Cubs Wrigley Financing Proposal Dead
by Al Yellon on Dec 2, 2010 8:08 AM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print
According to Fran Spielman in the Sun-Times this morning, the proposal to use 35 years' worth of ticket amusement taxes to finance Wrigley Field improvements is dead:
John Patterson, a spokesman for Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), added, "Bond counsel has had technical issues with the financing of the backup plan. ... If that issue can be resolved in the coming weeks, it could be called in January. If not, it will be revisited as we head into the new session."
Dennis Culloton, a spokesman for Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts, said the Ricketts family has held "countless meetings" with elected officials to find "a plan that works for everyone."
"The key is to save Wrigley and create thousands of jobs in a public-private partnership. ... It's just a matter of coming up with the exact plan," he said.
Another source said legislative leaders have told the Cubs to "come back with a plan with a different backup that does not include the hotel tax. ... It may involve a combination of things," including a historic preservation tax credit.
As the Ricketts family may have learned, it's not simply asking for a "public-private partnership" which is the issue; many businesses do this and many governmental bodies have given various kinds of breaks to private businesses in order to stimulate job creation or other economic activity. It's the public perception that the Cubs were asking for a handout -- whether this is true or not -- in difficult economic times when they were also raising ticket prices on certain "premium" games, and in times when public funding for sports stadium construction in general is getting a rather dim view. The Cubs say the perception doesn't match the reality. That may very well be true, but it's very difficult to eliminate the perception.
If the Cubs can come up with a creative proposal that doesn't raise taxes on anyone and that doesn't cost the city, county or state needed revenue that could go for other things in a time when all these local bodies are running deficits, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, they'll have to go back to the drawing board -- again.
147 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This does not bode well, so sayeth my gut.
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
I thought the same thing.
Then I realized my gut also sayeth things like "This is the Year!’ so maybe I shouldn’t listen to it.
I meant next year!!!!! I need to wait until January I guess to say that.
Hill is back, the pennant is won!!!!!!!!
true, so very true.
If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid.
Go bake cookies
All is well. Remain calm.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 8:55 AM CST up reply actions
Joe and TAE should be happy about this.
:-p
"It's important in life to not give a shit. It can help you a lot." - George Carlin
by bluemagic9 on Dec 2, 2010 8:45 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
So what does this mean?
The Ricketts family must come up with new stocking stuffer ideas this Christmas?
Pass the egg nog.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
The initial proposal made me uncomfortable...
…but I was trying to be as patient as I could about understanding it and hearing all sides on the issue. Forgive me if this is a dumb question that’s been raised before but: Didn’t the Ricketts propose to match the ~$200 million in public funds they received and invest those private dollars into the surrounding neighborhood? And, if so, why don’t they just let the neighborhood take care of itself and apply those private funds directly to Wrigley Field?
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
That's what I'm thinking now
I saw this proposal as a way to get fans to go down at Wrigley year round and do more than go to games April-September and take pictures. Put some worthwhile stuff in there (restaurant, bars, museum) and host tours year round, and then you create a year-round tourist attraction that happens to be the home of a great sports franchise. If people are going down there all the time, they will trickle into the neighborhood and line their pockets. I know Ricketts wants to create some goodwill with the community, but it starting to seem like the community just like the perk of saying they live near Wrigley. I say do what you need to do and see if the Joneses are willing to keep up.
"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth
Right.
Again, maybe I’m dumbing down this very complex issue, but it seems to me that, if the Cubs are succesful, winning baseball team, the community will be able to take care of itself…eventually. Imagine how many more people will pour into the Wrigleyville area if the Cubs could put together a run like the Phillies have over the past four years — hell, the last seven years (winning seasons). I understand that the Ricketts are carrying a heavy, heavy debt load after buying the team. But, to me, that’s all the more reason to focus on what they signed up to do: Improve/run the team, not necessarily the surrounding businesses.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Because the Ricketts want to own the Triangle Building, which will generate revenue, outright.
Here’s a quick and dirty, back-of-the-napkin proposal for getting this job done without public funds:
1. The Ricketts fix Wrigley with their own $200M.
2. The Cubs get some corporate/private partnerships for the Triangle Building, in exchange for some portion of the revenue that’s going to be generated by the bars/restaurants/tourist attractions located therein.
(As an aside, there is absolutely no way that building will cost $200 million dollars, is there? There are buildings exactly like it all over the city. Corner lot, full-block, 3-5 stories, first floor retail, offices/residential above. How is this going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars?!)
Or, the Cubs start selling “Cubbie Bonds” to their fans at below market coupon rates (and to corporate investors at market rates) — fans get, say, savings account returns (1% or so), plus some nominal cost “Cubbie” benefit each year (a ball autographed by someone, a stadium tour pass, a parking pass, a suite pass for a game), depending on the amount/time you loan, and you get the interest + principal at the end of the term.
1 month ago, they could have sold a ton of these. There’s really no way that the Cubs are going to fail to repay the principal over so many years.
Now, their fans think that they’re working some kind of scam.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 9:41 AM CST up reply actions
Interesting ideas, to be sure.
Given how poorly this how financing measure has gone over — now to the point of failing completely — they’re going to need to be much more creative about getting these things done.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
George Will from Bunts
Undaunted, I recently resolved to buy one share of Cubs stock so that on my income tax form I could list my occupation as “baseball owner”.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions
I used to own a share, but I was in HS so no tax form.
However I would think “sucker” or “bad investor” would be better descriptions of my occupation for owning a piece of the Cubs.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
Do you still have the stock certificate?
I’d love to see a picture of one.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
I do. It is framed
As you might realize from my posts, I am technology challenged, but Al and others have urged me to get a picture and post it. I will try to do so this month. For the record the company was THE CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE BALL CLUB and incorporated for tax purposes in Delaware. I have a few old letters from them as well. Alas I was only able to own for about 3 years before the Tribune bought them. There were 10,000 shares. Mr. Wrigley owned about 90% but over the years some had been sold/given to employees and my parents found one and made it my very special high school graduation present.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 11:45 AM CST up reply actions
Too bad they couldn't afford more.
Maybe you could own the Cubs by now.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It was $1,000
I got $2300 when they were sold to the Trib less than 3 years later. Best investment I ever made or at least my parents made. However with less than 1,000 shares not like you could get controlling interest. I don’t know how many shareholders there were as many did in fact own more than one share. Seriously the coolest Cub item I will ever own.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 1:47 PM CST up reply actions
honest answer
the ricketts are willing to spend their money where they see the potential for profit but they want taxpayer dollars to cover the costs of repