be many times over the amount of amusement tax that would be used to retire the bonds. If there is a shortfall, the 2% hotel tax that is currently retiring bonds for the Cell and Soldier Field would be used, once those bonds are paid off -- even if the repayment period has to be extended beyond the currently planned 35 years.
Here's where we get into possible political discussion, and please. I urge you to not retreat behind party rhetoric or talking points here no matter what your personal beliefs are. I had a discussion with someone in attendance at news conference, after it was over, who I know to be of a different political opinion than myself on this issue. But we were able to make our points to each other reasonably and listen. I ask that you do the same here. Some people feel no tax money should ever be used for private projects and the private sector should generate jobs. The fact is, though, that in recessionary times government and private business should work together, and if they do, the sum total can be greater than if both worked separately.
Wrigley Field is the third-largest tourist attraction in the state of Illinois. Every other sports team in this city has benefitted from the ISFA. To me, it's a win-win for everyone. A better ballpark -- including better player facilities, something many here have been talking about forever -- more jobs, and an improved neighborhood. All the community and business leaders in attendance at today's news conference are on board with the Cubs on this project.
After the jump, some renderings of what Wrigley Field and environs might look like when this is all done.
One more reminder: please, no political attacks here. Make your arguments, make them cogent, don't attack the poster. Thank you.
Proposed improvements to Wrigley Field
Click on image to open a larger version in a new browser window. Depending on the size of your display and browser, it may require some scrolling. If you find it to be too large, click here for a smaller version.
Proposed "Cubs Alley" which would be in between the Triangle Building and the ballpark
Click on image to open a larger version in a new browser window. Depending on the size of your display and browser, it may require some scrolling. If you find it to be too large, click here for a smaller version.
What an improved Wrigley Field concourse might look like
Click on image to open a larger version in a new browser window. Depending on the size of your display and browser, it may require some scrolling. If you find it to be too large, click here for a smaller version.
Proposed Cubs clubhouse improvements
Click on image to open a larger version in a new browser window. Depending on the size of your display and browser, it may require some scrolling. If you find it to be too large, click here for a smaller version.
741 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
preserve Wrigley by any and all means necessary
as a huge baseball fan, from out of town, its easily my favorite place in the country to watch a ballgame. i might get some heat for this but its much, much more valuable than one WS title.
"Yahan Sentona's strikeouts are way down this year" Jake Liscow
I love Wrigley.
But I want a World Series. With this proposal, I believe we can have both. It combines upgrades to the ballpark with first-class player facilities.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Exactly
While I havent been a Cubs fan for as long as some, (20 years or since my first visit to Wrigley when I was 6) I have to say that even though I appreciate the nostalgia of the ballpark, I care infinitely more about the team winning than what the park looks like. If ownership was to make Wrigley look like an amusement park and the changes generated payroll that made team better equipped to win the world series I would be fine with it. Fortunately it seems a lot of the proposed changes will keep the viewing experience in the park just a great as ever. Hopefully the deal for improvements gets done
Jinxed
As long as the Cubs play at Wrigley Field, they will never make it to the World Series. I’m a 50 year die-hard fan and I realize this and all of you should too. This is an old relic and should be turned into a museum and move on to a new place like everyone else has in baseball. There is too much bad karma going on to EVER get over it. It’s just a piece of property, like the house you grew up in, but you don’t live there anymore, do you.
by Michael Callanan on Nov 17, 2010 7:55 AM CST up reply actions
No Jinx but just one of many problems with not winning WS
I don’t think Wrigley Field is a jinx, but I have to wonder if it puts the Cubs at a disadvantage:
1) Night games restricted – no Friday nights to ease travel
2) Outfield walls seem mighty permanent – not like the Cell where they move in wall to match team hitting or maybe take out to help pitching
3) Wind blown days, Have no idea where I am going here but it would seem this is not common elsewhere
4) Lousy facilities – even if you can attract good talent I bet it doesn’t help the moral
5) Cubs/Wrigley got short end of stick form Mayor Daley – over the years no public money to improve. All other Chicago teams got something. Maybe not just because a Sox fan but Tribune writers being critical of him over the years put last nail in coffin.
6) Because Wrigley a tourist attraction attendance is high in summer even with crappy team – results in money when team not winning- fostering idea that will make money no matter what. Cub fans seemed to have changed a bit on the 1984 – 2003 die hard to 2003+ we want a winner and we wont fill bleachers in September with bad team.
Rebuttal/comments
1) I believe the Friday night situation will be addressed soon. It’s only 2-3 times a year
2) No, they do not do that at the Cell.
3) So? It affects both teams
4) This is going to be addressed by the proposed improvements
5) You have a valid point here. Perhaps things will change with a new mayor
6) This may change starting in 2011. Ticket sales will be REAL interesting starting in February.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
As to 3 I think the contention might be, that although it does effect both teams, the other teams in the league aren’t going to be faced with it except when they come to Wrigley.
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
Should be an advantage then.
Our players should be adept at dealing with it – fielding the ball should be more challenging to the opposing team who only sees that wind ever few months, not our starting left fielder who’s in it one out of every two nights.
Nobody on the packers is complaining about the undue cold they suffer at Lambeau – they embrace it as an advantage other teams can’t prepare for.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 2:01 PM CST up reply actions
I didn’t say that was my opinion, i honestly haven’t thought much about it, I was just saying that’s what I thought was meant in the original comment.
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
The cell has changed the outfield
Maybe is was part of their 3 yr renovations but they are shorter than when built.
As to whether MLB allows the walls to change I don’t know but it does seem to happen at other parks – maybe on a scale of 5-10 years but I think it does.
So four of the six point historically were valid issues – not turning a 66 win team into WS champ but maybe just enough not to make a wild card or division title once to twice – especially if not able to land FA or trade because player didn’t want to play here.
BTW I love the park and I’m not saying to tear it down or move, just that the park , although not a jinx could have been a factor (not the only one) in why the Cubs did not win a WS under Tribune.
IIRC, teams are allowed to change the field dimensions before any season.
Bill Veeck tried something like moving fences in against the Senators and Browns, and way back against the Yankees when he had the Cleveland Indians and Municipal Stadium. Thus the rule that the fences have to be the same all year. (With certain minimum lengths in force.)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 7:18 PM CST up reply actions
to point 3 - wind
My point was Cubs woudl have to deal with it what – 2-3 times in a 10 days homestand where individually only 1 visiting team has to deal with it. Not just wind blown bloopers, but seemingly ordinary fly balls that turn into gut wrenching home runs.
Have the new bleachers in any way impacted the wind blown homers?
I wondered if some of the wind issues we related to the actual construction of Wrigley? I mean I don’t really remember hearing about wind blown homers at the cell or 23-22 10 inning games – only what 10 miles away?
I don't have any empirical data, but I feel reasonably confident saying...
…that the bleacher expansion has probably slightly increased the chances of home runs at Wrigley.
When the wind blows out, it’s blowing out – more bleachers really don’t matter. But when the wind is blowing in, the higher bleachers tend to block some of that wind. So those line drives that stay low have a better chance of reaching the seats because there’s less wind blowing in down low, whereas before bleacher expansion, they might have been just short.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
We don't have to speculate on wind.
There are lots of ways to measure how a ballpark affects batted ball outcomes. I’ve read a decent amount of this stuff, and I believe this: even if Wrigley isn’t the picture of an average ballpark it’s not an enormous outlier. It’s not Fenway, where the guys doing defensive stats can’t figure out what to do with LF data. It’s not Coors Field, where they had to change the condition of the ball to get the run environment under control. It’s not Petco or Safeco, which are widely complained about and appear to inhibit their teams’ ability to sign power hitters. They didn’t have to take a flagpole out of CF like in the park formerly named after Enron.
The only ballpark feature synonymous with “cheap home run” in the popular lexicon (i.e. the Crawford Boxes or the Monster, which are known to affect players’ plate approaches) is the basket on the outfield wall, and that’s only really because of Joe Morgan. Wrigley gives up home runs with its short power alleys and takes them away with its deep corners. There are slugfests with the wind blowing in and pitchers’ duels with the wind blowing out, according to the performance on the field, just like at other ballparks. In fact, if you look at hittrackeronline.com, which models how various environmental factors affect home run distance, you’ll see that wind effects at Wrigley aren’t that wild, that most outdoor parks have crazy wind-blown days from time to time. Wrigley surely helps the all-around offensive numbers of fly-ball hitters, but now that so many parks are built in its own image, it doesn’t stand out like it did in the past.
As far as wind-blown homers at the Cell, check hittrackeronline.com. According to that site’s model of ball-flight dynamics there have been plenty of wind-blown homers on the south side. They just don’t get the attention that they do up in Wrigleyville.
Upgrading the ballpark...
…guarantees nothing. You still need people running things that know what they are doing, and I see no signs it is a priority to get that taken care of.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
No matter what your opinion on this is, give the Ricketts credit
These guys do nice drawings.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 3:20 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Was about to say exactly the same thing.
That concourse image is incredible – it LOOKS like Wrigley, but with all the modern stuff i wish Wrigley had at times. If they can pull that off, i’m VERY excited to see it.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 16, 2010 3:23 PM CST up reply actions
I love the picture with the Castro and Marmol jerseys
Those two will be retired by the time the state coughs up any dough.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 3:55 PM CST up reply actions
How about the Soriano jersey just to the left?
Poor kid – wonder who he pissed off…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Per Caddyshack
“You’ll get nothing and like it!”
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 7:21 PM CST up reply actions
As I mentioned in another thread...
WSCR is reporting that IL House Speaker Michael Madigan has announced that the Cubs have withdrawn their request for the bond issuance.
The Cubs have subsequently released a statement from Tom Ricketts that neither confirms nor denys this.
Just heard that too.
I think they got too much flack from “pundits” and the ilk.
Writing quality posts since 1931.
I have heard no such thing.
It would be very strange to withdraw this only three hours after that news conference.
And I have heard no such statement from Tom Ricketts.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Madigan...
.. they have had a soundbite from Madigan where he is saying that the Cubs proposal has been scrapped.
I have to believe that was taken out of context.
It’s simply not possible for them to have had a huge news conference, then three hours later scrap the whole thing.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
context
I’m not sure how it can be taken out of context when someone is quoted as saying “its my understanding that the Cubs have withdrawn their proposal.” Now perhaps they’re going back to the table and are going to fix things up… however the Illinois House Speaker is under the impression that the Cubs have withdrawn their proposal.
What I find amazing...
…is the Cubs didn’t have any dialogue with the Governor and it also sounds as if the Mayor was in the dark as well.
This reminds me of what McCaskey tried to do back in the 90’s, when he went to the City with a proposal to build a new Soldier Field very close to the Chicago Stadium. The problem was, the land he wanted to build on was owned by Wirtz and McCaskey didn’t bother to talk with him about it before he went to the City – big big mistake. Wirtz picked up the phone and called the Gov, and that proposal was off the table in about 5 minutes.
It’s sounds as if some similar miscalculations have taken place here as well.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
My sources have told me that no such thing has happened.
The Cubs have NOT withdrawn their proposal. Period. Have no idea where Madigan got that or where or when that soundbite is from, but it is incorrect.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Maybe not...
…but they didn’t use a very good strategy in getting this going. Ricketts is reminding me more of McCaskey each and every day.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I dunno about that comparison.
But you’re right in that they probably should have had more meetings and told more people before this all became public.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Good for them.
Again, I have been told it is false. I assume they’ll be told the same thing I was.
You need to stop listening to sports talk radio.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Wow
You get a opinion in your head and get mad when everyone don’t agree with you. Sorry Al your not always right.
Never said I was.
But in this case, WSCR put something on the air that was not true and didn’t check to see if it was before they aired it.
That’s not an opinion, it’s fact.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
So its sports radio's fault...
… that Michael Madigan told a reporter for the Sun Times that the Cubs withdrew their proposal?
Michael Madigan is incorrect.
I’d say WSCR should have checked with sources before putting it on the air as fact.
I checked mine.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
sorry, this is nonsense
Whatever the facts are, this is a story and they should have put it on the air. This is a direct quote from the speaker of the Illinois House…from one of the most powerful people in the state. This isn’t a third person newsbit that they got from some random source… its straight from Madigan himself. So the story is either that the Cubs have withdrawn their proposal or that the communication between the Cubs and the powers that be is terrible.
Al, you clearly have a problem with sports radio and thats your choice, but to blame sports radio for playing a quote from Madigan makes no sense to me.
Did you even read what I wrote?
They should have checked their sources to find out if it was true or not. Clearly, they did not, because you posted it as if it were fact, which it is not.
The communication is a different issue and I tend to agree with you there. However, WSCR did not do its due diligence. I did, and it took me exactly one email to find out the truth.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
WSCR
We have no idea that WSCR has done to fact check. If you look at my initial post on this, I said that
WSCR is reporting that IL House Speaker Michael Madigan has announced that the Cubs have withdrawn their request for the bond issuance.
WSCR is not coming out and saying that the proposal has been withdrawn… they played the quote from Madigan and have also read the statement from Ricketts. They await comment from Ricketts directly on the Madigan statement. Thus far, nothing that WSCR has reported is incorrect.
My feeling is that Madigan is playing politics with this.
… as he often does, trying to get the ball in the other party’s court.
I stand by my statement. I have been told by sources I trust that the request for the bonds has NOT been withdrawn.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sports Radio
I wouldn’t say stop listening to sports radio but don’t take what you hear there as the gospel.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
I heard it too
Hello Mr Y- this seems to be breaking news as of 3:30 today. however, it’s not clear if its a “matter of verbage” and there remains no definative answer on this.
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
That link seems to say it's wrong.
Ricketts’ spokesman says “nothing has changed”. It does appear that Madigan is playing politics with this — that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Tom was just on CTL
and Kaplan asked him about Madigan’s comment and Tom said it was a misunderstanding on Madigans part.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
So that's a lot of angst about nothing.
And again, WSCR should have checked to see if it was true before airing it. It took me one email to find out it wasn’t.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Pretty much.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
WSCR
WSCR also aired Ricketts comments. They presented it as the Trib did. Your anti-sports radio bias is coming through here. Madigan’s comments were news, whether it was true OR an example of how this situation is being handled.
News, maybe.
But they should have checked to find out whether it was true or not, then aired that as well. They didn’t.
You’re right, I don’t care for sports talk radio. This is a good example of why.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
how do you know, Al
Do you have insight into the exact events that led to WSCR’s airing of Madigan’s comments, and whether or not they did their due diligence?
by dmlichte on Nov 16, 2010 8:46 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
No, I don't.
But clearly, they aired something that turned out not to be true, and they didn’t ask the Cubs for their reaction, which came later. This caused people to believe Madigan’s statement was the truth, which it is not.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
However, Madigan making the statement was true and it was news which they reported. I would imagine that, if he wants to make false or unverified statements, the responsibility for the accuracy of the details in the statement should be on Madigan. The responsibility to report the statement and check the accuracy of whether it was made would be on the news outlet.
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
Agree completely...
…Madigan saying what he said was news, and there should be no issue with reporting that.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
But... but... but... it's sports talk radio!!!!
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Again, Al,
WSCR did check with the Cubs. They immediately read the reaction from the Ricketts’ spokesman and also sent the audio snippet over to the the Ricketts for direct comment. WSCR did not say that the proposal had been pulled, they said that House Speaker Michael Madigan was quoted as saying that it had been withdrawn. This isn’t a comment from a third party, its a comment from the freaking speaker of the Illinois General Assembly.
I've said it before..I will say it again
Retarded idea to spend that much money on a stadium this old. Build a new one already!
If they can move out of Yankee Stadium....
…and all the history there, why can’t the Cubs do the same.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Two points.
1. Land was available adjacent to Yankee Stadium to build. Not so much here.
2. Who paid for the new Yankee Stadium? That’s right, the city and state of New York.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm not saying...
…the state shouldn’t pony up dough for a new park, but it may be time to really analyze whether building a new one somewhere else may not be best.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Location Needs to Be Accessible to CTA
Wherever a proposed new park would be, I feel having it accessible to public transportation would be very important to alleviate parking and traffic hassles in a major, major city like Chicago.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Regardless of where any new park would be built...
… it would cost two to four times as much as is being requested here.
Renovation is the way to go.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
fine players for everything and use it for Wrigley upgrades
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
see, its (wait for it.....wait for it.....0
an AMAZING ida
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
Truly amazing!
Soriano and ARam are worried….
Wait a minute only Castro and Beef are taken to task for anything….
You can exhale veterans!
but only if they exhale coins
that can be turned into a shiny new metal plate for the seat number
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
by Cubbie-Tim on Nov 16, 2010 7:14 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
At this point it would...
But were still putting Band-Aids, Ribbons, and Bows on a 100 year old Park. More renovation money will be spent in the future. If the Cubs are gonna spend that kinda money…I say spend it all at once and be finished with this mess year in and year out for 50+ years.
Nothing you say here is incorrect.
It’s not different than when the city of Seattle put $70+ million into renovating the Kingdome and then had to blow the thing up before they even paid it off. Then the same city put a bunch of money into renovating their NBA arena, just to have the team bolt for Oklahoma City after a decade.
Eventually, one way or another, Wrigley Field has to be replaced. When the homers and idealists and pipe dreamers figure that out, maybe we’ll figure out a fiscally-responsible plan for the short term and the long term.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Nov 16, 2010 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Just like Fenway Park has to be replaced?
Nonsense. Wrigley Field is as in good shape as any 96-year-old building in the city, and better than most.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yes...
just like Fenway Park will have to be replaced. It’s nonsense to think that won’t happen some day. Just like Comiskey Park. Just like Yankee Stadium. Just like the Boston Garden.
BTW… it’s funny how you ask for people to be respectful and not attack, yet you keep saying things are nonsense. Is it too much to ask for you to be respectful while disagreeing with someone… or do you just get to do it because it’s your site. I’m sick of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Nov 16, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It is my opinion that what you say does not make sense.
Do I have to say “it is my opinion” before everything I say here? I’m pretty sure everyone knows that.
And you are incorrect again. The Red Sox have put hundreds of millions of dollars into renovating and upgrading Fenway — they did at one time propose a new Fenway, but changed their minds. Fenway as is could easily last another 50-75 years. That’s what the Cubs want to do with Wrigley.
Fenway Park will not be replaced in my lifetime, or yours.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I intend to live a very long time
We can't win at home. We can't win on the road. I just can't figure out where else to play!
-- Pat Williams
by Fat Punk Kicker on Nov 16, 2010 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Long in enough to see more than one WS win is my goal
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
by eths on Nov 17, 2010 9:35 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Good Place For New Stadium?
It won’t happen any time in the foreseeable future, but I was wondering where a good place for a new stadium in Chicago would be.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
the western suburbs
Arlington Hieghts has been discussed in the past, as I believe, was Addison.
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
Addison was only re: the White Sox.
They rejected that idea. Arlington Heights wouldn’t work, either.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Oh, you'll ask why, of course.
Because it’s a dumb idea to put a stadium on the fringes of where the fanbase lives. Just ask the people in the Phoenix area if they like having a football and hockey stadium both on the far western edge of the metro area.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Nope, no asking "why"
If I didn’t trust you, I’d find another site! But, thanks for the info. I guess I’d forgotten it was Sox not Cubs interested in Addison.
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
Altough, I got to say
I’m no longer certain we suburbanites aren’t a larger part of the fanbase than many think! until the last several years, I and my amigos went to 4-10 a season. No, not daily, but maybe more if a better product and closer…
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
The suburbs take in about 50 miles from north to south
and 25 miles from Austin Blvd. to Naperville. All the roads and rail run into the city. Arlington Heights is central to Arlington Heights.
Arlington Heights
If I remember correctly, the plan was to tear down the Arlington Heights Race Track and put a stadium there. That was back when the track was having financial issues, which do not exist anymore, so that isn’t an option.
floating stadium on lake michigan
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
Man, talk about your "floating crap games"...
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 16, 2010 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
but think of the shape you would be in
after ballhawking in the water. well, as long as you dont mind some COOOOOLD water in April, May, June, July, August and September
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
The name's ballHAWK, not ballduck...
My swimming days are long behind me. I remember taking lessons when I was a kid. Remember the “dead man’s float”? All the other kids floated – I sank. Seriously.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
McCovey Cove is cool
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 6:29 PM CST up reply actions
get a life jacket :=)
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
Buy Horner Park from the Park District
And build a park at Irving & California. Accessible from the west from the Blue Line + a short trip down the Irving Park #90 eastbound, the east from the Brown Line stop at Irving and Ravenswood (#90 Irving westbound) and the north from the Rockwell Brown Line stop (where you can practically walk to the park). As Horner stretches 4 blocks north to south (Montrose to Irving) and is nearly two blocks deep east to the river from California, you’d have ample room for parking. To help pay for the land at Horner, sell Wrigley to the Park District and let them milk it without the pesky annoyance of having to cough build a championship team on the field.
That’d be the only feasible place on the North Side, methinks. Aside from the that, they’d have to hit up the ’burbs.
Just win a goddamn World series SOMEWHERE please.
Hi Swoosie
Maybe some sort of mueseum? We could show off all our WS troph…erh, our NL Champ tro… um… Our NL Central pennants? :]
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
"Retarded".
Not acceptable language here.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Nov 16, 2010 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
At The Very Least
You didn’t use that word to describe a person. Now, that would have been bad.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
I know what he's insuating....
I think it’s rather goofy to even be doing it. I think he’s mad I don’t agree with him and the Rickett’s about this idea. This is his way at getting back at me and making himself look good.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don’t allow the language you used on this site. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with you or not. If you had agreed with me and used that language, I’d still have told you to stop.
Don’t do it again.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Wow.
I’m trying to wrap my mind around this. But I got nothin’. You’re not gonna win this battle, buddy.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
"Hidden meaning"?
You used a word that is not permitted on this site. What “hidden meaning” is there? There are plenty of other words that can be used to express what you said. Why didn’t you use them?
Accuse me of anything you like, but you’d be wrong.
Simple fact: DO NOT USE THAT WORD HERE. Period.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
How About "Ridiculous"?
That could have been an acceptable “r” word.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
For someone who's been a member here as long as you have,
I find it difficult to believe that you haven’t figured this out by now…
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
I think he just needs to buy a thesaurus.
Or use this online one.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I know what your implying...
I have followed your work even before this current blog. I meant nothing to a mentally challenged human being as your suggesting. If you didn’t like my choice of work you coulda emailed me or sent me a messy on facebook privately. I would have understood your point and quickly corrected a “I guess mistake,” but you trying to belittle me in a public setting was a bit too much Al.
I have been on here long enough to garner such respect. I also know your of Jewish faith and I’m of the Christian. You have allowed the “GD” curse words many many times in several posts which I have never preyed upon even though it offended me. If such post with that sorta talk were used against your faith I trust they wouldn’t have turned out “unmonitored”.
Most of us are Adults here and in this day and time alot of words used can have alternative meanings which can offend someone somewhere and I realize that. In this case you know darn well that wasn’t the case. I respect you but this coulda been handled in a private setting.
That language has been called out many many times; you're not the first.
Also being on here a long time means you should know better. And just because some people say “GD” doesn’t mean you can say what you did.
Trust me.
I’ve called plenty of people out for this and other examples of language that should not be used, right here.
It’s real simple. Don’t do it. I’m happy to have you here. It was not intended to belittle at all.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You coulda handled it different...
It can be done just as easily in a private setting! Until any of you watch your own child die in person after birth from a defect don’t freaking judge me. To prey off my words really pissed me off. I didn’t mean anything disrespectful to a mentally challenged kid. Like I said I can sit on here all day and find alterior meanings to words.
Al handled it fine.
You are the one over reacting.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
It's a blog.
Get over it already.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
Sue, Cubsluver22 does have a point
You most often show up in instances where other posters are having a dispute, especially when one of the people is Al. While this is not technically incorrect or against any rules per se, it does characterize you as a sycophant or toady who has nothing unique of her own to contribute.
Good form would suggest keeping your nose out of other people’s exchanges, even if one of the combatants uses an ugly pejorative.
by EalyEagle on Nov 16, 2010 11:06 PM CST up reply actions 16 recs
She's as bad an instigator as BLou used to be...
… from a certain point of view.
by Flatley on Nov 17, 2010 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
A-freaking-men!
I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen a baseball related post from Sue. It’s always sticking up for Al and his policies.
by kanderber on Nov 17, 2010 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Then you don't read enough.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
This is rich coming from you.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
LOL, really?
My ONLY purpose here is to read about and talk about the Cubs. You clearly have a different agenda. All you have to do is click on your username and look at your recent posts to see your contributions (or lack thereof) to the community.
by kanderber on Nov 17, 2010 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
There's not a lot
of interest in baseball right now for me but I do read here every day though. I can offer my opinion on anything posted here just as you do.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
Ludicrous, Silly, Unwise, Bad, Ill-Conceived, Absurd, Foolish
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
?
1. underdeveloped: not fully developed
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
Less Expensive to Renovate
Building a new stadium right now would be more “developmentally delayed” than renovating Wrigley Field. Fewer tax dollars would be needed for a renovation. I don’t know if tax dollars need to go to renovate Wrigley right now with Illinois being in dire financial straits. There are more important things than baseball.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Gonna pile on...
…because as a middle school special education teacher and 4th year PhD student, that word conveys a very antiquated view of the world. It’s no different than using words to oppress minorities, sex, gender, etc. This month is the 35th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It’s time to start acting like it.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
It's all good...
But rest assured I will be reading you guys post and preying upon every word that you use in a comment to see if it could have “alternate” meaning which “could offend” someone!
"retarded" doesn't have another meaning.
Maybe like “flame-retardant”?
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Actually, it does. Though these "alternate" meanings were clearly not the intent.
re·tard
/rɪˈtɑrd, for 1–3, 5; ˈritɑrd for 4/ Show Spelled[ri-tahrd, for 1–3, 5; ree-tahrd for 4] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
–verb (used without object)
2.
to be delayed.
–noun
3.
a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.
4.
Slang: Disparaging .
a.
a mentally retarded person.
b.
a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
5.
Automotive, Machinery . an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark for ignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
by fsuapollo on Nov 16, 2010 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Holy cow
You’re being rather sensitive about this and just making yourself look worse. Saying you’re going to prey on the posts of others now just makes you look like a petty little boy.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
I thought...
…the United Center was privately funded by Wirtz and Reindorf? What money did the ISFA provide for that project?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
If we could make these improvements,
that ballpark would be immaculate. Also if we could get these improvements in by 2014, I feel like we would have a very good chance to sneak past Selig and the alternating AL-NL All Star Game Schedule to get the 2014 All Star Game of Wrigleys centenial. If not, I think we would be a lock for 2015
It Is A Gamble With the Money
If the Cubs can get the renovations done, will the Cubs recoup the money with Cubs Alley and better concessions? Will the Cubs have better teams to get more fannies into the seats to spend money at the park? I don’t know the answer to those questions.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
tax increment financing
what ricketts is proposing is a variation of tax increment financing (TIF).
couple of quick points:
- the $16 million is not guaranteed. since the revenue generated by the amusement tax is dependent on ticket prices, ticket sales, and the tax levy. if ticket sales drop (now or in the future) it’s possible there would be no increment to capture and even a shortfall to the $16.1 million.
- the cubs are already near the top of the scale in ticket price/cost to see a game. being able to cover the bond issue would be dependent upon continued increases in ticket prices, attendance, the tax levy or all three. how much can prices reasonably be expected to increase before there is a drop in demand?
- the state of illinois is in serious financial distress, bonds backed by the state and an unstable amusement tax are likely going to require a higher yield to attract investors. making the cost/risk to taxpayers that much higher.
i’m not a fan of TIF to begin with, but this is a particularly bad plan. it will likely lead to higher ticket prices and taxes on those tickets. no thanks.
by circuitclout on Nov 16, 2010 3:41 PM CST reply actions 9 recs
Further
who do you think would underwrite this whole thing? My money would be on Rickett’s own people
who would underwrite it?
people that buy tickets,
if people don’t buy enough tickets, then the state gets the bill,
and by the state, i mean taxpayers.
by circuitclout on Nov 16, 2010 10:29 PM CST up reply actions
Can someone clarify something for me?
From what I originally read, Ricketts was looking for approximately $200-300 million from the state for Wrigley, while simultaneously pledging $200 million for ‘community development’ (or whatever little name he gave it).
Why doesn’t he just pump that $200 million into Wrigley himself and let the community take care of itself? Admittedly, I haven’t had time to fully dive into all the details of this, but I just want to make sure I’m not missing something blatantly obvious.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Triangle Building
The community development that Ricketts is referring to is the construction of the Triangle Building. That is considered community development because it would be in use year round with shops, restaurants, etc. There will be employment opportunities and taxes generated by this building, which improves the community.
So basically
Ricketts is saying that if the state pays for Wrigley, he will privately fund the Triangle Building.
So wouldn't the reverse be more logical?
I understand it’s pretty much the same thing, but it seems like the Triangle Building actually does create more jobs/bring in money to the community/etc.
Also, what will happen first: the Cubs win the World Series, or the Triangle Building actually gets built? I really hope I don’t die waiting to find out.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Could a possibility be that The Family wants to fully fund the Triangle Building because it would give them greater control over any money coming out of it? Maybe they are willing to concede Wrigley is a public site (not sure about the terminology) thereby trying to pass off any future renovations as a public good and to pass the expense off on the city, state or whomever, while keeping the newer Triangle Building as a revenue generator for themselves?
Does this make sense?
Also what happens to the surrounding bars with this new entertainment corridor?
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
It isn't about logic
It’s all about greed. Rather than fund the improvements to Wrigley, the Ricketts want to use that money for another investment that will generate more profits for the family. Perhaps in 15-20 years, they’ll come back to the state again and ask for public funds to refurbish the Triangle property.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Companies everywhere try to get deals from their local governments to make more money - this is not news
At least in the case of the Cubs, there is a pretty noticeable amount of money being generated for the local government because of their existence. As long as the local government is taking a 12% cut of the sales, the Cubs should have a right to ask for some of that money back. They also have the right to be denied.
Not one thing has changed
since Ricketts bought the Cubs. The fact that other large businesses feel they are entitled to some things that other small businesses never receive, the scales of justice are uneven. Suppose every business that generates tax funds wanted their “fair share” as the Cubs claim? It’s just plain wrong and all the spinning in the world can’t justify special treatment for the Family Ricketts.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
by tharr on Nov 18, 2010 6:06 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Where is all this hate in the Mesa threads?
Why is Ricketts only a thief when it’s IL public funding that he’s looking for? Cubs fans can’t have it both ways – either both deals are shady or neither are.
I don't hate the Ricketts
Actually, I believe they’ll be decent owners of the Cubs over the years. However I hate the arrogance that says give me $200M in free money so I can invest my personal $200M to make investments that will make me more money. They bought the asset, and after 1 year they want a bailout. Sorry. In business, caveat emptor.
A final note. The difference between Mesa and Wrigley is huge. It’s called a public vote versus an insider deal.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I suppose it is bad timing....
The White Sox were handed a blank check (though Jim Thompson muscled it through the Legislature) and were given a new stadium and a pretty cozy lease on top of it. The Bears were given as much of a handout as the Cubs seek.
Daley’s position is comical. Now that he is leaving, he is a financial conservative.
Wherever you go, there you are!
Bad comparison...
It’s not the same economic climate as when they got theirs. Maybe the Cubs should have asked then. I didn’t like that those teams got their money, so I’m not going to be a hypocrite and say that I want the Cubs to get theirs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Nov 16, 2010 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
Eh...
… this logic isn’t the most sound argument against this. All evidence points to the ECONOMY recovering… slowly, but it’s starting to happen. Retail was up in October, the stock market has been touching it’s highest levels since 08, consumer confidence is raising…
It’s the stubbornly high unemployment that is the main lingering problem at this point… businesses are sitting on their cash, reluctant to invest in new employees… and frankly this sort of development is what is needed to aid that.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 16, 2010 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It's funny...
… i remember sitting in Milwaukee during the Zambrano no-hitter in September of 2008 and my buddy (who works in finance) got a call informing him what was going on with Lehman. Hewent from pins and needles elated about the game to depressed and dreading the next day at work… totally ruined the night for him. What a weird couple of years it has been…
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 16, 2010 4:16 PM CST up reply actions
Recession Is Over (Not Getting Worse)
That’s the good news, but how quickly will the economy recover? Yes, there are some encouraging signs, but I’m not convinced the economy is going to get that much better too quickly.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Well...
… i have lots of theories about how this “recession” was more of a “correction”, and the fact that people have spent the last two years paying down debt instead of spending wildly might be a good thing on the micro level even if it means the economy recovers more slowly on a macro level… but that is neither here nor there.
The fact is, the main thing we (and by “we” i mean the state of IL, i guess) need to fight right now is unemployment, and in that regard, this plan is not a waste of money… 1000 jobs in the short term and a seemingly decent number permanently is nothing to sneeze at.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 16, 2010 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Fair Enough
I believe there were too many people buying too much house and too much car that led to the economic downturn.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Sure, but there's something tied up in that
When people bought too much house and too much car that stimulated the economy beyond a realistically sustainable level. So the prosperity that preceded the downturn was fake. That’s why people call it a “correction”. Because the prosperity was the problem.
Now, Americans have been buying more than they’ve been producing by a pretty wide margin since the ’70s. And that continues to this day. So there may well be a larger and more fundamental correction coming up. So… stay tuned for that. Or hyperinflation (that is to say, total chaos).
Nobody was ever as rich as they thought they were.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 11:33 AM CST up reply actions
It's not going to get better for a while
The QE2 that was attempted the other day is going to send us into hyper-inflation. If you look at certain commodities, cotton is over is 100% higher than a year ago, Corn is sky-rocketing and oil seems to be trending upward. Inflation in a bad economy will only make things worse.
My friend Billy Ray thinks pork bellies are going down.
I asked him why and he said…
Okay, pork belly prices have been dropping all morning, which means that everybody is waiting for it to hit rock bottom, so they can buy low. Which means that the people who own the pork belly contracts are saying, “Hey, we’re losing all our damn money, and Christmas is around the corner, and I ain’t gonna have no money to buy my son the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip! And my wife ain’t gonna f… my wife ain’t gonna make love to me if I got no money!” So they’re panicking right now, they’re screaming “SELL! SELL!” to get out before the price keeps dropping. They’re panicking out there right now, I can feel it
.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 16, 2010 9:46 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
so build a new ballpark out of pork bellies?
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 in the CBOE seats...
Do you want the lobster, or cracked crab?
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 7:26 PM CST up reply actions
too bad it wasn't beer bellies - we'd have that sucker built in no time.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Overall, inflation has not been an issue
You can’t take one or two commodities that are going up to make your point. You have to look at the entire population to make a case for inflation. If you looked at the wider population, you’d see that for the near past, prices have remained constant.
by jerry morales rules on Nov 17, 2010 3:01 PM CST up reply actions
huge topic drift...
I agree that for the near past, prices have remained constant. But can you (or anyone) explain why heath insurance premiums keep going up. I mean seriously up. Way over the rate of inflation. For me personally, 10+% each of the past two years. That’s over 20% in just two years!
I understand the concept of passing along the increased cost to the customer. What I don’t understand is what has gone up 20% for the insurance companies? And if it’s not the insurance companies, just keep tracing it back from there. Hospitals, doctors, pharmcos, med equipment makers, etc. etc. What has gone up 20% in the last two years?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Profits.
Executive Bonuses.
Americans Filing for Bankruptcy from Medical Bills.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 8:26 PM CST up reply actions
Americans are filing
because there house is upside down.
Medical cost go up for many reasons as you stated, one that escapes many is Tort reform.
Hard to legislate that
when so many in congress, both on the state and national level, made their money that way.
It never gets to be easy.
Why the fuck doesn't it ever get to be easy?
by chitownhawkeye on Nov 17, 2010 10:37 PM CST up reply actions
Tort Reform? Red Herring
The biggest backer of tort reform are insurance companies, because it hurts their bottom line to insure crummy doctors and companies that cut corners and create dangerous products.
Lawsuits are ~0.01% of medical costs. I will leave it at that before Al slaps my hand.
Wherever you go, there you are!
by Dan Serafini on Nov 18, 2010 8:39 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Not true (RE: lawsuits' impact on medical costs).
Wherever you go to get your information, you should probably stop going there.
This is political discussion unrelated to the topic.
Take it elsewhere.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That's why I left it short.
I don’t plan on continuing this line of conversation. When someone’s wrong, they’re wrong.
I'm going to
give you the benefit of the doubt that you are bright enough to realize that, while the direct cost of lawsuits might be a small percentage of the cost of healthcare, the indirect cost of defensive medicine (entirely a result of outrageous malpratice culture) is astronomically higher, and amounts to a large, alebeit undefined portion of healthcare costs.
DEJESUS!!!
Absolutely correct!!!
Technology in advanced medicine costs money and the United States has a lot of technology when it comes to medicine.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Correct
Expensive technology without a correlative medical benefit is another big reason why American medicine costs more than anywhere, yet we don’t have the best healthcare in the world. The influence of capitalism on American medicine is not always a good thing.
DEJESUS!!!
Best healthcare in the world is here
and why so many folks come to the US for care. It’s not the influence of capitalism that has a negative affect, it’s the “I’m gonna sue you for every penny you have” mentality that forces Doctors to cover their collective asses every chance they get because there’s some greedy-ass lawyer out there licking their chops waiting for someone to yell, “malpractice!”
Just win the next game...!
Being a "greedy-ass lawyer" I'm going to disagree with you
But leave it at that so as to not derail Al’s thread further.
The healthcare in the US
is not the best in the world by just about any measure. It’s just th most expensive.
DEJESUS!!!
So where would you rather live and get treated for cancer, heart-disease, HIV, etc...
Sweden? Morocco?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 5:02 PM CST up reply actions
U.S. health care IS the best in the world
Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world doesn’t have the same pathologies among its population as the U.S. does (obesity, murders, etc.), and that’s why the results aren’t as good.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 18, 2010 6:02 PM CST up reply actions
The rest of the world also doesn't keep the statistics we do...
so their numbers aren’t the same as ours.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 6:07 PM CST up reply actions
The whole industrialized world
keeps statistics of infant mortality and life expectancy. We are one of the worst for infant mortality, and not at the top of the list for life expectancy. I’m not sure how obesity and murder affect life expectancy statistics, but the infant mortality statistics are not complementary for the quality of our health care.
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/misc/publications/centerpiece/spring09_vol23_no2/feature_alexander.html
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 18, 2010 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This is a perfect example. You know why our infant mortality stats look bad?
Those other nations are really picky about what they call a live birth.
Here’s some enlightening reading for you…
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
Every single thing that a woman delivers which takes even one breath or one heartbeat is detectable is called a live birth in the U.S. Our medical systems/doctors here are able to get problematic pregnancies to a viable delivery date more so than anywhere else in the world. We simply do a much better job at keeping pregnancies going and getting fetus to a deliverable state than anywhere else, and we don’t give ourselves a free pass if the delivery doesn’t go well.
If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a "miscarriage" and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.
Statistics are only as good as the data they come from. Ask any random woman on the street or in your family if she wants to get pregnant and go have her baby in a hospital in one of those other counties and get back to me.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 7:07 PM CST up reply actions
Perhaps
you should get your scientific data from sources other than a site without citation, links or numerical data called pajamablog.com. The blog you cited is nothing but cherry-picked “data”.
I really think we’re off topic here, but I will make one more post because..I don’t know, ego I guess. And it’s a topic I’m interested in.
There are some differences in how some countries define infant mortality. However, the WHO standardized infant mortality reporting for the most part in the 90s. Most Industrialized countries now use the same definition of a live birth (born at any gestation with signs of life).
And if you standardize the definition of “infancy” across countries (as done by the CDC here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm) you find that the US position improves, but is still among the worst. And while the Us has more preterm births than other nations, if the US had Sweden’s preterm birth rate (low), we’d still have a worse infant mortality rate, despite having an enormous dollars spent advantage.
I never said US healthcare was terrible. It’s not. But it’s not the best in the world, and it’s by far the most expensive in the world. The reason, in my opinion, is that there isn’t nearly as much capitalism, greed and profiteering in medicine in other countries. The goals in medicine in other countries, while not perfect, aren’t as malaligned as here. And it pains me to say that, since I’m a doctor.
DEJESUS!!!
Notice how data in such areas
is conveniently parsed.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 22, 2010 12:34 PM CST up reply actions
No
Us health care is extraordinarily expensive (16% of our GDP is spent on health care—other industrialized countries spend closer to 8%). For that money, you’d think we would have extraordinarily good health care. But we don’t. We do a great job with cancer screening and tests, and if you want a specialist, we have lots of those.
But other indicators of the quality of health care don’t support the notion that we have quality commeserate with the dollars spent.
There is a lot of avarice among insurers, pharmaceutical companies, malpractice attorneys/patients and developers of medical technology, and some apathy and laziness by providers. Sometimes good health care comes as a by-product of the greed, but that’s not the primary motivation for many in medicine, unfortunately.
US health care isn’t terrible, it’s just wildly ineffcient when it comes to dollars spent. It’s kind of like a Jim Hendry-run team—some good, some bad, and so much money is spent that it covers up some of the terribly inefficient and wasteful practices.
DEJESUS!!!
You and I will get our care here
tomas21 can go to Sweden or Morocco…
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 22, 2010 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
Your right...
…and the US also has a lot of folks who aren’t US citizens who tap the healthcare system without insurance and someone has to pay for that as well. This is an issue that is much worse in the US compared to other countries.
LItigation, free care to non citizens, insurance company non-efficiencies and a high level of technology are the main factors that drive healthcare costs North.
In other countries, they can control the costs and access much easier than the US, because they don’t have the same issues we have to face here. Those other countries also have a tax level that would be a serious wake up call for any US citizen.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Forget free care to non-citizens -- look at free care to uninsured!
The “illegals getting free treatment” canard is just that. Political football. We have millions of uninsured showing up in ERs with advanced conditions, and the cost of subsidizing their care is built into everyone elses.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Good argument on the taxes
Most of those stating the system here is bad don’t look at how that socialized systems have [median] tax rates triple of ours. But that doesn’t count….right.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 22, 2010 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
As per Al's wishes
This topic probably should be sent elsewhere.
By no means am I a macro economist, but the point stands that just because butter prices go up does not mean that the economy or that groceries are facing inflation. They MUST be taken as a whole. Once one talks about individual components all relevance is gone.
It’s like saying that since Colvin hit more HR’s, there were more HR’s in the major leagues. It just means that Colvin hit more HRs.
by jerry morales rules on Nov 18, 2010 10:15 AM CST up reply actions
Construction and manufacturing haven't rebounded yet
Once they do, then we can talk about the recession truly being over.
No, the recession IS over
Jobs are what’s called a ‘lagging indicator’. In other words, they are always the last thing to go in a recession and the last thing to come back in a recovery.
The real problem is, we’ve gotten away from Keynesian economics, and not allowing government to drive the private sector the way it can during a downturn or the early stages of a recovery. Even if we like the plan, it’s unlikely to happen with the strong current of ‘government does nothing good EVAR!’ that is running through the populace.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 6:26 AM CST up reply actions
You had me at investment
but you lost me when it was going to be paid for by the public. Why should a billion dollar company get preferred treatment. Why not give the money to the unemployed or to the businesses around Wrigley?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
So wait.
You’re OK with giving this to “businesses around Wrigley” but not to the Cubs?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
My point is that
it’s wrong to give special treatment to the Cubs. If they are entitled to $200m, other small businesses should be entitled to their piece of the pie. But, in truth, no one should get special treatment.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Wow
the Wrigley clubhouse looks like my HS’s fieldhouse – I generally dont trust politicians to do the right thing but AMEN to Ricketts for at least going after the money. Might as well ask.
It's gotta be nice to buy a team,
field a bad product, still make money, and then ask for more money from your fans.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Nov 16, 2010 4:00 PM CST via mobile reply actions 5 recs
If the Beatles can get on Itunes...
anything can happen
"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
nice!
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
He wants to win the World Series.
He “gets it.”
"All right, you ragtag bunch of misfits! You hate me, and I hate you even more. But without my beloved ringers, you're all I've got. So I want you to remember some inspiring words that someone else might have told you over the course of your lives, and go out there and win!"
by Lord Palmerston on Nov 16, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Please don't forget the /sarcasm tag.
Also, please tell me you were being sarcastic.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Not to mention...
keep most of the revenues generated for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Nov 16, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
"and supported by dozens of labor leaders and community leaders who were at today's news conference"
No kidding? Other rent-seekers support the actions of this rent-seeker?
This is my surprised face.
I think its a term of art.
Ricketts was surrounded by people (labor leaders, etc.) that would be benefitted by his plan.
Wherever you go, there you are!
by Dan Serafini on Nov 16, 2010 4:33 PM CST up reply actions
"Benefitted"?
Sure, in terms of jobs provided. That’s a pretty good benefit to everyone, I’d say.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Labor unions get the work, and pay union labor wages
Tom could probably do this work for half the money if he contracted with private construction companies like we all do when doing work to our homes on a budget.
Jack
derv
Like union members don't spend money in stores?
Perhaps we can get Tom to go pick up illegals in the parking lots of the local Home Depots. That seems to be what people want out of public construction.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 6:28 AM CST up reply actions
I'm guessing that
you’ve never taken an Econ class?
by Damen Jackson on Nov 16, 2010 4:38 PM CST up reply actions
I really like the drawings.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
Many errors on the Cubs part
The Cubs have bungled this from the get go. First, lets just acknowledge that businesses get tax breaks and sweat deals all the time. Secondly, every team in this town has gotten financial assistance with their ballparks and stadiums. Heck, I’m fairly sure that the Sox have gotten additional assistance for the various renovations to Comiskey.
That aside, how the Cubs and Ricketts have handles this just smacks of arrogance and a total disconnect with everything thats going on in the economy today.
First off, the Cubs “message” on this has been absolutely worthless. They have marketing gurus, however they marketed this horribly. They did nothing to soften the ground and prepare people for what was coming. They did a terrible job explaining the actual mechanism… regardless of what happens now, Illinois residents will believe that their tax dollars are going to renovate Wrigley when their cities and counties can’t afford their bills. The Cubs could have come out ahead of all of this, explained what they were pursuing, and talked about the benefits of a major works project. This will lead to jobs and it will be done during a time when labor and construction costs are down.
The Cubs just seemed to come out and feel that because they are who they are, this should happen. This morning on a local newscast, the Cubs and Ricketts were quoted as saying that the people of Illinois should support this because it will improve the Wrigley experience. So for $200M, we get a better Wrigley Experience? Sorry but thats what I’m supposed to get for the $70/game I pay to get in the ballpark. While there are lots of Cubs fans in this state, there are plenty of Sox and Cardinals fans and even more people who don’t care about baseball. What this is about is preserving a nearly 100 year old ballpark that has chunks concrete falling… its about preserving a historical landmark and its about helping the team remain at Wrigley. Again… have your marketing people help you on message here, folks.
Finally, this all just shows the disconnect that the Ricketts family has with the economic realities that the rest of the country is dealing with these days. Again, I go back to message here. Did they honestly have no idea that the people of Chicago, whose schools are struggling, who are seeing big problems with violence, whose streets are in disrepair, would have an issue with their proposal?
I am neither a fan nor a detractor of the Ricketts family however their handling of this whole thing has just been amateur.
by dmlichte on Nov 16, 2010 4:09 PM CST reply actions 20 recs
You nailed it!!!
rec’d
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I logged in just to green this
This guy gets it.
And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, who the hell is handling marketing and PR here?
by Damen Jackson on Nov 16, 2010 4:35 PM CST up reply actions
Thanks
IMO part of this is the problem with most businesses and industries, and something that I see with the company that I work for… we spend our work days and much of our lives focused on our business. The danger is that at times, we can forget that while we spend many of our waking hours concerned about the business’ affairs, our customers don’t. They have other stuff that they’re dealing with, and while its not asking a lot for a response by a certain date, or to have a form filled out, the customer has other stuff to deal with, too. I think that this is clearly evident with the Cubs here, and even more, it shows how nieve the Ricketts are to the things that their customers (and non-customers) are dealing with these days.
There also seems to be a sense of entitlement here on behalf of the Ricketts family.
When they say they have no Plan B it would tend to indicate that they believe the State has to cave in to their demands.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Nov 16, 2010 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think he's going to re-up with Cleveland. He's just a loyal guy.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Especially since he
doesn’t like playing 44 minutes in a game.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
thats why he has a tattoo that says LOYALTY
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
PS - Go Bucky
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Nov 16, 2010 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Well damnit do you have to make it so easy for me to give you a rec?
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Oh I dunno... things turned out okay in Mesa, didn't they?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
They had leverage in Mesa...
… they could have up and moved to Naples or elsewhere. Beyond that, these are different situations. I can’t speak to how they handled their message in Mesa, but here they handled it like a bunch of sixth graders.
Perfect dmlichte
As each day passes with this ownership I am getting a turbulent belly.
Sure it is early, but boy things are not going to smoothly.
no... not at all smoothly
Ricketts comes in, the team underachieves in his first year. He keeps his incompetent general manager who created this mess, makes no major changes to the front office, and announces that he is going to lower (albeit slightly) payroll. The proverbial corpse of the 2010 season is barely in the ground when Ricketts announces that he wants the state to issue bonds so that his team can upgrade facilities while the country is dealing with tough financial times. The county, city and state are facing major economic problems.
I have an open mind when it comes to Ricketts, but man, this guy has truly bungled his first year as Cubs owner. You’d think that someone, be it Crane Kenney or Wally Hayward would tell him to announce, ahead of the bond request, that the team will be slightly increasing payroll and intends to make a big splash in the free agent market (be it Adam Dunn or whomever). You make a $12M/yr investment to help you advance your goal of getting $200M and then you can make the case that you’re doing everything you can to bring a winner to the Chicago, but you need some big help to renovate the crown jewel of major league baseball… you need that help so that the team can continue to go out and compete for top tier talent.
I believe that Ricketts wants to win, but if this all is proof of his competence and the near future, we’ve got problems.
by dmlichte on Nov 16, 2010 11:51 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
You forgot...
…they are also raising ticket prices on top of it.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I'd guess that the Ricketts group forgot the old axiom
Always remember that putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t mean it’s not still a pig.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Unfortunately a number of people
don’t agree.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Bungled marketing, Arrogance, Failure to explain to the public
Gosh sounds a awful lot like my rants against ticket sales/marketing since the Ricketts took over.
Things are so messed up I am starting to miss Sam Zell.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 16, 2010 11:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
a major disconnect...
… between himself and reality. The hubris that Ricketts has shown in this whole ordeal is just mind boggling and he apparently has surrounded himself with others who just have no concept of reality. No one in his inner circle thought that this would backfire?
by dmlichte on Nov 16, 2010 11:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I love that people think that because
The Bears and the White Sox got away with stealing from the taxpayers, it justifies this.
Furthermore, I suggest that the state of Illinois buy me a new house. These new facilities will create jobs and improve my neighborhood. It’s a win-win for everyone.
by salparadise23 on Nov 16, 2010 4:10 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
I suggest that the state of Illinois buy me a new house. These new facilities will create jobs and improve my neighborhood.
Nonsense. You know that isn’t true. Buying you a new house does nothing for anyone but you.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Nov 16, 2010 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
nonsense
it will create jobs for the construction workers. Admittedly, those would only be for the length of the project. But think of Sal’s neighbors, seeing his new digs might inspire them to renovate themselves and creating EVEN MORE JOBS! Win Win right?
After that
I’ll start breaking windows, and create even more jobs.
by salparadise23 on Nov 16, 2010 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What if they bulid him a new house?
OK, I have no idea why I’m playing devil’s advocate here.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Well, you can come over and visit
Tickets are $50
by salparadise23 on Nov 16, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll come over for 5.
"All right, you ragtag bunch of misfits! You hate me, and I hate you even more. But without my beloved ringers, you're all I've got. So I want you to remember some inspiring words that someone else might have told you over the course of your lives, and go out there and win!"
by Lord Palmerston on Nov 16, 2010 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Are there dozens of bars around your house for all of your visitors?
Wherever you go, there you are!
by Dan Serafini on Nov 16, 2010 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll come over and stand on the other side of the shrubs for free.
Just throw me a ball every now and then. Thanks.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 16, 2010 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Aisle 424
had a fantastic takedown of this thing the other day http://424tales.blogspot.com/2010/11/if-illinois-gives-cubs-200-million-im.html
he sums it up nicely I think
Mostly because most States spent like drunken pirates...
when the economy was good, as opposed to creating an environment to weather economic storms.
But I digress…
by CubsWin!Oregon on Nov 17, 2010 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
Thank you Al
for your opinion and the great drawings.
However, until it is finalized as to WHO is paying for this, we will have to wait and see.
And my fanpost was clearly titled in part, “Shooting From the Hip…”, where my main point was/is, I do not want to pay more than I already do to sit in the Upper Deck boxes.
We already have the most expensive day at the ballpark in America.
We already have the most expensive day at the ballpark in America.
Try going to Fenway or Yankee Stadium or Citi Field and still saying that.
You did “shoot from the hip”. Your ticket tax is not being increased as a result of this proposal.
Now, will ticket prices go up in the future? Probably, but they have been going up anyway. I’ve posted my thoughts on whether I think they’re too high (they are, and the Cubs may be in for a rude awakening in February).
We’ll see where this goes.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Indeed...
The difference between the teams you mention, if the team WINS, consistently, people would not mind as much.
They are used to this in Boston and New York. At least the Mets have even been in a Subway Series during the heyday of Duran Duran!
Of course the Mets have not done well lately (hehe), but that’s another story.
People from Long Island tend to be more Mets fans…
True.
That’s one reason why the Red Sox and Yankees can charge the prices they do — more than a decade of sustained success. The Cubs don’t have that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Cardinals
The Cardinals prices are extremely high for a small to mid-market team. Much to my chagrin, they have had a lot of success themselves in the last decade. Ugh!
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
rebuttal
Try going to Fenway or Yankee Stadium or Citi Field and still saying that.
not relevant
Your ticket tax is not being increased as a result of this proposal.
not true
by circuitclout on Nov 16, 2010 4:43 PM CST up reply actions
The first part is without question true.
The second part is true only in the sense that the tax percentage is not being increased. Yes, if the ticket price goes up, the tax goes up.
But there is no NEW tax being levied.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
there are three ways
to increase revenue in this situation:
1. increase attendance.
2. increase ticket prices.
3. increase the tax levy.
#’s 2 and 3 are almost certain to happen over the 30 years or so that would be needed to generate enough revenue to pay off the bond issue.
by circuitclout on Nov 16, 2010 9:52 PM CST up reply actions
#2 will certainly happen.
According to what I understand, the projections regarding the amount of tax revenue were made assuming attendance could drop from its current level to 2.5 million — thus if it maintains the same level as now, #3 would not be necessary.
Further, as noted, if there is a shortfall it will be made up by using the 2% hotel tax levy now going to retire bonds for the Cell and Soldier Field. Again, no NEW tax will be made, nor will any existing tax be increased.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
so what you're saying
is that in 35 years the amusement tax will still be 12%?
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 9:23 AM CST up reply actions
what would possess you to believe that?
if they held the tax rate constant at 12% for the next 35 years they’d have to sell enough tickets (already selling 90+%) at a high enough price to create “the increment” needed to retire the bonds. if their projections are based on lower attendance then prices would have to go up to cover the loss in sales.
what’s the point of renovating wrigley field if no one can afford to go there to see a baseball game?
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 9:34 AM CST up reply actions
I expect marketing's focus to change, albeit tacitly
While repeat customers who are not season ticket holders may be priced out of Wrigley Field, first-timers “making the pilgrimage” will keep showing up in droves year in and out. I think the Ricketts family is taking note of this and readjusting their focus towards this demographic. In turn, this justifies (at least in their minds) asking the city/county/state for help maintaining and preserving baseball’s Taj Mahal.
marketing doesn't change the math
doesn’t matter who buys the tickets. you have to sell enough tickets at high enough a price so that the12% tax pays the state its $16 million plus the cost of servicing the bond debt. there is limit to what people will be willing to pay for tickets.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 10:10 AM CST up reply actions
And my opinion is that Ricketts believes they can
sell enough tickets every year at those prices, on the backs of folks coming in from Alabama to Wyoming. I myself don’t know if it’s feasible, but the boss may well think so.
That’s a gamble and it may work, but if the team keeps losing how many are going to want to make that pilgrimage if the team sucks? Unless of course they can get $10 tickets from season ticket holders trying to get some of their money back on StubHub.
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
According to Team Marketing Research
which is the respected source for cost comparisons in professional sports, the Cubs had the highest average cost per ticket at $52.56. They had the 2nd highest cost for a family of 4 including typical concessions and parking, $329.74 and the 2nd highest average cost for premium tickets at $256.98.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I am very skeptical of that figure
Because it does NOT include “premium” seating which the Cubs have the least amount of.The Mets and Yankees in particular have a large number of “premium” seats and Team Market takes those out of the equation which is simply a terrible way to come up with a legitimate “average” cost. It is not that the Cubs ticket prices are low but that the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox are definitely higher if you actually average the cost of all tickets.
Somewhere in retirement Frank Maloney is laughing at the idea of me “defending” the Cubs prices. I think the bleacher prices are outrageous but the Cubs do get a bad rap on the average cost figures.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 17, 2010 8:56 PM CST up reply actions
I dunno about that.
A typical family of four is going to skip right past “premium seating” on the price chart. The fact that those seats exist just isn’t relevant.
The corollary is that the Cubs probably could make games more affordable for the average fan and raise as much money by having steeper price gradations.
My guess is the Cubs have a higher portion of "affordable'
seats than any other major city park. The Cubs are skewered by insanely priced bleachers which is not likely to be the destination of family of 4 either.
The seats in the Terrace Sections (infield and outfield) average way under $50 as do the 500 sections. I rarely defend the Cubs but in fact they have a large number of highly affordable seats and if that family of 4 is serious about having a nice day without blowing their budget it is far easier to buy and bring food into Wrigley then any other park in the country. I NEVER buy any food or drink at the park.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 18, 2010 9:44 AM CST up reply actions
The Cubs are skewered by insanely priced bleachers
I think you meant “skewed”.
The Red Sox have a large number of affordably priced bleachers that are all $28 or less.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yankee bleachers just went up for the first time in years
from $10 to $15 for most but some are still $5.00
Conversely a ticket equaling my view ( Terrace Infield) would cost
a LOT more at Yankee Stadium.
Also on your correction, I should have written Cub FANS are skewered by insanely high priced bleachers.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 18, 2010 4:24 PM CST up reply actions
you have no idea what you're talking about
by circuitclout on Nov 16, 2010 9:52 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Think of it this way
You’re sitting in that Upper Deck Box seat and you look at your Cubs ticket. You see the Price of the ticket and the Tax.
Now ask yourself this: Where do you want some portion of that tax to go to? Because the tax is already there and the funds are being used by the City and the County.
I would prefer that some portion of that tax on that ticket goes towards renovating Wrigley Field.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 4:44 PM CST up reply actions
The Ricketts
Are nothing more than stock brokers that know just how to act and say the rights things to maximize their profits. They have lost my vote of confidence. Their not here to do anything for us but find ways to steal yet another dollar out of our pockets.
Their true colors are showing! I really thought getting rid of the Tribune Ownership would bode well for us and well it really looks like were in for just what we been getting……glorified losers on the diamond.
by cubsluver22 on Nov 16, 2010 4:28 PM CST reply actions 4 recs
I respectfully disagree with you.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Nov 16, 2010 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm honestly trying to find ways to stay on board.........
With what their trying to do but as of yet I see nothing but stock brokers trying to capitalize. I’m a lifelong fan who is a faithful follower and I spend as much or more than most on the product. I realize things can’t change overnight but all I’m seeing is a hardcore effort to extract even more hard earned dollars on fans like us that want nothing more than a winning a ballclub for once! We have spent enough money on losers let us capitalize on our money spent for once.
We are....
But efforts to get even more money for the “end product” is distasteful to say the least in my opinion! As of right now I don’t really give 2 shits about the current or a “New” Wrigley Field. I want to see and be able to get on aboard with the visions for the “product” on the field!
If the Ricketts bought the Cubs to make money
than they must be really, really bad investors. Still they do have a stockbrokers mentality in terms of using other peoples money and crunching numbers in a way that is actually devoid from an actual good product.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 16, 2010 11:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
fwiw...
There’s a difference between wealth creation and wealth redistribution (Stock brokers don’t “steal money out of your pockets”). Which is why I don’t find sympathy with this viewpoint (even as I’m not sure I support taxpayers helping finance for stadium renovations).
by CubsWin!Oregon on Nov 17, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions
It's too bad
I really was hoping our next owner would be someone who went broke trying to win us a World Series in the next few seasons with no regard for the team’s best interests in the long-term. Maybe next time.
Looking at the long term viability of the Cubs staying at Wrigley
$200 million is really not that much money to ensure that Cubs stay at Wrigley for the next 50 or so years. Just about all the stadiums built in the 60’s and 70’s are already gone. So in terms of value, this seems like the best deal for the money rather than starting over. Getting that $200 million is the hard part.
I dunno...
I can’t be sure that no matter how many band-aids we put on that structure, it’ll make it (safely) another 5o yrs???
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
If I came to you and said:
“If you build a new RETRO ballpark (even if not at its current location), and this will exponentially allow you to have a shot at winning a pennant or World Series.”
What would you do?
Joining the modern baseball era like the winning orgs: more night games, better in-park player facilities, etc., etc.
I have maybe 30-35 years more this time around, and I want to see ONE, if that is what it takes.
Ballparks don't win anything. This is a franchise that has spent so much freaking $ in the past 20 years on dumb things and in dumb ways...
the stands/field/ambiance aren’t the answer.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And in fact...
… new player facilities are part of this proposal. See the renderings above.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Those don't win anything either.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
Well..
…. they can help, right? Better workout facilities for players might help them be better players?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
NO Al. No no no no.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:53 PM CST up reply actions
Good lord Al....
you’re pinning the lack of a WS on the north side to the state of the workout facilities?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Oh, for heaven's sake.
Of course that’s not the single factor that would change everything.
It would certainly help.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
not enough to warrant asking you and others to pay for it outside of the revenue generated by the team.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 6:03 PM CST up reply actions
The "win shares" of ballparks
I think their true value comes in the form of 1) advertising space and 2) luxury seating. Now, Wrigley Field has increased the amount of both in recent years, but it still falls short compared to other stadiums.
you have
probably paid for better facilities than the cubs have with your taxes at high school and university facilities all over the state
Both of which are PUBLIC properties....
can you seriously not understand the difference between tax $ funding the renovation of a public HS vs. renovation of a private ML baseball team’s stadium?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 19, 2010 10:47 AM CST up reply actions
I don’t know MLB ’09 tells me different. My players are always bitching about having to work out at the Y and take the bus on roadtrips.
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
Will any of that $400 million be used to improve sightlines from the grandstand?
"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
$400 million is only 3 Soriano contracts. Taxpayers don't need to fund this bullshit. If you can't afford to do it...guess what...YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO DO IT.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 4:40 PM CST reply actions 9 recs
recd
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
Ricketts would have been better served bringing some leverage to the table
Prior to asking for this, they should have looked into building a park outside the city limits and done some of these fancy drawings and brought it into the mayor’s office as a threat. you absolutely have to have some leverage on your side, especially in this economic climate when public spending on such things is even less popular than it normally would be.
valid point
This is just a request for funding, it lacks an “or else…”
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
and coupled with the fact that the main reason so many municipalities and the economy in general is in such dire straits...
is because so many people and governments decided it was a good idea to spend $ they didn’t have. Nobody is learning their lesson it seems.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 4:49 PM CST up reply actions
A threat to who, Daley?
Threaten Daley? A sox fan, over the Cubs? Come on…
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions
really?
do you really not believe the mayor of chicago, regardless of his team, realizes the massive economic benefit the city receives from the Cubs organizations? Come on…
How does Ricketts threaten to pull the Cubs out of Chicago?
No one believes that is a realistic idea. Now you have gone from a $400 to $500 million public/private project to a $1 billion+ project. And that is why no one has floated the idea.
And Daley is leaving office in May. The Cubs could not move fast enough on any threat to make it credible to Daley. There is no whay he would take the threat as realistic. Daley would just say “You may want to discuss this with the next Mayor.”
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 9:13 AM CST up reply actions
One of the few times in the last 20 years or so when I actually agreed with Mayor Shortshanks...
…was back whenever the Bears had their hand out, weren’t getting what they were hoping for, and started making noises about relocating to Gary. At which point Mayor Daley sez something to the effect of “Sure. Youz guys go ahead and move. But don’t even tink about takin da Chicago name wit you. Call yourselves da Gary Bears for all I care.”
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
They can't have thought...
…that seeing Todd on Undercover Boss would somehow endear the family to us enough that it would soften this blow…could they?
Mark Cuban wouldn't have asked for this.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 4:54 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
correct!
nice to seeya santos! gotta go. This just might be one of those topics for which no correct answer exists?
on the sands of hesitation, lie the bones of countless millions, who, at the brink of the best, sat down to rest, and resting...they died. Author Unknown
Given the state of the team, finances, and the economy...the correct answer does exist...
but everyone is too giddy about getting new cupholders in the seats and a triangle museum to showcase Mark Grace’s ashtray collection to realize it’s too much $ and nobody can afford this right now.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 4:59 PM CST up reply actions
Why?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Because Cuban's proposal to buy the Cubs was also highly leveraged.
He might have found himself in a similar financial situation. We just don’t know.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
He might have used the brain in his head and decided that coming off a total turd burger of a season and in a recession (it isn't over by the way), isn't the time you ask the taxpayers to give you $200.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
not good = idiotic
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 6:02 PM CST up reply actions
On Cuban and Owners In General
I can’t blame Cuban or Ricketts or any owner for asking for government money to fund stadium or arena projects. The huge question is whether or not government (the state of Illinois in this case) should fund it.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
If you can get someone else
to pay for your stadium, why not do it?
I don’t think that’s going to happen, nor should it. I guess the Rickettses haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on in Illinois (and all over the country) the past couple of years.
Talk about being absolutely tone-deaf. Horrible, horrible job by Tom and the siblings.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 18, 2010 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
I think the biggest reason the timing sucks is that anyone who doesn't think that this was all
part of the Ricketts’ plan to start with is delusional. You could smell this stink a mile away. There was always too much dislike of the Trib and Sam Zell for them to even think about asking for it, but Ricketts figured that he could play up the whole “I’ve been a fan my whole life” schtick and everyone should be thrilled to send over a few truckloads of non-existent taxpayer money.
I really thought, and hoped that when AT&T park was built with private funds that this whole nonsense would stop.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
by davidalanu on Nov 17, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Tom sure has some balls...
to buy this team and then ask the state for all this money a year later, especially considering how few resources the state actually has.
I haven’t followed this story too closely, because I figured Tom would quickly be told no, but does this have anything at all to do with the proposed mall on Clark St? What’s the latest with that?
You mean the hotel proposed for across the street?
Haven’t heard anything new about that lately.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No...
I was talking about the little shopping mall concept that was talked about a couple months ago. The one that would knock out Mullen’s, the iO Theater, etc.
That is the all part of the same thing - sprawling hotel/condo complex fronting Clark and Addison...
…with storefronts of various sizes (at least one anchor store and lots of smaller ones) at street level.
No ground broken yet, but I believe the necessary zoning changes have been approved by alderman and city.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
"The proposal made today by Tom Ricketts ... I believe addresses this without taking money away from anything else."
Pure fantasy. There is no such thing as free public money, or we would all be out riding our government-provided solar-powered e-cars to the free health clinic.
There is always a choice to be made when you talk about government resources, taking away from one program to pay for another – or even if the choice is between raising taxes to pay for something new, or not. Unless they choose to add the cost to the state budget deficit. Then your kids and grandkids pay.
If the Ricketts family wants to float bonds, maybe I can see a case for state-backed bonds having a lower interest cost. But all this doubletalk about not affecting future amusement tax revenues is horse hockey. It’s money that the state would otherwise get, going to a private company.
“Because every other sports team got a deal from the state” is not an argument, it’s an excuse.
If this is supposedly not costing the taxpayers anything, why doesn’t Ricketts just float the bonds himself, and hike marquee bleacher tickets to $95? It’s not our fault they overpaid for the team by about $400 million. If you’re buying a “fixer-upper”, you should factor that into your offer.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 16, 2010 5:19 PM CST reply actions 5 recs
State-back bonds??
From Illinois? With their credit rating? Well, that would definitely kill any overhaul.
And the 12% amusement tax does not go to the State of Illinois. It goes to Cook County and Chicago.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 11:55 PM CST up reply actions
I'm mostly in agreement with this.
Or rather, I’m basicially entirely in agreement with this, but it hurts my poor lil Cub heart to say it because I think the renovations would be really cool. But alas, it’s about time people learned again to tighten their belts. Most especially when it comes to taxpayer money.
by CubsWin!Oregon on Nov 17, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions
Putting it this way
I don’t fault the Ricketts family for trying to do this. Like it or not, they are businessmen. By owning the Cubs, they pretty much have to explore every avenue possible when it comes to profit-seeking. If I owned a business and I could benefit my business through State assistance, I would be a fool not to pursue it. Why shouldn’t the Ricketts try to use political means to benefit the Cubs? It’s in their best interests.
However, as has been mentioned above, the current economic climate is substantially different from the days when Chicago and Illinois were happy to throw around money for the benefit of other sports teams. This proposal was horribly timed. I’ll give the Ricketts family credit for not threatening to move the team (although I don’t think anyone would have bought those threats for a second), but coming out and announcing to the world that you’re going to seek government assistance during one of the worst budget crises in national history is pretty dumb.
What made it worse was how everything came out. First we got the proposal to fund Wrigley’s maintenance and renovations, accompanied by vague promises of neighborhood development. We got pretty clear details on how the Ricketts were going to get money from the government, but we got next to nothing on what the Ricketts specifically planned on doing to Wrigley and the Triangle Building. So, instead of coming out and specifically outlining how they wanted to undertake these renovations and this new building along with some vague talk about negotiating public/private partnerships, we instead got the opposite. By the time all of this stuff came out, everyone had made up their minds on these plans without knowing about them.
Now, this fiasco may have been planned for whatever reason so that their next proposal (the toned down real one) looks reasonable by comparison. However, we’ll see how they handle the next step.
by Outshined_One on Nov 16, 2010 5:46 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
For all of those who compare Wrigley to Yankee Stadium...
Steinbrenner basically ransomed NYC and the state as he never spent a dime on improving Yankee Stadium. Yes, he kept the playing surface first class, but the quality of the stadium for the fan was a total piece of trash. So, New Yorkers threw money at Steinbrenner to get rid of that toilet bowl called Yankee Stadium.
Unfortunately, Cub ownership has continued to facelift Wrigley to make the park an enjoyable experience for the fan (as best you can for a 96 yr old stadium). It is funny how an “acceptable” Wrigley experience will hurt any Cub owner from ever getting any public assistance in a major renovation project.
I am just thankful that Cub ownership has not taken the Steinbrenner route for public funds.
Carlos Silva lemonade: made from freshly squeezed Milton Bradley lemons. -- the Jim Hendry kook book.
Holy hell, I wish Cub ownership would take the Steinbrenner route for running a baseball team.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
"I don't care who the manager is OR who they sign in the off-season...I want a frickin' World Series winner" - Easy Ed
They already are
Unfortunately they decided to pattern themselves after the Middle Steinbrenner years instead of the Later Steinbrenner years.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Actually that scenerio is closer to what the White Sox did
in letting Comiskey run down. The old Yankee Stadium was not that bad but Steinbrenner had
Rudy in his pocket and got the sweetest deal of all in terms of financing & publc land.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 16, 2010 11:33 PM CST up reply actions
Al
I hope you dont take this as an attack but lets be honest- you always take the ownership/team side of things. When the Trib owned the Cubs you were strong Trib man until they left. Now its like Ricketts is your long lost cousin or something. You have thrown objectivity out the window on this matter and some of your economic reasoning shows why you are better suited to run a blog on baseball than on economics.
end rant
by CalCalender on Nov 16, 2010 5:50 PM CST reply actions 4 recs
I have never said I was an expert on economics.
I will say the way this was brought to the public was very poorly handled and the timing wasn’t good.
But it still could work to produce jobs and economic development that could help everyone. I note that while you say I “always” take ownership’s side of things, the general tone in the blogosphere seems to be that anything Cubs management does is wrong.
The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. I didn’t take it as an attack and am happy to have an open discussion. I think people have done that here.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The general tone
might be like that right now because they really aren’t giving us much to work with. You have been a fan long enough to know that next year probably isnt going to be one to remember. And now all this drama.
Again, I really, really, REALLY want to believe in the Ricketts family and believe they will be the good stewards that we deserve. But I am just not seeing it right now. All I got are reduced payrolls, reality shows, a bad baseball team and now corporate welfare.
by CalCalender on Nov 16, 2010 5:57 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
Agreed completely
I want to believe in this ownership group, but damn, they sure have botched quite a few things in their short tenure.
by shoemile on Nov 16, 2010 7:06 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it has been quite impressive!!!!
by TJ11 on Nov 16, 2010 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
TJ's on a roll today
You should create an account under the name “iljazzman” and start disparaging everyone who disagrees with you on this issue.
like a buttered baby?
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
o' hamburgers
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
by Cubbie-Tim on Nov 16, 2010 7:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
LMAO
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
That is what I take out of the Ricketts
ownership so far. The cover of the book looks good, but inside no content.
YEAH BUT THEY'VE INCREASED SECURITY OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT!
Because that helps us win.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Short list of things Cubs managment has done right...
1) gotten rid of the two-toned away cap
2) ……um…..
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 5:58 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
If they bring back Coke and get rid of Pepsi
I will gladly support higher taxes ( of course I don’t like in Illinois) and a 10 year extension for Hendry even after he signs Dunn to 7/105 contract with an NTC>
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 16, 2010 11:35 PM CST up reply actions
I always thought Pepsi tasted sweeter than Coke.
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
I don’t really have a preference, I prefer my Bourbon with ginger ale or on the rocks.
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
Coke is more acidic.
I don’t know about sugar.
In my “chemistry for non majors” course, back in the day, we did some fun experiments on household stuff like this.
I'm with the Diet Coke people.
I’ll drink Diet Pepsi, but only if I have to.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Truth does not always lie in the middle. Someone argues, "We landed on the moon in 1969."
The other side says, “No we didn’t. It was faked in a studio.” The truth is not in the middle. The Ricketts family is trying to use public funds to subsidize their private investment at a time when tax revenues are too low to finance the programs most people agree are desirable. That’s not an opinion, that is a fact.
by the nth on Nov 16, 2010 11:24 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
It seems as though Al has been drinking too much of the kool-aid they must serve at those “private events” reserved for the front office and media. Maybe this has skewed his objectivity.
by meagain on Nov 16, 2010 6:57 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Hardly.
I know you have an ax to grind. If you have constructive criticism, I’m all ears. Throwing out a random accusation like that isn’t going to make you any friends.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Phil Rogers says Yes, Tribune Editorial Board say No
If you haven’t seen it, Tom Ricketts sat down with the Tribune Editorial board and Phil Rogers on Monday. Rogers says the Cubs deserve the public funding. The Tribune Editorial board says the state should not take on bond debt now.
What scare me the most about the editorial:
The city and county also would forfeit the option of increasing the amusement tax
Increase? It’s 12% now. The city and the county need a higher tax?? I fear what their mismanagement would do with the additional funds.
I’m in favor of the Wrigley Field renovations and the use of part of the Amusement Tax to pay the ISFA issued bonds. I think people need to look ahead (these would be 35 year bonds) and not just at the current economic condition. Recessions don’t last forever.
If the City, County, and State are in debt, that is due to poor fiscal management from our elected officials. That is not then fault of the Cubs.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 6:03 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
well
with the state of things in IL alot of us feel ANY money we collect is better spent on things that matter. You know like keeping critical services going and paying state employees before we worry about a baseball team
by CalCalender on Nov 16, 2010 6:06 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I wish it were that straight-forward
but the amusement tax goes to the City and the County. it goes to the same people that brought you the Hired Truck Scandal and the $24-9 contracts of Carla Oglesby.
You (the city/county/state elected officials and managers) can’t just feel that way in the bad times. You need to have fiscal discipline and ethics in the good times too.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 16, 2010 7:20 PM CST up reply actions
We have way too many city, county and state employees now. Get rid of a 1/3 and then let's talk.
We have the highest sales tax in the nation, high property taxes, of which 54% go to the Chicago public school system, which is one of the worst in the nation with the highest paid teachers in the nation, our roads stink and the corruption and murder rates are some of the highest in the nation- AND YOU WANT TO TRUST THE SAME POLITICIANS to spend the tax money increases wisely? That is stupid. Float the bonds, taxpayers don’t pay for the bonds-INVESTORS DO. god are people stupid on this board.
I am with you
The waste in government both state and federal is beyond belief. 30 years in the service and DOD.
out of context
you took the quote above out of context, the full quote is:
The city and county also would forfeit the option of increasing the amusement tax to pay for things like cops or garbage pickup or health care until the bonds are repaid.
the city and county could increase the amusement tax, but that increase would go to repay the bonds and couldn’t be diverted to pay for essential services or cover deficits elsewhere.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 10:38 AM CST up reply actions
How do you know what the tax proceeds are being used for now?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
i don't, and i don't have to
the point being made by the quote is that under this deal the city and county would be committing any increase in the amusement tax above the $16 million to retiring the bonds, so they wouldn’t be able to use any future increase in amusement tax revenue to fund other programs, deficits, etc.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
Only
the amusement tax on cubs tickets would go towards repaying the bonds.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 11:12 AM CST up reply actions
Do you agree...
…that if the increase in amusement tax that the city and county would have otherwise collected goes to paying off bonds, they’ll make up for those funds elsewhere? In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul?
It just seems if the city and county don’t get their dollars from one source, they’ll tax another source to make up for it. AKA, a new tax.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
by calicubfan on Nov 17, 2010 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Stop using past history, logic and common sense in this debate about government's actions regarding money.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 17, 2010 6:48 PM CST up reply actions
And let's be clear about the Amusement Tax
The only portion of the Amusement Tax that is be used to repay the bonds would be the Amusement Tax on Cubs tickets and I assume other Wrigley Field events.
Not bears, blackhawks, bulls, sox tickets. Not concert or movie tickets. All of that money would still go to the city and county.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 10:57 AM CST up reply actions
Maybe you have a link that explains that?
If the Amusement Tax on Cubs/Wrigley tickets only goes to support Wrigley projects, what have they been spending the Amusement tax collected from Cubs tickets on so far?
And if the renovations are going to be paid back exclusively with Amusement Tax payments from Cubs/Wrigley tickets in the future – where is the sense of using this funding mechanism in the first place? Why can’t Ricketts just slap a surcharge on the face value of the tickets to pay back his own bonds, and cut out the government middleman??
No matter how people try to explain it, you’re using taxes as corporate welfare here. And as I said before “But.. But.. All the other teams got money” isn’t an argument for spending scarce public resources today, it’s a justification.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The Amusement Tax does not go towards Wrigley projects today
None of it today goes to Wrigley Field. The Amusement tax probably goes into the City’s and County’s respective general funds.
From today’s article
Under the Rickettses’ proposal, Chicago and Cook County would be guaranteed each year the $16.1 million in revenue that was generated by the amusement tax in 2009, but everything above that would be used to retire the bonds.
Cubs attendance in 2009 = 3,168,859 per ESPN
Cubs 2009 average ticket price = $42 per Forbes (assuming this includes the 12% amusement tax)
Ticket revenue = $133,092,078
12% amusment tax = $15,971,049
My math and my sources may not add up here. But you would not need to entire amusement tax to pay down these bonds.
And if Ricketts adds a Wrigley Renovation surcharge to tickets, that would be on top of the $12 tax today.
The amusement tax is there. I would prefer that it be used to renovate Wrigley Field.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 1:51 PM CST up reply actions
If I'm not mistaken, I think what it means
is that the Amusement Tax up till now collects approximately $16m from all ticket buyers – Cubs fans in addition to Sox, Bears, and whatever other events the current law applies to.
The proposal is saying that the Cubs will guarantee the city that $16m in the future, but anything over that goes to pay down the bonds on Ricketts’ new project.
As if over the next 35 years or so, the Sox, Bears, etc. aren’t going to raise ticket prices too? So I’m nearly positive that fans of all teams are going to continue to pay into this fund in the future. Now it’s true that Cub fans have paid the tax up until now without direct benefit for their favorite team, but IIRC the original purpose of the tax was to allow the renovation and upkeep of the publicly-owned Soldier Field and New Comiskey without taking funds out of the state/city/county treasury.
I didn’t agree with those deals either, nor with Zell’s attempt to pawn Wrigley off on the state to get out from under a 95-year old park with nets up to keep people from getting struck by chunks of disintegrating concrete. But that gets back to the Ricketts family waaaay overpaying for the club and its assets. It’s not like the need for a major Wrigley Field renovation was an unknown when the team was sold.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
No, that math does not work
This is not the Cactus League ticket surcharge idea where everyone pays in.
1) The Cubs alone annually sell more that 3 million tickets by themselves.
2) The tax is 12%
If Cubs tickets were average of $30, that alone would be $10,800,000
3 million tickets x $30 = $90,000,000 × 12% = $10,800,000
The Amusement Tax does not go towards to renovation of publically owned facilities. The Bears pay rent for Soldier Field, as do the sox at us cellular. I have not seen anything stating that the amusement tax is used today to repair any facilities.
In effect, this would be a portion of the amusement tax paid by visitors to Wrigley Field going towards bond payments for the renovation.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
I wasn't using any math..
But you got me to Google around to figure out how this works. And it appears that the Amusement Tax goes to the general City of Chicago coffers. All sports teams tickets go into city revenues, there’s nothing special about what is made off Cubs’ tickets.
Chicago sports fans, movie mavens, concertgoers and theater patrons will pay more to attend live events—and so will those who park their cars in garages and surface lots—under a $25 million revenue package tied to Mayor Daley’s 2009 budget.
Daley tied his own hands by promising to close a massive budget gap without raising property taxes on the heels of last year’s record $83.4 million increase.
But he didn’t promise to hold the line on all other taxes and fees.Today, aldermen were told that the city’s two-tiered amusement tax would be going up—-from four-to-five percent for mid-sized venues and from eight-to-nine percent for large sporting venues.
That said, the funds haven’t been used on Cubs/Wrigley projects in the past, and Ricketts is attempting to invent a “right” for him to use that public money out of thin air. No matter how you try to explain it, Ricketts’ is asking for money that is competing with every other item on the city budget. Including Police, Fire, Teachers, etc… all the way down to Taste of Chicago and the Pulaski Day parade. It’s still Corporate Welfare.
- – - – - – - – - – - -
And for the record, it’s the Hotel Tax that finances the ISFA
The Illinois Sports Facilities Authority imposes a tax on gross receipts from hotel operators within the City of Chicago. Receipts from permanent guests (occupants of 30 days or longer) are not taxed. Proceeds are used for the corporate purposes of the authority, including construction costs for the Comisky (sic) Baseball Park.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I might feel the same way
if it weren’t for the waste, fraud, and abuse in city and county government. A 12% tax states to feel like Government Welfare.
Sorry, but I think too many people have sucked off the tit of Wrigley Field for too long. Payback is due.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 4:04 PM CST up reply actions
Could we please stick to one discussion at a time?
While I agree that the State, County and City governments are not a source of pride for Illinois residents, I believe I showed that the Chicago National League Ball Club does not have any particular claim on the revenues of the Amusement Tax, which is one of many funding sources for the City of Chicago government.
Once that’s established, then we’re just arguing over pieces of Richie Daley’s budget. As a fan, I like the idea of the plans Ricketts has laid out. As a citizen, I can’t condone prioritizing the expenditure of public tax money on the Cubs over the more vital functions of government.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Sure
I do not mind prioritizing the expenditure of public tax money on the Cubs over the more vital functions of government.
Why? I believe the renovations to Wrigley Field are necessary to keep Wrigley Field as one of the top attractions in Illinois. I do not have a problem with the expenditure because it is paid for by the tax on Cubs tickets, as opposed to other tickets or events. And since the amusement tax goes to the City and County general funds, other programs that are of minimal value can be prioritized and removed. Not all of these programs are vital functions of government.
I also believe that less taxes are good for City and County government. They need to learn, like many private businesses, how to do more with less.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Nobody cares what Wrigley Field is like when the Cubs don't suck.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 17, 2010 6:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe the state should fork over $200MM...
… to add to the Cubs’ payroll. Then look at how magical Wrigley becomes when we buy the most expensive players out there!
Now if Ricketts would make the straightforward argument..
That would be one less thing to dislike in this whole deal. I disagree with the prioritization of Wrigley Field at this time, but it’s at least an honest request. Not unlike 100 other businesses lobbying for a drink from the public well.
(Although asking for money for the Cubs while saying you prefer lower taxes is completely ignoring the problem we have today. Polling consistently tells us that while everyone wants lower taxes, everyone is willing to support the major functions that government pays for even more.)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 7:40 PM CST up reply actions
i can't believe someone rec'd this
you lead off by asserting that you’d rather spend tax money on the cubs than the more vital functions of government. i’m positive you’d be upset if you called 9-1-1 and they said they could not come by to stop your house from burning down because they would rather use the water to spray down the infield at wrigley before games.
how does building new clubhouse facilities help keep wrigley field as one of the top attractions in illinois? where ever the cubs play baseball 81 times a year is likely to be one of the top attractions in illinois.
what programs are going to be cut. how do you know they won’t be vital functions? are you asserting that the privately-owned and operated wrigley field is a vital function of government?
if less taxes are good for city and county government, then why not abolish the amusement tax? that way people that go to games don’t have to pay an extra 12% for their ticket, and the ricketts won’t have tax revenue they think they are entitled to steal.
why can’t the ricketts just learn to do more with less? after all, they are a private business.
by circuitclout on Nov 18, 2010 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Be realistic and don't take the argument to the extreme
Everyone knows that vital govt functions in Chicago are not going to stop.
The whole assumption that the City and county needs the entire amusement tax on Cubs tickets is that those government entities will use that money effectively. Federal investigation after federal investigation will show use that they won’t.
Don’t be naive and think that businesses don’t get tax breaks in a lure to bring jobs to a city or state. That’s just the state’s selling point for a new customer. At some point you need to take care of your existing customer (the Cubs) well.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 18, 2010 12:13 PM CST up reply actions
if we aren't taking arguments to the extreme
why did you bring up federal investigations.
i’ll start being “realistic” and stop being “naive” when you stop spouting nonsense like…
I do not mind prioritizing the expenditure of public tax money on the Cubs over the more vital functions of government.
by circuitclout on Nov 18, 2010 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
City of Chicago Budget
The City of Chicago Budget was just approved yesterday – $6.15 billion.
The 2009 budget was $6.2 billion. The amusement tax from Cubs tickets in 2009 was reported to be $16.1 million.
That $16.1 million is 0.26% of the overall budget. I am doubtful that capping that amount at $16.1 million will impact the city’s finances.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 18, 2010 1:03 PM CST up reply actions
This might be
the most ridiculous post in this thread. The Chicago city government needs to learn to do more with less, but the Cubs need tax dollars so tourists will keep coming to see the Cubs upgraded locker rooms?
Every time I drive through Chicago I see a billboard that says the Wildfire is Chicago’s most popular restauraunt. Should Lettuce Entertain You get some tax money to buy new ovens?
I can’t believe people would be in favor of the Cubs getting tax money to build themselves restauraunts and bars around Wrigley.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 18, 2010 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't buy, lease
Lettuce Entertain You could possibly lease the commercial ovens and may receive a tax break for the lease.
And you as a consumer, may get a tax break for purchasing a new oven if it’s an energy saving appliance.
Let’s remeber that Ricketts has said that they would invest $200 million in the development as well.
Given how much debt the Ricketts took on to buy the team, I am doubtful they will shell out $400 million for the entire project from cash or additional borrowing. Look for a smaller project or naming rights to Wrigley Field next.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 18, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
First
Ricketts isn’t asking for a tax break for buying an energy-efficient oven, he’s asking for the government to buy him in a new oven. And he’s not just asking for a new oven, he’s asking the government to buy him a restauraunt in which to put his new oven.
What he’s proposing amounts to a shell game of handouts. He’s implying that if the government pays for renovations of Wrigley, he’ll pay for “neighborhood development”—because then it sounds like the city is getting something great.
But there is no valid argument that the city should have to pay to renovate a stadium Rickett’s just purchased. And the “neighborhood development” he’s asking the city to essentially pay for is a mainly a bunch of new Ricketts-owned bars, restaurants and shops that will siphon money away from the actual neighborhood and to Ricketts. You could make a weak argument that he’s building new shops and eateries that will generate tax revenue, but he’s taking away tax revenue to build them, so that doesn’t really hold up either.
It is such a sickening example of greed and misrepresentation that it just sickens me to think about it.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 18, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
Very good
Key words:
shell game
It’s about all we really need to know. Good post.
Just win the next game...!
I agree in part.
Ricketts is candy-coating the whole tax thing to make it look like only Cubs fans will be paying it. In reality, if the city loses its ability to collect funds from future increases in amusement taxes, they will be collecting that much less in overall tax revenue — Meaning the city and county will have to make up for it elsewhere — Meaning they raise taxes on something else or create new taxes all together.
I must say, however, that the city, county, and even the state “owe” the Cubs to a certain extent, IMO. Countless tourists visit Chicago every year to see Wrigley Field. I’ll use myself as an example: Every year, my brothers and I visit Chicago to see our family — But we always schedule our visits around the Cubs to ensure at least two games. Because of this, we stay an extra two nights in the city, paying exorbitant hotel taxes, we go shopping, we go out to breakfast, lunch, dinner, bars, etc, etc, etc. Multiply that by the thousands and thousands of tourists every year that either visit Chicago solely for the Cubs, or stay longer to make it to a game. It’s hard to dispute that the Cubs generate quite a lot of revenue for the city, county, state, and local businesses.
The Cubs have been fairly low-maintenance to the city, county, and state throughout the years. They’ve played in an old, privately owned facility for nearly a century and, at least to my knowledge, received very little from the tax payers while serving as a gold mine to tax coffers. At some point, I don’t think it’s a terrible thing for the tax payers to “pitch-in” a bit to ensure that revenue stream continues.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
An honest argument, and not entirely without merit.
But as I think you’d agree, the reason the Cubs haven’t got public help in the past is because they haven’t had ‘the hammer’ to lean on the other side in negotiations.
Certainly wasn’t the case in Mesa, where the Cubs are the linchpin of their Cactus League business. The threat of moving to Florida (however remote) really had the bigwigs lined up to push the $80 million plan through the voters there. Here in Chicago, who doesn’t think that leaving Wrigley would be catastrophic to the Cubs business-wise? There’s no leverage.
I did hear that Wrigleyville alderman Tom Tunney was quoted today:
Wrigleyville Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) on Wednesday demanded a "rigorous cost-benefit analysis" before signing on to the Cubs’ plan to use 35 years’ worth of amusement tax growth to finance a $200 million renovation of historic Wrigley Field.
One day after Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts tried to breathe new life into the plan, Tunney threw cold water on it, called it "rushed" and joined a line of skeptics that includes Mayor Daley and Gov. Quinn.
The Sun-Times story says that was cold water, but my Chicagoese-to-English is telling me that Tunney saying "we need a rigorous cost-benefit analysis" translates to: “we can talk, what’s in it for me?”.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 8:21 PM CST up reply actions
Tunney always blusters like that in the beginning...
…but in the end, he caves and supports whatever is in front of him as long as it keeps his general fund well-supplied.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
You're right about not having leverage.
But from a business perspective, isn’t this almost like the city getting 50% off? If the state and city sign off on Ricketts’ plan and pony up $200M in Wrigley renovations, Ricketts says he’ll invest $200M in upgrades outside the park — Upgrades that would likely generate year-round tax revenues.
I don’t live in Chicago, nor do I claim to understand Chicago politics; but from time to time, partnerships between public and private entities really do pay off. The Cubs and Wrigley Field are proven winners with respect to tax revenues; therefore, if the tax payers pitch in on this project, it’s certainly possible that more tax dollars could be generated from new development outside the park.
Call me crazy, but perhaps Tunney has the right idea by calling for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Isn’t it possible the city could wind up generating more tax revenue over the long term if more economic activity is going on outside Wrigley Field?
Either way, this whole discussion underscores the fact that Ricketts really blew chunks in his presentation of this proposal.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
Not crazy in the least.
The city sure gave Boeing something like $50 million in incentives to move their corporate HQ here. I’m sure there are lots of other examples.
The differences here is that the Cubs are an existing part of the city, and I’m still thinking “cost-benefit analysis” is code for “let’s make a deal” more than there’s a chance of serious, cold-blooded decision making.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 10:07 PM CST up reply actions
While Wrigley is a private facility
As an historic landmark, it belongs to the citizens of Chicago and Illinois. Preserving Wrigley is in the best interests of Chicagoans. In addition, I can’t help but wonder if improved facilities would help with the on field product. While money is usually the determining factor in attracting top quality free agents, top quality facilities can’t hurt. It the timing bad? It seems so, but providing jobs could mitigate some of that and help in the recovery.
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 8:24 PM CST up reply actions
out of context
you took the quote above out of context, the full quote is:
The city and county also would forfeit the option of increasing the amusement tax to pay for things like cops or garbage pickup or health care until the bonds are repaid.
the city and county could increase the amusement tax, but that increase would go to repay the bonds and couldn’t be diverted to pay for essential services or cover deficits elsewhere.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
I'm just baffled the Ricketts family would make this "offer".
I’m no economist. I don’t understand bonds or amusement tax or guaranteed perpetuity. But I do know this:
2010 was a year of huge disappointment with the third largest bankroll in MLB. As a whole, the team’s still riding the wave of 1998’s Sosa, 2003’s Wood/Prior, and the 2007/2008 regular season division champs. But now’s the time to worry—this team isn’t going to be good in 2011—as in worse than 2010—and we won’t too much of an uptick in 2012, either. The Ricketts buy the team, have a shitty year (although they were/are pretty much handcuffed by Hendry salaries), and then ask for $200,000,000?! Really? The Cubs SUCKED in 2010 and we still filled Wrigley to 92% capacity, 4th best in baseball. For a team that was 5th in the division. That’s just free money!
So what’s the answer? Spend more money.
I take this as a big “F YOU” from the Ricketts family. No, I’m not dumb. I’m not going to invest in your shitty product. Stop putting shit on the field and I’ll start caring, start buying, and invest back in to you, too. YOU BOUGHT THE TEAM.
Dan
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Nov 16, 2010 6:12 PM CST reply actions 6 recs
The only thing I take issue with...
is your assertion that you are not dumb…other than that, good post.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 16, 2010 6:15 PM CST up reply actions
I really think that
the Ricketts live in a much differant world than most of us . Most of us are worried about nexts months bills and payments . Looking into the future and hearing 200 million dollars more !! After the poor finish in 2010 I dont want to think of 2011 !! Although I will continue to support the club changes have to be made .
Like they don't have bills and payments?
They just took out a hell of a note to buy the Cubs. It wasn’t like they just paid for it out of the petty cash drawer.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 6:52 AM CST up reply actions
They chose to buy the Cubs and they also put in a bid. If I choose to buy something that I can’t afford and spend money I don’t have to do so, I’ll lose it, I can’t just go and ask for more money so that I can make more money to pay off the debt i’m going into because of my first overexpenditure.
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
lol banksters, banksters lol
Sigh, just another hypocritical banker looking to politicians to assist them in looting the public.
"I think it’s a crime for our elected officials to borrow money today, to spend money today and push the repayment of that loan out into the future on people who are not even born yet." – Joe Ricketts
by explodingpinwheelsforfunandprofit on Nov 16, 2010 6:42 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
In the picture he is showing with his hands how much money will be spent on getting better players this off season!!!
by TJ11 on Nov 16, 2010 6:43 PM CST reply actions 14 recs
Funniest thing you've said in 2010.
GREEN!
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Nov 16, 2010 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
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
TJ you are truly AMAZING
I started coughing because I laughed so hard.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 17, 2010 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Gotta agree with some of the sentiments here.
Though a natural political Conservative, I am not opposed to public/private cooperative funding on a long-term economic stimulus like Wrigley Field. It is a low-risk investment with a high potential for a great return on investment, all things considered. In the long-run, such improvements should yield an increased overall economic return, especially when factoring in the additional facilities such as the triangle project.
However, I am afraid that my confidence in the new ownership’s ability to achieve the primary goal of winning a World Series is very low. The ultimate prize – a World Seriers title – seems to be a secondary goal at best, a secondary goal ownership seems to hope will happen as a byproduct of their actions unrelated to the talent they are putting on the field. Since it is my view that the primary goal should be a World Series title, I find this to be a risky investment, as such.
Recovering from a couple of miserable seasons, fans (taxpayers) are being told to prepare for no major changes or improvements in the overall product on the field, and to expect payroll cuts as much as ten percent – to be accompanied by some price increases for fans. On top of that, nobody in the organization has been held accountable for the failures of the last few years. Payroll goes down as prices go up, accountability is non-existent, ownership shows near-political-party-like loyatly to those responsible for the failed product on the field; yet, fans are asked to trust these same poor managers of funds with addtional bags of talents, this time from the public coffers.
I think the minimum fans should require of this team/ownership before opening the public coffers is to first have a product on the field genuinely capable of competing for a championship. Show us you can manage your own money well before we give you ours.
Perhaps we should apply a popular theology of sports ownership to the process at hand. Excessive spending, after all, is no guarantee of success. Perhaps a lower-scale, less ambitious project that requires considerably less spending will yield positive results of its own?
Official MCM Pessimist.
Oh, I'm sorry; did I poke a hole in the echo chamber?
by The Jade Scorpion on Nov 16, 2010 7:17 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
That's my shot! cool.
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Nov 16, 2010 9:40 PM CST up reply actions
Important question
Why does the artist rendering show banners for 1916, 1942 and 1949? All were losing seasons and 1949 was a last place finish.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Milestones in Cubs Management History¹:
1916: Chicago Mayor “Big Bill” Thompson gives the team $12,000 to help raze West Side Grounds, of which the sale proceeds were used to build expanded grandstands in then Weeghman Park.
1942: US President Franklin Roosevelt gives William Wrigley a $150,000 grant to organize the “All-American Girls Baseball League”. (The government got the film rights to the project, and some scrap metal in the deal.)
1949: Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson signs secret $400,000 deal to move Cubs spring training from Catalina Island to then vacant Navy Pier. The deal fell through when the first $75,000 payment was discovered by City Hall reporter Mike Royko. For some reason Peanuts “P-Nuts” Lowrey and Harry “The Hat” Walker were made the scapegoats for the deal, and traded to Cincinatti in mid-season. (Stevenson became the first, and to date only Illinois Governor to avoid a felony conviction.)
¹ – none of these actually happened.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 16, 2010 10:08 PM CST up reply actions
No.
Probably just random years chosen by an artist.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Clubhouse Improvements
How about we take some money out of the millionaire players’ salaries to pay for clubhouse improvements, rather than having the fans pay for their comfort?
Not True
“The way I understand it, the amusement tax generated about $16 million in 2009. That amount of amusement tax is guaranteed in perpetuity”.
The amusement tax is based per ticket sold. The fans are starting to walk on this organization and if it continues than the tax revenue generated will be less than next year. Based on the empty seats for the better part of more than two months this season that revenue fall and continue to fall until the Cubs can field a decent team or until the economy improves.
As I commented earlier today, the Ricketts are proposing to beautify the surrounding neighborhood with money they do not yet have. If they did, they would put their own $200mil to the ballpark. This is a desperate move by a guy who I think probably spent most of his fortune buying this team.
As I noted above
The projections are made on attendance of 2.5 million — lower than today. You’re right, it is possible the tax revenue would be lower. I don’t know what they do in that case.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No.
They’ve already said that the hotel tax — now used to retire bonds for the Cell and Soldier Field — would be used for that purpose.
Guess who pays that tax? Not Chicagoans.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
at this point
its pretty clear that you don’t understand what is being proposed, how it works, what the risks are, and who is taking those risks. since this isn’t an economics blog it’s okay that you don’t understand those things. you could just admit that you don’t and move on. but continuing to try to spin this is just irresponsible and sad.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
Don't agree with the "irresponsible and sad" part...
… but the economic implications of this is magnitudes beyond a butterfly effect. There’s so much more of an impact than saying “tax hotel rooms, Chicago won’t know the difference.” Al, you need to temper your enthusiasm on this topic.
There already is a hotel tax.
Or did you not know that?
I don’t have “enthusiasm” for this project. As I said in the original post, it’s a difficult time to ask for this kind of public money.
What I have an objection to is the attitude, frequent around here, that “everything Cubs management does is wrong”. That isn’t true either.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It's a sports franchise.
You can measure ‘doing it right’ or ‘doing it wrong’ by looking at attendance/revenue figures, or by looking at the trophy case.
So I agree that by some measurements, Cubs management does not do everything wrong.
But it’s a different, less-quantifiable issue to criticize (or credit) the new management group for public relations savvy (or lack thereof).
By that measure, I’m looking at the first year and thinking it’s time to call in the FAIL boat on the Ricketts family. Your mileage may vary.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 2:36 PM CST up reply actions
BTW, AL
I understand your points about keeping things on a bi-partisan level but I need to say this.
There is nothing political, nor is it party rhetoric when mentioning the fact that we could be entering a hyper-inflationary period by next summer. There is nothing political about mentioning the fact that our treasury is using the measure of quantitative easing to try curtail deflation in the middle of a recession(Try and figure that one out).
My point is, we are entering into unknown territory in this country. Our funded and unfunded liabilities put us somewhere in the realm of over $111 trillion dollars in debt and our current economic leadership feels that the only way out is through printing more money(quantitative easing).
I’m sorry if I don’t feel sorry for Ricketts who seems to be in way over his head. He picked the wrong time to be asking for money. We as a people need to be looking at ourselves and recognizing that the era frivolities needs to come to an end.
by troutfishin on Nov 16, 2010 9:15 PM CST reply actions 5 recs
Bingo
Goodness there is still a high rate of fore closures every month. People are hurting and 2011 who knows what the hell will happen. If our current administration let the tax cuts expire, there will be more pain.
God forbid
the Ricketts would have to pay more taxes….if they actually pay any at all.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I was referring to corporate taxes
or income taxes. Can you enlighten us as to the amount they do pay? Does it shock you to know that many large businesses and extremely rich people pay zero or very low taxes because of special tax advantages. Are you aware the Trib never will pay a dime of tax on their $825M capital tax gain on the sale of the Cubs?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Yes, I'm aware of that, although "zero taxes" is incredibly rare
You made the claim about how much Ricketts apparently pays in taxes – why don’t you enlighten us to the number instead? The tax dodge Zell pulled off is certainly not something the Ricketts could pull off on a yearly basis to avoid paying taxes.
Why don't you tell us
the number rather than suggesting I do it for you. And for the record, if one is able to avoid taxes on $825M in one year, I’d suppose they wouldn’t have do that very often to beat the system. How about the estimated $56M in deductions the Rickets will be able to use every year to essentially depreciate these asset value of the players. I don’t imagine many Main Street businesses have that deduction.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
You made the first claim about the size of his taxes, not me
If you’re upset at the tax system, complain about the government, not about Ricketts. Every one of the people in this thread does what they can to pay the least amount of taxes possible without running afoul of the law. If someone pays more than they have to, please speak up so I can applaud you.
You’re making it sound like he’s breaking the law. Why? Its popular now to hate the upper class. I get it. But don’t pretend that you’d pay any unnecessary taxes if you could avoid it.
This has nothing to do with class warfare
It has everything to do with fairness and unequal access to special treatment via tax dollars. I’m not asking the Ricketts to volunteer to pay higher taxes than they owe. However, I am insisting they don’t feed at a public trough that other businesses do not have available.
And to clear the record, I never claimed the Ricketts paid no taxes.
God forbid the Ricketts would have to pay more taxes
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
by tharr on Nov 19, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It's deflation
There will be no hyper-inflation.
And our Treasury is sitting on its hands while the Private Federal Reserve tries QE.
What’s needed is more spending. On stuff like baseball concourses and infrastructure.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 16, 2010 11:09 PM CST up reply actions
I agree we need to spend on infrastructure.
But not just to line the pockets of the sons and daughter of a billionaire. Maybe on something that benefits more than 5 people.
There is no public works you could do in the US
that won’t line the pocket of some billionaire or his family.
None.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 6:37 AM CST up reply actions
But when say, a road or rail line is finished, there is a positive for everyone.
Goods and people move more efficiently. There is an actual positive ripple. After the construction is done, $200 Million for a few poor-paying service jobs that the triangle building and Wrigley renovation would bring accomplish nothing in the big picture of the area’s economy.
The construction would add short-term jobs that are sorely needed
Construction is down tremendously. Every job you provide for that few months is one less person needing social services that we also pay for. Every job you provide after that is the same, only long term. Those dollars do come back around as the people working spend that money in the stores. Private investors are not spending, they are holding their money. Banks are not loaning, they are holding their money. Unfortunately, right now, government is the lender of last resort for this money.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 8:38 AM CST up reply actions
and what happens
when the construction is over? those people go right back to needing social services, no?
every job you provide after that is likely to be a part-time, seasonal, near-minimum wage service job. how is that the same as a union-wage construction job?
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 9:15 AM CST up reply actions
For somebody who...
… accuses Al of “not understanding how it works” you feel pretty free frame things as they best support your views.
The cubs have one of the smallest front office staffs in the MLB – something undoubtedly dictated by space limitations at Wrigley. Add the triangle building, and i have no doubt they add to the front office – jobs that not only pay well and are long term, but directly benefit the product on the field… which makes the team better… which brings more fans… who spend more money… which gets taxed…
The point of the triangle building isn’t seasonal – it’s to be open year around. Sure, baseball will only be happening april – september / october… but it’s not like the area drys up all winter. Have you experienced Wrigleyville during a college football Saturday during the fall? It’s SLAMMED. And if the proposed mall / hotel thing across the street happens (almost certain if the Triangle Building gets built, i suspect) that is even more traffic in an already heavily trafficked area. Those jobs wouldn’t be seasonal – this would propel the area in to an already greater year-round relevance.
I guess my point is most of your premise is based on the fact that the economy won’t improve during construction, and that the net benefit of the investment to the area would be small. You don’t really have the evidence to support either of those premises.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
my point
was simply that the construction jobs created would be temporary, and that jobs at bars, restaurants, hotels and malls aren’t the same as construction jobs in that they don’t pay as well or carry benefits. your point is based on what you inferred from a simple statement.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
No...
… your point is that the jobs created by the triangle building will all be of the bar / resturant / hotel variety…
and you don’t really know that.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
huh?
Restaurants, concessions and parking are a given, but a Cubs museum and a hotel are only possibilities, Kenney said.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
Look...
… if you want to argue that all the jobs created by this thing will be of the undesirable sort, so be it.
The fact is, even restaurants and parking garages have managers. And moving some of those concessions facilities out of Wrigley and in to the Triangle building allows for more front office space as well – something the cubs desperatly need in order to catch up to league averages in marketing, scouting, and other departments. Very real, very meaningful well paying full time jobs WILL be created.
How many? We don’t know. I can admit that. You want to act like it’ll be staffed entirely by fifteen year olds who’ll be paid $5.50 an hour.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 1:43 PM CST up reply actions
i have no idea what you are talking about
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions
Then who's the one who doesn't understand what's going on here?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Burn
We can't win at home. We can't win on the road. I just can't figure out where else to play!
-- Pat Williams
by Fat Punk Kicker on Nov 17, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions
i never said
the job would be undesirable, just that the permanent jobs wouldn’t be the same as the construction jobs. i don’t doubt that some jobs will be better or higher paying than others. i was wrong to reuse NS’s phrase “every job” in my reply.
to be clear, the point i was trying to make is that the high-paying union construction jobs are, by necessity, temporary and that many of the permanent jobs would likely not be the same as the construction jobs in pay and benefits.
i don’t know where you are getting this info that the triangle building would lead to cubs front office jobs. i said nothing about the economy in general or 15 year olds making less than the federal minimum wage, those are words you put in my mouth.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions
It's pretty simple.
The Cubs have a small front-office staff that needs to be expanded. They don’t have the space for it now. More space means they can hire these people.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
so the cubs need to spend $200 million in tax money
so greg maddux can get his own office?
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
...
Mr. Ricketts told me to talk to payroll and then payroll told me to talk to Mr. Ricketts and I still haven’t received my paycheck and he took my stapler and he never brought it back and then they moved my desk to storage room B and there was garbage on it…
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Like Maddux would miss his paycheck
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 17, 2010 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
I think the idea that the space in the building has
limited the size of the staff is insane. Have they never heard of renting office space nearby?
But if it is true, the Cubs are even more pathetic than I thought. And someone should alert them to the space age miracles that are the telephone, facsimile machine and world wide web.
Considering they don't have anyone that can count to 10...
which is the number of days a player has to be left in the minors before they can be recalled…it’s no surprise that they can’t figure out that in today’s modern business world you don’t have to have every single employee in one physical location to get things done.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 17, 2010 2:56 PM CST up reply actions
That's insane.
Have you seen what office space is going for in Chicago? Really good office space?
People don’t all have to work from the same physical building. I don’t think that’s ever been the case.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
C'mon Al - you can't seriously believe...
that if Hendry went to Ricketts and said “I want to hire a director of so-and-so and a chief thing-a-ma-jig”
Ricketts would just shrug his shoulders and say “Sorry Jim, would love to help you out but we just don’t have the room.”
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 17, 2010 8:39 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
One person?
Probably not.
But 10, 20, 30 people? Where are they going to work?
And people here have suggested renting space. That ain’t free.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But that's not the public's problem.
If the Cubs need to rent more space, then let them budget for it.
"That ain't free"
Because no business ever has to spend money to rent office space for the level of staff they need to function effectively? Renovating Wrigley Field to (among other things) increase office space ain’t free either, brother.
“Every time we say its a game you say it’s a business. Every time we say it’s a business you say it’s a game.”
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 18, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely crazy.
I can rent an office for less than a thousand dollars a month.
“That ain’t free.” Holy crap. Literally every business in the entire world is swinging “acquiring space” somehow.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Yeah, but it ain't free, is it?
That’s why so many companies are building commercial buildings to meet their staffing needs for 10-30 employees. Why do you think the real estate market is rebounding so aggressively?
Last I heard, the organization was letting go long-time employees..
and outsourcing “Vine Line” production all the way to South Korea Cincinatti.
Seriously, they couldn’t have rented offices above Wrigleyville sports or something if they needed more space for the hundreds of full-time front office employees they would have hired if only we gave them $200-300 million to build the Triangle building? (The one they’re already pledging to build with their own money?)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The small size of the Cubs' front office can't seriously be related to Wrigley space limitations.... right?
If the Cubs are in actually a position where they see the need for additional front office personnel, and would LIKE to add them, but aren’t doing so because “Wrigley is already so cramped”…. and the idea of taking on space in another building hasn’t occurred to them yet…. well, then we’re all screwed.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I'm totally serious when I say...
the front office and ownership of the Chicago Cubs (past and present) doesn’t freaking deserve to be involved with a baseball team that wins a WS trophy anytime soon. The sad fact is, this is most likely going to be true.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 17, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
I'm sure you understand...
… why it’s not that simple.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 2:18 PM CST up reply actions
Please enlighten us...
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions
So...
… it doesn’t make ANY sense to you that a company might want to get it’s facilities in place BEFORE hiring employees?
If you put two and two together, it isn’t hard to draw a line between the team’s physical space limitations and the teams woefully understaffed front office. This is one of the biggest sports franchisees in the world and they have freaking trailers parked in the parking lot to house some of their operations. I have no doubt that any organization would hope to avoid the inherent inefficiencies and added overhead of having multiple offices. The situation isn’t optimal right now, obviously.
Look, i’m sure if there was a desperate need for 10 new guys in the widget department, they’d find a place to jam them, in wrigley or elsewhere. That isn’t my point.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions
OK, but our point is...
you don’t freaking ask a municipality to foot the bill for this…and just so we’re clear, multiple offices aren’t some huge encumbrance on organizations. You’re trumping that aspect up quite a bit if that’s the sticking point you want to stand on with this reasoning.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 3:01 PM CST up reply actions
I wasn't saying anything about who should pay for it...
… i was speaking of the jobs it would create.
In general, i agree that the state shouldn’t be funding these sort of projects. There are obviously some factors with Wrigley that make that a bit more questionable in Chicago and Illinois’s case – it’s got more impact on the city and state than the “average” stadium… but i’m mostly with you on your point.
Which had nothing to do with mine.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 5:53 PM CST up reply actions
Your point is that they need more physical space to expand operations...
and they’ll only consider expanding possible AFTER they’ve obtained more physical space, which you seem to believe must be one self contained unit of space.
That is both a) dumb and b) what a company in 1963 would think.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 5:58 PM CST up reply actions
Good to see i've found you where i left you...
… arguing silliness and ignoring the bigger picture.
My original point, way back when i replied to circutclout, was about jobs. It was a counterpoint to the “this won’t create long term jobs” argument. I originally started off pointing to the managers of the restaurants and stores, the people working in the museum or hall of fame or whatever will inevitably be there, and i happened to mention expanding baseball operations as well.
If you want to fixate on that, and when it’ll happen, or why it hasn’t happened, or how dumb the cubs are for it not happening, or whatever… go for it.
I have just as much evidence that this sort of expansion at Wrigley will allow the cubs to expand front office operations as you do that it won’t… only my theory makes sense.
The idea that they’d build $400 million worth of new and improved structure on the Wrigley Field Campus and NOT have it result in some new quality jobs for Chicagoans, in the front office, as well as in the clubhouse, the retail stores, the restaurants, the museums, and elsewhere… does NOT make sense. No matter how you argue office space or the threshold or a “quality” job vs union work or whatever else.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
i'd like to see this
I have just as much evidence that this sort of expansion at Wrigley will allow the cubs to expand front office operations as you do that it won’t… only my theory makes sense.
if you have this evidence, you could post it and then people wouldn’t have to wonder where you are getting your information.
by circuitclout on Nov 18, 2010 10:26 PM CST up reply actions
Plus...
… as you’ve said many times…. why would you expect the Cubs to think any differently than the did in ’63?
I don’t doubt they’d say something like “lets get some big new office suites with fancy new video equipment, and THEN we’ll tackle the issue of having fewer scouts than the MLB average”.
And hell, keeping in mind that this IS a business, and one that seems to be a bit scrapped for cash of late, that might just make sense. There would be a lot of cost in hiring those new scouts, installing them and what they need in some empty office space above Casey Morans, paying for the overhead of that new office, and then moving them all back in 2014 or whenever this gets done.
Which is probably why the parking lot looks like a trailer park.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 6:14 PM CST up reply actions
Allow me address your original idea...
The Cubs getting public $ to help fund an expansion/remodel of Wrigley to enable the Cubs to increase their revenue streams with the “added benefit to the Chicago economy” of the creation of some food service jobs and retail/museum jobs (which will be of the minimum wage/seasonal variety) is a good idea? That’s the “quality” job creation you’re hanging you hat on?
I don’t know who is dumber in this scenario, the Cubs for thinking the public will buy this bull, or the local/state agencies that might actually believe it.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 6:31 PM CST up reply actions
Again... missing the point.
You can go back and read what i’ve said – i haven’t supported the idea of the state and city making this investment. I’ve claimed to be leery of the idea of publicly funded sports stadium.
I have stipulated, however, that this will create jobs. You and circuitclout seem intent on dismissing that by claiming they’ll be ‘undesirable’ jobs of the part time / minimum wage nature. Yes, i’m sure those sort of jobs will be created. Somebody’s gotta sell those hot dogs.
But to pretend that a $400 million of new and upgraded facilities on that block won’t result in something – front office, retail, restaurant and museum management, facilities, hell training staff for that huge new clubhouse… well, come on.
I’m not saying i want money coming out of my already over taxed pockets for it. I’m saying the cost / benefit analysis that the alderman wants to look at is a good idea.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 19, 2010 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
$400 million of new and upgraded facilites will result in something...
nobody is arguing that point, but simply using the “IT WILL CREATE JOBS” arguement/talking point is what’s undercutting your reasoning.
I didn’t mean to imply that those jobs were ‘undesirable’. Sorry if it came across that way. I was pointing out that if the alderman wants to look at the cost/benefit analysis, he’s going to find that it’s not worth it…unless the “creating jobs” thing is the smokesceen it usually is when governments use it as a basis to spend $.
This brings the conversation down the the root of the problem I have with most of these kinds of issues. The function of government is not to “create jobs”.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 19, 2010 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
show some proof then
i haven’t seen any evidence of these high-paying, front office jobs.
also, i don’t need a cost/benefit analysis to tell me that it’s a bad idea to spend $200+ million in tax dollars to create 1,000 jobs. that’s at least $200,000 per job. that’s a bad deal, even before you consider that some of those 1,000 jobs would be temporary and some percentage would be low wage/low benefit service jobs.
by circuitclout on Nov 19, 2010 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly the opposite.
I understand exactly why it IS that simple.
We’re going to be relocating some employees from KC to Chicago, so I am in the process of acquiring some office space in the Loop.
Meanwhile, in KC, we need to add a massive amount of space, so we’re moving the office.
The idea that my company, or any company, would put a limit on their headcount b/c of space limitations in the existing facility – even when they’ve determined that growth is necessary – is ridiculous.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
The last couple of years has been a quasi deflationary period...
…the only thing that has kept the CPI stagnant is the fact that oil prices have remained high over the last couple of years. If it were not for high energy prices we would have seen deflation. What the Bernanke is trying to bring about is stagflation, that’s when you have high unemployment coupled with high inflation. It doesn’t make any sense, especially in a bad economy, you want the cost of goods and services to be cheaper, not more expensive.
Research what happens to economies that resort to quantitative easing. The Weimar Republic did it post WWI and it destroyed their economy.
by troutfishin on Nov 16, 2010 11:46 PM CST up reply actions
Do your own research
we have never entered a period of hyper-inflation, nor have we ever tried to drive our economy into stagflation, point is if your “favorite reactionary demagogue” is saying these things, find out why for yourself, the truth is hard to swallow but the truth will set you free. We are well down the road to serfdom, it’s time to change course. The era of using taxpayer dollars for frivolities must end.
by troutfishin on Nov 17, 2010 11:14 AM CST up reply actions
serfdom??
Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism – from wikipedia
That’s beyond a leap.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 11:29 AM CST up reply actions
You can read wikipedia...
…I’ll read von Hayek.
by troutfishin on Nov 17, 2010 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
Considering the track record of von Hayek in American econ
I’ll take wikipedia.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 9:20 PM CST up reply actions
I take it by that comment...
…that you have neither read “The Road to Serfdom” and you have no idea who Hayek was.
by troutfishin on Nov 17, 2010 10:56 PM CST up reply actions
Absolutely
It must be that everyone around you is a complete economically challenged idiot, and not that your humor detector is broken.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 18, 2010 12:54 PM CST up reply actions
I'll also add to it
that his theories don’t hold much water to me, in that we don’t have a centrally planned economy, but we’re certainly fostering one HELL of a police state, as anyone who’s tried flying or videotaping cops doing things not precisely legal can tell you, and there’s places like Sweden which manage not to have a Gestapo. That’s my serious criticism of ‘The Road To Serfdom’, which, again, I’ve never even so much as glanced at, since it didn’t have a buxom woman in scanty clothes on the cover.
Anyways. Two economists walk into a bar. Ouch.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 18, 2010 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
Fix your sarcasm meter? Seriously.
Or else I’ll have to continue yanking your chain. :p
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 20, 2010 9:48 AM CST up reply actions
Where's the sarcasm sign?
What’s needed is more spending.
How do you cite there will be no hyper-inflation?
Troutfishin is dead nuts on. The key to his whole statement is the unfunded liabilities. Printing money, which is exactly what QE is, does nothing but devalue the dollar. Devaluation of the dollar makes goods & services appear most costly.
And BTW, QE is a complete effing joke. The Fed has been wrong about every major economic development for years: Internet bubble, housing bubble, sub-prime bubble…
Ricketts is IMO only, attempting to leverage the city & the state to see where they stand. I still can’t believe they’d try this with a state that is more broke than CA, per capita.
We can really get a feel for what’s going to happen by watching various countries in Europe: Greece, Ireland, Spain…
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 17, 2010 7:30 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Right on Blackhawk
The E.U. should be a cautionary tale for those that want to create a one world Utopian style government. It almost seems that the Fed is trying to bring about that change through a swift destruction of the U.S. economy.
Sorry Al we're off the reservation
Problem: deflation caused by lack of aggregate demand caused by overindebtedness.
Your proposed solution: less government spending
The results of your proposed solution: more deflation because of even greater lack of aggregate demand. Do you think companies are going to suddenly start hiring and households spending because the deficit went from 1.5 trillion to 1 trillion? No.
Eurozone perfect example: how are those “austerity measures” put in place 6 months ago working? Simple answer: more economic pain.
Trout fishin not “dead nuts on”— he is driving the bus straight towards what he wants to avoid. You can have your Van Hayek. I’ll take Billy Mitchell.
Here’s another way to put this and I’ll be done: government debt is nothing more nor less than the amount of government liabilities (i.e. wealth) held by the private sector. If you cut gov’t spending you decrease private wealth. Is that what you’re trying to accomplish?
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 17, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
Wow you are way off base...
…the majority of our unfunded liabilities lies in S.S. and Medicare, that is certainly not wealth held by the private sector, that’s the result of playing a shell game in both systems by spending money now that would be paid back by future revenue.
Guess what happens when you have sustained high unemployment, that’s right you have fewer dollars to put back into those coffers.
BTW, there is no lack of demand in commodities, what we have is a Government artificially devaluing the dollar in the midst of a recessionary period, couple that with a rise in textiles, energy and food and we are going to see a steep increase in inflation, not what we want to see during a recession.
...
If you cut gov’t spending you decrease private wealth.
This is possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read here on BCB….EVER.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 17, 2010 1:28 PM CST up reply actions
Mr. Madison
what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
OK, here's where this got off track.
Let’s keep this discussion related to the Cubs proposal and not these unrelated things. Thank you.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I’ll wear that with a badge of honor. It’s admittedly worded poorly, but the statement is true.
There’s 2 sectors public (gov’t) and private (you). If the gov’t spends 10 dollars to get you to come shovel the driveway, the private sector has 10 dollars more than it had before in net assets. If the next year the gov’t decides to cut spending and make the driveway shoveling $8, well guess what?
I know it is such a stupidly simple concept that it couldn’t possibly be true.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 17, 2010 11:20 PM CST up reply actions
Who's 10 dollars is the government using to fund this diveway shoveling?
Government $ is not magic…it doesn’t appear out of nothing (unless the Fed decides to print it)…the only capital the government has is what it takes out of the private sector.
I know this is such a complicated concept that it couldn’t possibly be true.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 12:25 AM CST up reply actions
that's a choice
the government makes. The federal government can and does spend out of thin air. The choice to tax or borrow comes later. Alan Greenspan has said the government cannot be insolvent in its own currency. Impossible. When you realize that then all the crap you learned in econ 101 will be washed away. And it doesn’t change the fact that government spending adds net assets to the circuit. I turn it over to a better mind than mine: This is how it works. Good luck Damen I know you can get there even if Santo’s too wooden.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 18, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions
So aside from devaluing the monetary assets they are so benevolently allowing the private sector to keep....
this only applies to the Federal government, which in the case of the Cubs proposal isn’t involved in any way, shape or form. Your simple assertion that government spending increases private wealth is nebulous at best in theory, and fiduciarily dangerous at worst in large scale practice.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 4:13 PM CST up reply actions
Now we are making progress
We have gone from “stupidist thing said on BCB ever” to “Nebulous” so I give you some credit.
And no it’s not related to the Cubs thing except that I happen to favor transfer payments from the feds to states and cities for projects such as this. Expecting private industry to finance everything is absurd. 99% of good stuff like parks and roads and trips to Mars wouldn’t be possible without government because they are uneconomic. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them.
And lastly, what is dangerous is clinging to old Austrian/neoclassical notions of the how the economy should function when there is 16% un/underemployment and we are doing serious damage to future generations, not because of some mythical future tax burden but because we continued to cower before a “bond market” that is as powerless as the Wizard of Oz.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 19, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
...
99% of good stuff like parks and roads and trips to Mars wouldn’t be possible without government because they are uneconomic.
You’re a genius. Those are all things which the government SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR. You have a legitimate disconnect between what government spending should and shouldn’t be used for.
should = parks, roads, schools, bridges, spaceships, libraries, levees, sewers, unicorn farms
shouldn’t = new golf clubs for me, big gulps for Al, condoms for Dan, Privately owned ML Baseball Stadiums
Expecting private industry to finance everything is absurd.
Yes, private industry should only be expected to finance their own stuff, so we agree on this.
If government expenditures increase private wealth, the last 10 years should have made all of us independently wealthy. Nobody “cowers” before a bond market. You treat these things as if they are all independent functions of economics. The “Bond Markets” only REACT to what happens. What happens is typically orchestrated by the Fed. Every single time anyone or anything makes the decision to spend money or capital that they do not actually have, there is a measure of pain which will be extracted for that decision. Deficit spending will destroy a business, private citizens, and governments which decide to engage in it long enough. Show me one example of a government increasing spending/printing $ out of thin air which resulted in a net plus for it’s citizens.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 19, 2010 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Since you've admitted I'm a genius
I’ll consider our conversation complete. Cheers!
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 19, 2010 9:37 PM CST up reply actions
BTW, to answer your question
See the Civil War. Find out what “Greenbacks” really are. Google Henry Carey (not Harry).
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 21, 2010 11:01 AM CST up reply actions
Expecting private industry to finance everything is absurd. 99% of good stuff like parks and roads and trips to Mars wouldn’t be possible without government because they are uneconomic.
Last time I check the fee to get into a park or to drive a road wasn’t $50+ a ticket and didn’t go directly to a private company or individual. Wrigley Field is neither.
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
Guy,
please stop. Government is not a self-funding entity. They got the $10 in the first place by taking it from you. Actually, they got it by taking $14 from you, spending the $10, and keeping the $4. The more they spend, the less you actually have.
You comments are stupidly simple, but not in the way that I think you were suggesting.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 18, 2010 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
for the gov't to spend 10 dollars
they have to borrow it from a private bank, at interest. so it’s really not that simple. it’s also not true.
by circuitclout on Nov 18, 2010 11:05 AM CST up reply actions
Oh dude, please stop
If you cut gov’t spending you decrease private wealth
The city of LA spent over $100M of a certain “recovery act” handout. Know how many jobs that created? Just over 50. Does that make any economic sense?
On companies hiring, they’re gonna do it (or not) when they know their tax structure. They don’t know, so they won’t hire.
When high debt levels leads to printing of money, you’re in trouble.
The spending of money the city and state simply does not have, only compounds the problem. Citing other entities that did the same thing doesn’t make it right or economically sound.
The Cubs are trying to leverage the city and state. I believe they’re doing that for due diligence to see what they can get. I believe they’re also bracing for a bloodbath on 2011 ticket sales.
Lastly, the gov’t debt, our gov’t debt… is held by the Fed and countries like Japan and China.
Just win the next game...!
A great idea for Christmas
Everyone gets Rosetta Stone.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
this proposal baffles me
in traditional tax increment financing you are often starting out with undeveloped land or “blighted” areas ripe for redevelopment, so there is a clear and significant increase in the property tax collected in going from say, an undeveloped farm field to an industrial park or an old factory to luxury condos. that’s not the case here.
i’d guess that the the cubs are operating at or dangerously close to maximum ticket revenue. it seems unlikely that they will be able to increase attendance signficantly (someone quoted 94% attendance above, i think). that means that in order to create a tax increment to pay off the bond issue the cubs would likely need to significantly increase ticket prices AND the state would likely need to significantly increase the amusement tax to ensure that they continue to haul in enough money to make the state’s $16 million PLUS enough money to pay off the bonds.
anyone that tells you that there is no tax increase here doesn’t understand what is being proposed, or is lying to you.
by circuitclout on Nov 16, 2010 10:38 PM CST reply actions 5 recs
Yes, we were at 92% capacity this year; 4th in MLB. At least cited by ESPN, so be careful with that statistic...
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
What does Ricketts family patriarch Joe think about government and the loaning and borrowing of money?
“I think it’s a crime for our elected officials to borrow money today, to spend money today and push the repayment of that loan out int the future on people who are not even born yet.”
-Joe Ricketts, founder of “Taxpayers against Earmarks.”
I agree with Joe. Tom shouldn’t be asking the government to loan him money that the taxpayers will have to pay back over the next 35 years or more. There is no reason that the Ricketts can’t pursue private financing of their expansion, something they knew was necessary when they bought the team. I also remember them expressly protesting the idea of the State purchasing Wrigley because it would cut into their revenue. The Ricketts aren’t going to move the team and they will expand because it will make them a great deal more money. There is no reason for the State to help them.
http://blog.windycitywatch.com/2010/11/ricketts-family-is-against-wasteful.html
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Nov 16, 2010 10:51 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Joe Ricketts has nothing to do with the Cubs.
That blog is incorrect. It says “Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts”. That is incorrect.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
if you're going to keep repeating this
you’re going to force me to keep pointing out that joe ricketts owns the cubs. at least, his family used his $400 million dollars to buy the team. they borrowed the rest. i wonder what they used as collateral?
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
C'mon Al
I’m sure pappa Joe has some influence on the family. And Pete Ricketts who IS involved ran on the same kind of platform for Neb Senate in 06
by CalCalender on Nov 17, 2010 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
Yes, that's true about Pete Ricketts.
Joe Ricketts is not a board member of the Cubs. Saying “Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts” is demonstrably false.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
agreed there
but i dont think that Joe’s opinion’s dont influence Tom & Co
by CalCalender on Nov 17, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions
when you pay money for something you own it
joe ricketts owns the cubs, even if he isn’t involved in the day-to-day operation of the club it was largely his money, and his credit, that paid for team.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Nonsense.
The “owner” of the Cubs is, or are, the people who run the business.
We’re talking semantics here. But positioning Joe Ricketts as “Chicago Cubs owner” is simply not acknowledging the truth of the situation.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Dude, Al is the MASTER at splitting hairs when defending his positions.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 17, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions
If the Cubs were sold tomorrow
who would get the money for the sale?
I don’t think Joe “gifted” the Cubs to Tom et al. He created a “family trust”. HE created it with his money and the trust is the owner.
by JohnM on Nov 18, 2010 4:34 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think Joe "gifted" the Cubs to Tom et al. He created a "family trust". HE created it with his money and the trust is the owner.
Show me the proof of this that you have. Otherwise you’re just guessing.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
this has to stop
when other people are right and you are wrong, you CANNOT pretend to win the argument by demanding that you are right until people prove you more wrong.
by circuitclout on Nov 18, 2010 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 8 recs
I don't want to hear this sort of criticism....
….unless you can provide me with a list of names of replacement moderators who would argue better.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Nov 18, 2010 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I'm obviously joking around in the above post.
And, no, I don’t. And I don’t expect one. It’s just a discussion.
That said, I DO expect the argument to devolve into something completely different, or to get hyper-focused on some tiny bit of minutiae in an attempt to discredit the overall point, or something. That’s how things go on the internet.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR UNECESSARY USE OF COMMAS IN YOUR SECOND SENTENCE!
OMG, IT’S EVEN A SENTENCE FRAGMENT…HOW DO YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO EVEN BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN IF YOU CANNOT USE PROPER GRAMMAR? ERICHANNAFOREVER!
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 18, 2010 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
Kim Ng?
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 18, 2010 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
JOE RICKETTS HAS DISCUSSED THIS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac6h2wczxGA
Joe says that it is “his money”. Tom approached his father to get the funds for the purchase, and explained that “they sell every ticket, win or lose”. Joe said “now you’re talking about a business.”
Joe demanded that Tom quit his job and become chairman, which Tom did…. because Joe did not want “his money” to be at risk with management who was less than 100% dedicated to the business.
Joe also noted that Tom has sold off most of his equity stake in the Cubs in order to remain financially independent.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Nov 18, 2010 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
It was widely reported during the two-year sales process
that the team was being bought with ~600 million from cashed in Ameritrade stock and ~250 million in loans.
The Ricketts kids may have been successful business people, but they weren’t worth 600 million. Joe was worth 2 or 3 times that.
by JohnM on Nov 18, 2010 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Here's something to chew on.
Every dollar we spend on the Cubs will, at some level, support the Ricketts’ bankrolling of political ads for candidates who support his views — like the $600K he sent to Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, and negative ads against candidates who do not.
In the wake of Citizens United, Joe Ricketts can spend as much as he wants through his TAE PAC.
It’s certainly all legal, but it’s something to think about.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Nov 18, 2010 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
So what?
Joe Ricketts can support anybody he wants. Doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.
Would you be this concerned if he donated $600K to Alexi Giannoulias?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 18, 2010 6:14 PM CST up reply actions
It was not who he supported but the theme of his support
Too tired to look it up but his group was something like Citizens against government spending ( of which he was the only donor) and he has spoken out repeatedly against earmarks and other things he believes are a waste of the tax payer’s money, thus raising the issue that the Cubs are being hypocritical in asking for government money to fix up Wrigley.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 18, 2010 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That's not what D98 is saying
If I’m reading him correctly.
There is a measure of hypocrisy in this, perhaps, but it depends on the eldest Ricketts’ involvement with the franchise.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 18, 2010 6:27 PM CST up reply actions
I tried to post about this 1 week ago today
and was censored by Al, him thinking Joe wasn’t involved and it being too political. While I told him it wasn’t about left & right, but right and wrong, he wasn’t buying it. Think he’ll be softening his stance.
But what the real deal about Joe Ricketts’ group is that its about Gov’t waste spending, which clearly by some (many) folks the potential deal with the Cubs and the city & state could be viewed as just that, waste spending.
The old man bank-rolled purchase & told his kid, “you’re running the show”. D98 posted the link in a couple spots here.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 19, 2010 5:54 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That's not true, per Joe Ricketts' own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac6h2wczxGA
Here you have Joe Ricketts explaining how he bought the Cubs, with “his money”, and told Tom that he’d have to run the team, because he didn’t want “his money” to be at risk with poor management.
He even mentions that Tom sold off most of his equity in the team in order to be financially independent. Frankly, Joe Ricketts the “owner” of the Cubs in every possible technical and legal sense of the word.
And Tom Ricketts publicly stated that he agrees with his father’s anti-earmarks stances yesterday, at great length.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Nov 18, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Wonder what Al thinks of this now
and if he’s going to change his stance about Joe’s [monetary] impact regarding the Cubs.
Just win the next game...!
by blackhawk24 on Nov 18, 2010 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I hope to get clarification from Tom Ricketts directly when I have a chance to talk to him.
It is a semantic distinction. You consider Jerry Reinsdorf to be “White Sox owner”, although his share of the actual team is very small. Yes, I know it’s a different setup.
If it’s Joe Ricketts’ money, it is still being run by his kids, not him.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Better ask him what the meaning of "is" is.
Or are you planning to ask him if he misquoted himself?
Call it semantics if you like, but the family fortune came from Daddy Joe.
It’s like you’re arguing whether we lost Game 6 of the NLCS because of Bartman’s Interference, Gonzalez’ Error, or Baker leaving Prior in too long. While we’re arguing that the Cubs lost the game.
What I’m saying that it’s a semantic distinction without practical relevance.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 18, 2010 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
It's more like saying that the Yankees were "owned" by Hank Steinbrenner while George was still alive.
George was pretty clearly out of it, and he hadn’t been involved in the day-to-day dealings of the Yankees since the ‘90s. The team was being run by Cashman as GM, and Hank & Co. But no one would say that George wasn’t the owner. Because he was.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
when you're done with tom
maybe you could stop by halas hall and try to explain to virginia mccaskey that she doesn’t really own the bears.
by circuitclout on Nov 19, 2010 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
So...
by this logic shareholders aren’t actually owners of companies because they’re not sitting in board meetings, or down on the plant floor?
by Damen Jackson on Nov 19, 2010 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
LOL
you said logic….when talking about Al….that’s funny
by circuitclout on Nov 19, 2010 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
it's true about joe and pete... inferences are going to have to be made about tom until he comes out and supports the contrary.
before i believe otherwise. this is 300 million dollars from illinois. 80 million from arizona.
http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Tom_Ricketts.php
I mean, I can make inferences all i want, by diving into his political donations, political history, and what ever the heck he’s done… it all comes to the same conclusion. He seems to be a stick it to the taxpayers so that the Ricketts family can make an even better buck. I don’t particularly care if we win a World Series, because, this is a tremendous cost to non-fans and fans alike.
If that’s the M.O. of the Ricketts family, to turn this into a private gain, publicly financed organization, I want no part of the Cubs. I’ll turn in my fan card and root for the Twins.
If he wants to pony up his own money, or raise ticket prices. That’s directly impacting ONLY those who care and have a vested interest in the team and the organization. (as an addendum, i’m still miffed about my season tickets, but that’s another beast).
Five foot three seems to thrive on his misery...
by awfullyquiet on Nov 17, 2010 6:43 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What's the "100" for at the bottom of the first picture?
Are we celebrating a century-plus of losing? Is it Wrigley’s 100’s anniversary this year or something? Whatever it is, I don’t know about it, and it’s really stupid. And has nothing to do with some idiotic push to get free money.
You know what really pisses me off? That this HAD TO BE the Ricketts Family play from the get-go. Think about it! They’ve been busting their balls working on snatching $200,000,000 rather than like, you know, baseball stuff.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
The "100" is for the 100th anniversary of the park, which is supposed to be when these renovations are finished.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Here's a question:
Has there ever been public funding for RENOVATIONS instead of a whole new stadium?
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Soldier Field but it's not owned by the Bears.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Nov 16, 2010 11:03 PM CST up reply actions
I think calling soldier field "renovated" is a stretch.
The grass and the columns is about all that remained. They dropped a new stadium over the old one.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 11:55 AM CST up reply actions
I knew it
We can't win at home. We can't win on the road. I just can't figure out where else to play!
-- Pat Williams
by Fat Punk Kicker on Nov 17, 2010 2:43 PM CST up reply actions
Tom is focused like a laser beam on his talking points.
He is very specific about how this project will be beneficial to the local economy. Notice that Tom does not discuss 1) possible downsides to the budget if he is wrong (likely, as even the Treasury Secretary and Chairman of the Federal Reserve has stated that the economy will be sluggish for an extended period of time 2.) delineate how this proposal disproportionately benefits his family’s finances.
In other words, like most Wall Street-types, he touts the potentiality of the positives while completely ignoring the downside.
“Saving Wrigley Field” is code for bailing out the idiotic decisions of the silver-spooned progeny of billionaires.
by explodingpinwheelsforfunandprofit on Nov 17, 2010 1:04 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
He bought the Cubs
he should profit, I just don’t agree with him going to the state. He bought the team, pony up the cash and get it done Tom.
The Ricketts family is now being compared to the McCaskey family in the Trib today....
Sounds about right!
Also just in.....Chad Fox signed to a 2 year deal!
He is all healed and ready to go!
JH says he will be a veteran help to Caridad setting up this year!
Does that mean they'll start firing each other?
One of Lee Elia's 15%
by waiting4cubs on Nov 17, 2010 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
There is absolutely
NOTHING GOOD that can come from this.
I’d much rather have heard Ricketts being compared to Rocky Wirtz. Then I’d feel much, much, much, much better.
Just win the next game...!
I am of two minds about this
I don’t like TIF’s. (I live in Rockford, a bit of research will tell you why I don’t like them.)
I dislike the idea of giving the people who just spent a bunch of money to buy the team and the ballpark a boatload of money. I dislike it on a political level and a practical level.
On the other hand, I go to Wrigley. I would hate to be the first person killed there by some piece of falling concrete simply because we were too wedded to Wrigley Field, the home of losing. I also would hate to see the stadium continue to be 20 to 30 years at least behind the times in terms of the amenities available. We’re not going to get a new ballpark, so the best we can do is fix it up so it’s a proper ballpark, and not a postage card.
Lastly, I’m a firm believer in Keynesian economics. This is a prime example of the investments you want government to make, that benefits the state long-term. The biggest problem from my view is that certain groups have made the subject of state government so toxic that people will knee-jerk against it regardless of the sense it makes.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
I too am a Keynesian and would like investments in infrastructure.
Don’t see the upside for the state in handing money to the Ricketts. The place has been near capacity for years. You can’t fit more people inside. And seriously, a Cub museum? You think that’s going to draw more than a few people a day during the offseason? This is $200 Million Illinoisans money spent for the comfort of a tiny percentage of the population – especially the owners.
It doesn't have to be done the way the Ricketts want it
Conditions can and will be attached if this goes through.
But I doubt it goes through in this climate.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Nov 17, 2010 8:40 AM CST up reply actions
They ate definitely exaggerating the economic bonus to the neighborhood.
It’s also silly to suggest that Wrigleyville is an economically blighted area in need of government funding. There are neighborhoods all over the city that have a much greater need for this infusion of capital. If this money goes to the Cubs it won’t be available for other projects.
by Acapulco Taco Pie on Nov 17, 2010 8:42 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Ehm...
And seriously, a Cub museum? You think that’s going to draw more than a few people a day during the offseason?
The Packers Hall of Fame (at Lambeau Field in freaking Green Bay, not quite the tourist destination Chicago and Wrigley specifically – 2nd or 3rd biggest destination in the state depending on who you trust – are) pushes through 75,000 visitors a year. They do that on the back of maybe a dozen events tops at the facility per year – including preseason games.
I have no doubt more than a “few” people a day would make their way through the Triangle Building. Capturing some of that Goose Island / Cub World revenue would be a real plus for the team – i’ve often wondered how much more money the North Side makes off the Cubs than the South Side does off the Sox, considering the plethora of ways available to spend your money around Wrigley and the total lack of similar options around the Cell.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 12:11 PM CST up reply actions
How have every sports team ...
benefitted from the ISFA? I don’t remember United Centre being sponsored in any way by ISFA. Its $175M construction was 100% privately financed.
You know my stance on this Al. Nice discussion the other day BTW. Still think Ricketts is looking for leverage here. But the timing at best is suspect.
Love the drawings, like the concepts, totally respect the spirit of the enterprise. I’d rather see a little more emphasis on the baseball operations, that’s all.
Just win the next game...!
I'm not sure what the ISFA has done for the UC either.
That was a claim made during the news conference.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I recall...
…the UC being built with all private funds put up by Wirtz and Reinsdorf. The state may have put in a few bucks for the community, but the UC was 100% built with private dough.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Jade Scorpion has a point above:
I think the minimum fans should require of this team/ownership before opening the public coffers is to first have a product on the field genuinely capable of competing for a championship. Show us you can manage your own money well before we give you ours.
As I have said, put the emphasis on winning championships first, and I can assume many of us would be in a much better “frame of mind” to WANT to fund something like this with the State’s money.
it's not a coincidence
that ricketts has no problem paying $200+ million for the triangle building but wants the state to foot the bill for a $200+ million renovation of wrigley field.
one is likely to be a cash cow commanding huge rents.
the other is sorely needed, but let’s face it, building new clubhouses isn’t going to drive ticket sales and increase revenue.
follow the money.
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 9:12 AM CST up reply actions
The difference I can see
Is that Ricketts inherited a stadium in need of repairs when he purchased the team. How much of that is his fault? I’m not sure it is entirely fair to expect the family to invest money into repairs and upgrades that should have happened long ago.
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 8:56 PM CST up reply actions
If you ever buy a house..
I suggest you pop for the home inspection before you sign. I’d say it’s your fault if you bought a house without knowing that it needed a full re-wiring, a new roof, and there were cracks in the foundation.
If you know about problems like that, you lower your offer to account for the repairs to bring the house up to snuff. Don’t bother crying to the bank that you need free money to fix things after the fact.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 10:17 PM CST up reply actions
When I bought my house I sent a note to the county
asking them to rise taxes to pay for my repairs. Still haven’t heard back form them
We can't win at home. We can't win on the road. I just can't figure out where else to play!
-- Pat Williams
by Fat Punk Kicker on Nov 18, 2010 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
The post was staarted by stating,
“we all want the same thing, for the Cubs to win the World Series.” — and then proceeded with the Ricketts plan for future of Wrigley.
How are these two objectives linked? Do you really think that better whirlpools and batting cages are the thing that will seal the deal on the WS?
The real problem is I don’t see any evidence that the Ricketts’ can differentiate the goals. All I hear is them talk about is the Wrigley experience, picnic atmoshere, and how they used to stratagize about where to sit in the bleachers to be closest to the beer vendors.
There is nothing about the plan to make the team better on the field. No urgency to be sure, but not even acknoledgement that team performance is a priority.
"The Cubs are due in sixty-two." - #14
by BatCubFan on Nov 17, 2010 9:20 AM CST reply actions 3 recs
A lot more than this
I think Al has a link for a post stating Randy Wells reads the site. Just about every post was green.
Every comment was green'd in that post.
You can search the site for it — had something to do with Randy Wells using my photo on his Facebook profile.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm naturally skeptical
Can someone guarantee me that 1,000 new jobs will be “created?” I think people have a perception that 1,000 unemployed people will now have work if this project gets green-lighted.
Or could it be that the construction company already has projects that they are doing and will pull people from the other projects and just will elongate all the projects. The result would be no “new” jobs created. Just job security for existing construction companies.
I honesty don’t know but would love for someone to go behind the simple platitudes of 1,000 jobs created.
"I'll tell you what's helped me my entire life. I look at baseball as a game. It's something where people can go out, enjoy and have fun. Nothing more."
by KaliCub on Nov 17, 2010 10:22 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
I can't imagine them saying that if it simply pulls people from other projects.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But they can.
People can define “jobs created” several different ways. It’s great for generating buzz, but doesn’t necessarily communicate what you think it does.
There is a lot of truth in what you say
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
From e-man’s tribune link
Daley said Monday he likes the idea of keeping the Cubs at Wrigley for at least 35 years. But he says he will not saddle his successor with a plan that hobbles amusement-tax growth.
Why wouldn’t The Family try to build some political support and wait for a more favorable climate before making this announcement? It just seems like they thought they were going to walk in and say hey we’re the Cubs and we need money.
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
I live in Iowa, so I don't care...
Though I stand opposed to public dollars being used in this manner. There’s a huge difference between bonding for something like this with public backing and straight taxpayer expense.
Let’s let the state and city back a $200 million “loan” to the Cubs payable over a 15-20 year period. This gives the government a chance to recoup the money in the form of municipal/government bonds well before the Cubs pay back the loan at a reasonable 2-3% or so and still reap the rewards of a renovated stadium in terms of economic development to the city.
Proud recipient of a hot dog shot from the Iowa Cubs hot dog gun.
Here's a list of bugetary shortcomings the State of Illinois currently faces:
- Frequent delays in paying health care providers
- Frequent delays in paying schools
- Frequent delays in paying out Medicare/Medicaid dollars
- Forcing furloughs on employees
- Aggressive downsizing
- Reduced state pension
- Potentially tapped out state pension
- Cost of debt services
When set against all of these elements, is it really responsible to tap even one dime of the State’s inadequate revenue stream? Are 1,000 “new jobs” and a publicly-supported Wrigley renovation going to mean anything when hospitals close down, schools go underfunded, state services suffer, pensioners risk losing part or all of their planned cashflow, and the State’s credit rating goes (deeper) into the tank?
This is irresponsible. This is irresponsible. This is IRRESPONSIBLE.
by Flatley on Nov 17, 2010 11:27 AM CST reply actions 3 recs
Are 1,000 "new jobs" and a publicly-supported Wrigley renovation going to mean anything when hospitals close down, schools go underfunded, state services suffer, pensioners risk losing part or all of their planned cashflow, and the State’s credit rating goes (deeper) into the tank?
Apparently you don’t understand how sweet Cub Alley will be.
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
thought
you didn’t agree with “irresponsible”?
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
i was kidding
from above…."Don’t agree with the “irresponsible and sad” part…"
by circuitclout on Nov 17, 2010 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
Today
The State of Illinois does not get any portion of the Amusement Tax revenue.
How is having the ISFA issue bonds that will be paid back by the amusement tax on only Cubs tickets (over the $16.1 million per year to the city and county) tapping the State’s revenue stream?
The Amusement Tax is not used for any of the bullet points you listed above.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions
Aren't you picking a nit here?
Substitute “Cook County Goverment” or “The City of Chicago” for “The State of Illinois” above. Governmental bodies all over the country have budget problems at this moment in time.
People (as I myself have done in this thread) are confusing that minor point. Maybe because ISFA stands for Illinois Sports Facilities Authority? (And IIRC, that’s because it took an act of the legislature to set all this up when Jim Thompson stopped time itself to keep the Sox from going to Tampa.)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
There is a lot of confusion here
I have read people say this:
1) New Tax – false
2) State Tax – false
If people don’t have the facts right, how valid can their opinion be.
Unfortunately, saying no to this bond will not fix any of the problems listed above.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
Seems to me like you're trying to invalidate other arguments
over a technicality. Flatley seems to be saying that there’s a lot of things government is cutting back on now, without considering a new expenditure of scarce public money on Wrigley Field. I believe that’s a valid point. It’s still a giant taffy pull over public money.
(I responded to your point about the confusion in our back-and-forth up thread)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Similar circumstances drove baseball out of Montreal
Then-Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard denied the Expos government funding to help construct a new downtown stadium, citing the closure of hospitals and schools as a more serious concern than keeping a baseball team afloat.
I’m not bringing this up as a way of saying “unless you want to see the Cubs leave Chicago, you better go along with raising taxes and bonds to keep Wrigley Field afloat”. Personally, if I was a resident of Chicago or Cook County or Illinois, I wouldn’t agree to using taxes/bonds to help rebuild Wrigley Field. The only reason I mentioned the Expos is because some might be interested as to why/what happened (besides the 1994 work stoppage) that killed baseball in Montreal.
One thing we can agree on: The Honeymoon is OVER
The aw shucks we are just life long Cub fans who want to bring a winner and by the way I met my wife in the bleachers image of the Ricketts is over. The irony is that most of us did view the Trib and certainly Zell as corporate entities who didn’t really "care’ about the team. We dreamed of a white knight who loved the Cubs and had the financial resources to make them a winner. We got the Ricketts who even if they do have the heart in the right place (and I have no way of knowing) have been ham handed and arrogant when dealing with the public. They act as if a stadium that has been packed for a decade and a waiting list of over 100,000 means they really don’t have to worry the average fan because they will always come and they will give blind support not only to team on the field but to ownership.
I sincerely hoped that disastrous non sale of tickets to the Convention would wake them up, but no sign of that yet. They need to realize now that they are failing on and off the field. I know it has only been their first year and believe me I was more than willing to give them time especially with the on field issues which are harder to control, but the way they have behaved on a wide variety of business issues from ticket sales to wanting public funds does not leave me with a lot of hope.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 17, 2010 11:53 AM CST reply actions 5 recs
Maybe this is all a good thing, a metamorphosis or something.
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
I still think Cuban could have been that white knight.
The dude made his own money – not the case with our owners.
The dude has a proven history of turning pro sports franchises successful.
The dude is wildly competitive – obnoxiously so, yes – but there is no doubt that winning is his focus.
I fear we may have missed out…
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 17, 2010 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And yet...
… Cuban’s proposal to buy the team was just as highly leveraged as the Ricketts’. I suspect he’d have had as many financial issues as they do.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If Forbes is right
The Cubs went from 0% debt/value in 2009 to 80% debt/value in 2010. That’s where the leverage the Ricketts took on went.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 2:15 PM CST up reply actions
But would he try to improve the team or distract everyone with smoke and mirrors. The whole improving Wrigley Field is nice and even more so if nothing is going to happen this winter. How about The Family try improving the team and then worry about trying to bum a $1 next year. Who knows, maybe the economy’s better, it’s just seems weird to go begging for money your second winter on the job.
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
Ricketts is trying to strike quickly on the state
before everyone realizes its going under water. We hear all the time about CA being broke, yadda, yadda, yadda. IL is worse than CA.
If Ricketts waits a year, or even 6 months for that matter, the window would have closed on any sort of deal. Not saying he’ll get anything now, but his chance now is more than 0.0%.
It’ll sink in coming March or April when the state announces they have to give everyone an IOU on the state income tax returns’ refund.
Just win the next game...!
The proposals to highly-leverage the purchase was all due to Zell.
The only way he could squeeze the maximum profit out of the deal was to sell the team under a ‘crazy’ financing plan that had a big fat tax loophole attached for Zell.
He wasn’t going to do the deal with anyone under any other circumstances.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 2:57 PM CST up reply actions
Cuban is worth 2.5 times what the Ricketts family is...
… and the financial considerations aren’t my point anyways. The purchase was set up the way it was for the Trib’s benefit, because Ricketts or Cuban would have preferred it that way.
In my humble opinion, people who bust ass and make a lot of money are some of the smartest, most qualified people in the world….
… and those that inherit that money are often some of the least qualified.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions
Whoops...
The purchase was set up the way it was for the Trib’s benefit, NOT because Ricketts or Cuban would have preferred it that way.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 2:56 PM CST up reply actions
Oh man
I was ignorant about the details of the Rickett’s family fortune. I thought Tom was the brains behind Ameritrade. I thought we were getting a billionaire business genius as our new owner. What we’re actually getting is the billionaire’s idiot son? Egads, this gets worse every day.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 18, 2010 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
BARELY a billionaire, it should be noted.
They really did blow their wad on purchasing this team, by most accounts.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 18, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions
Well, if you are going to blow your (ahem) financial wad… ;-)
…can you think of a better way to do it than by buying your favorite sports team and the best ballpark in America?
I can’t.
For as much shit as Ricketts is getting right now (and probably will be for a long time), I’d sure love to be in his shoes.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Oh no doubt...
… i’m not belittling his billions. It’s undoubtedly more than most of us here will see in our lifetimes combined. It’s just… also not THAT rich, by rich guy standards at least. I can’t pin down an exact number (like Deputy Mayor below) but it seems reasonable to think the price of the cubs (900 million) was about 9/10ths of their worth as a family.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Nov 19, 2010 2:07 PM CST up reply actions
In 2007, Forbes Magazine stated the Ricketts family had a net worth of $2.6 billion.
In July ’09, myfoxchicago had a small profile of Todd Ricketts when the deal was heating up, but before the sale..
“The family patriarch, J. Joe Ricketts, grew up in Omaha and started a discount stock brokerage. In the 1990s he transformed the company into an Internet trading powerhouse now known as TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. He is ranked among the world’s billionaires, according to Forbes magazine, with an estimated net worth of $1.2 billion. Shares of the company are also owned by his wife and four children.
No Ricketts is listed among this past September’s Fortune 400 list of Richest Americans. Minimum to make the list was $1 billion. Many entries are “So and So & Family”.
Not sure if Daddy broke it up into individual $500 million or so shares for tax/estate purposes.. but this could be worth keeping an eye on.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 18, 2010 7:32 PM CST up reply actions
What if I take you on a second honeymoon?
Tahiti?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
Works for me
Just need to get a new passport,
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 17, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions
Makes you wonder
if they are more in love with the stadium than they are the team.
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 9:02 PM CST up reply actions
Public financing for sports staidums is a losing endeavor for the state
By and large, economists largely agree that publicly funded stadiums don’t make back their money… and that’s for new stadiums. This is just fixing up an old one.
In this case, it’s pretty dubious to me that fixing up the stadium will increase attendance or drive new development in the long-term. If the triangle building is really what you’re banking on here, you’re basically saying that you think the state will make money back on what is essentially a $300M strip mall.
by Wreckard on Nov 17, 2010 11:56 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
This is what your tax dollars should go to
A great use of tax payer money.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
or Hired Trucks or 2016 Olympics or Milennium Park or wrought iron fences
Freedom may not be free, but neither is corruption
Wherever you go, there you are!
by Dan Serafini on Nov 17, 2010 1:03 PM CST up reply actions
And neither is parking in Chicago
But you can sell it off for $1.15 Billion for 75 years. And THEN go spend most of that money in the first three years! Great!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions
OK, like I said.
These things are unrelated to the Cubs proposal. Talk about those somewhere else.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
How about a $1 surcharge on cab rides in the City?
Naah, too random, huh? Wait a minute…
Wherever you go, there you are!
I have a few issues with this
1. What Wrigley needs is a new grandstand, not “Cubs Alley”. I don’t think Ricketts could give 2 craps about making more jobs in the area. They just want all the bars and restaurants around Wrigley to be owned by the team. It’s kind of gross that they are trying to convince the taxpayers to pay for “neighborhood improvements” that seem to amount to the taxpayers building the Rickett’s family a bunch of shops, restaurants and bars.
2. For the Ricketts family to ask the state of Illinois for money—the same state that is teetering in bankrupcy, and stopped paying medicaid claims for the year in september—makes me ashmed to be a fan of their team.
3. I am really disappointed in the Ricketts era.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 17, 2010 2:12 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Ah ah.. notice the "100" in the sketches? It's a brand new marketing gambit:
wait for it…
“Century One”
(Legal has some problems with this.)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
So what are other options to fund the Renovation?
Like them or not, the Ricketts are not going to fund the renovation entirely on their own. They have taken on debt to buy the Cubs to begin with.
Private Bond Issue – For $300M, what will bonds cost in total? Any interest rate idea?
IPO? – The Cubs were a publically traded stock at one point. What could they raise by selling 40% ownership in the team?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
Private Bonds?
Hmmm….interesting.
Other options? Lesser scale enterprise and fund it themselves.
What they really need is a better TV deal. I understand the rights to TV and the current situations’ expiration date(s) had a lot to do with the hangup on closing the deal from Zell.
Just win the next game...!
That's true.
If the Cubs could start their own TV network, like the YES network, that could bring in a lot more $.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
What they need...
…is to sell the frigging naming rights of the ballpark.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Juicy Fruit Field
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 9:06 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly!
and have more advertising around the field and a jumbotron (which nets teams that have them around $15M per year).
There are plenty of creative ways to pay for renovation without asking Illinois taxpayers (many of whom are not even Cubs fans) to foot the bill.
It’d be nice to see the Ticketts family think outside the box a few times, or heck, just actually model what the Red Sox do, their stadium has advertising all over
He will have to eventually...
…and I’ll bet, he still will even if they get the state money. He just doesn’t want to reveal that plan until he gets dough from the state.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Here's a thought...
The record for the highest amount paid for naming rights belongs to Citi Field (opened in 2009) and Barclays Center (scheduled to open in 2011), both located in New York City. Each garnered deals of $20 million per year for at least 20 years, totaling $400 million.
Even in this economy, the romance of Wrigley Field has got to be good for $15m a year for 20 years, right?
There’s $300 million of funding right there, and Ricketts still has his cash to do the Triangle project.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 3:16 PM CST up reply actions
I thought about that, too.
Wrigley isn’t going to be renamed, but you’d figure a company — say, McDonald’s — would love to have its name plastered on a building facing Clark St. that would get thousands of people passing by every day of the year.
You’d think naming rights for the building alone would bring in that kind of dough. Now, remember, those naming rights deals were made in pre recessionary times. But I still think a big Chicago HQ company like McDonald’s would go for it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
As a University of Louisville fan, a basketball team that now plays in The KFC Yum! Center, I’m sick.
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
Well KFC is plastering it's name on the butts of co-eds
They have little tact
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Nov 17, 2010 9:07 PM CST up reply actions
McDonald's if
They became the concessionaire of the Cubs.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions
McRibs all Summer long!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Um, Al...
…McDonald’s already has its name plastered on a building facing Clark St. that gets thousands of people passing by every day of the year. ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
If this public/private funding dies
They may have to consider bigger naming rights and more advertising.
I think they have been reluctant to put any corporate name next to/above the Wrigley Field marquee due to the unfavorables associated to it.
Maybe this attempt at public/private funding will make people understand why they need more naming rights.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 17, 2010 3:46 PM CST up reply actions
Now there's something I can agree with you on, Risky..
The timing of this push is so ridiculous, what with the economy being what it is, and the uncertainty with the campaign for mayor just starting. You almost have to think that they can’t be this dumb.. (Unless he has Mike Madigan in his back pocket, public statements aside)
So they get turned down for the money, which allows them to toss up their hands and say we need to get the money for this from somewhere.
Which leads to what might have been the unthinkable 3 years ago.. but I can’t be:
a) Against the use of public tax money for a private company
b) Against the ‘atrocity’ of selling off the Wrigley Field name, because of tradition
and
c) Pounding my fist demanding the new owners do “whatever it takes” to win a WS.
I can’t be all three of those simultaneously, not in good faith.
My view is that the Ricketts family has figuratively spit all over Cubs tradition since they took over last year. Selling off naming rights is just another step along the path I believe they’ve put the team on. (And I’m not necessarily saying that’s all bad – time will tell if they build the powerhouse team that our market and fanbase should be able to support.)
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 17, 2010 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
I would request...
…that Ricketts ask for a few million more from the state, so he can buyout Hendry’s contract.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Nov 17, 2010 8:06 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Just out of curiosity...
…what are the number one and two tourist attractions in IL? Chicago itself? Lincoln’s tomb? Sears Tower?
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
Expressways and 26th & California
Love that signature line.
Say hello to my little friend !
Just win the next game...!
Navy Pier
Lincoln Park Zoo
Wrigley
Millenium Park
Art Institute
And to add to the already slippery slope
We have this. What can stand in the way of the Cubs getting this Gov’t handout? Two other Chicago sports teams already getting Gov’t handouts…
And here inlies the problem:
Proponent: “The Cubs should get whatever they can.”
Opponent: “Millionaire/Billionaire owners shouldn’t get gov’t money for their team.”
Proponent: “Well other teams do it, why not the Cubs?”
Opponent: “Because the state is broke & on the verge of collapse.”
Proponent: “It isn’t that bad, we’re in a deflationary mode.”
Opponent: “That won’t last and the debt is already huge.”
Proponent: “I don’t care, the Cubs need this to win.”
Opponent: “No, the Cubs need better players & mgmt to win, not more johns & $8 bison dogs.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2890432,CST-NWS-wrigley13.article
Now, if certain “situations” arise, it’d take even longer to retire these bonds?
It’s just like the debt at the national level. Where does it end? When the interest exceeds the GDP? Ludicrous? Perhaps, but it sure seems like where that’s headed. That is until China and Japan tells the US to take a hike.
Which brings this back to this situation with the Cubs. Take a look at how far out some of those dates are for US Commiscular and the spaceship on the lakefront. Does anything think those bonds will retire on schedule? Only those who think the Cubs will get Cliff Lee for the 2011 season.
The whole key is the city and state to forfeit growth in the amusement tax for at least 35 years. Since when has any gov’t entity ever been able to project a couple-3 years let alone 3½ decades? So other users of this amusement tax can’t expect growth for years & years? For 35+ years?! Right… I’ll now go listen for my brain aneurysm.
Just win the next game...!
I did some googling on this yesterday, I think Spielman's article is a bit unclear..
To the best I could figure out, the Amusement Tax goes direct into the City of Chicago coffers, it’s the Hotel Tax that funds the ISFA. I can’t find anything to suggest that any part of the Amusement Tax currently goes to benefit any sports team.
Sources said the Cubs’ financing plan calls for a 2 percent hotel tax to backstop the Wrigley bonds when bonds used to finance Soldier Field and U.S. Cellular Field are paid off.
Bonds for the Cell will be paid off in 2021. Soldier Field bonds will be retired in 2031. If amusement tax growth is not great enough by then to retire the Wrigley bonds, the Cubs intend to borrow from the hotel tax and pay it back by extending the life of the bonds.
The way I’m reading that is that the Cubs want to tap into the Hotel Tax (which already exists) as a backup to the Amusement Tax that supposedly only pays down the Cub bonds with what is collected beyond $16m a year.
That could force the city and state to forfeit amusement tax growth for even longer than 35 years.
But here’s the catch: If the Cubs move to the head of the line, the Bears and Sox could be deprived of the money they may need to complete stadium renovations.
So if the Cub bonds aren’t paid off, they get to keep collecting Amusement Tax proceeds, but also get to dip into the Hotel Tax fund. That Hotel Tax was specifically created by the State Legislature as a mechanism to fund the ISFA, which paid for US Cellular Field and the Soldier Field re-do.. and is on the hook to maintain those state-owned facilities.
The “other users” of the Amusement Tax is the City of Chicago budget. If the Cub bonds are taking any of that revenue, other programs need to be cut – or other taxes/fees need to be raised to cover that lost/diverted city revenue. The handout the other Chicago sports teams got was from the state. The handout Ricketts is asking for is mainly from the city, with a backup handout from the state if necessary.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 18, 2010 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Just to be clear of the tax breakdown
For the 12% amusement tax paid on Cubs tickets:
9% goes to the City of Chicago
3% goes to Cook County
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 18, 2010 12:34 PM CST up reply actions
Thanks for the clarification.
That explains why it’s more than the mayor and alderman getting sucked into the debate here. Mike Madigan and Gov. Quinn are relevant based on the potential use of the Hotel Tax, which is a state deal.
by The Deputy Mayor of Rush Street on Nov 18, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions
When Ricketts swung at the Pinata
He was hitting a political hornet’s nest. Taking future tax increases from the city and county and asking the State to float the bonds with possible hotel tax backing??
While I agree that some portion of taxes on Cubs tickets could go to renovating Wrigley, that’s just too many people to have to appease.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 18, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
Wish they could've put in the foundation for the new clubhouse
When they redid the playing field a few years ago.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Bad sell job by Ricketts
I like the idea of rennovating Wrigley, but I feel that the Ricketts have done a poor job of selling it. I was pissed when the city started taxing my fun with the amusement tax, but I would accept it , if I knew it was being used to rennovate Wrigley. The cubs generate a lot of money for the city and there are a lot of businesses in that neighborhood that benefit off Wrigley. I just hope they don’t turn it into a theme park, like other teams have done.
by bleacherderelict on Nov 18, 2010 2:51 PM CST reply actions
Renovate Wrigley
But don’t change it completely that is lost its “historical value.”
Bigger concourses are always nice! Just go to a game at the Metrodome…shudders So..Many..People…
Darko is my bodyguard.
by Premier Cherdenko on Nov 18, 2010 8:54 PM CST reply actions
ISA UC involvement
Al,
What exactly was the “help” the ISA provided Wirtz/Riensdorf on the building of the UC? I know that was mostly a privately funded partnership that got the United Center built. I know United Airlines bought the naming rights (that expires in 2014). I know the city helped with zoning and some of the infrastructure, but what did the ISA do? Was it help with bonds or the financing portion? Unless I’m off that was mostly a privately done deal, that obviously benefited the owners who put it together and their tenants (the Hawks/Bulls).
Roger Noll has an often cited book called, “Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums,” and although it is becoming a little dated (published in 1997) the argument largely remains the same in similar tomes: should the public foot any of the bill for privately owned sports stadiums? Renovations, building, etc. should all of that come out of the taxpayers pocket or should the owner who benefits most from these projects have to pay the most/all of the bill.
There’s no doubt Wrigley needs fixing, modernizing, etc…but at what cost to the services/programs that the city relies upon the amusement tax to help fund? When it was instituted (the sports amusement tax) was there a guideline as to where the funds had to be allocated?
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
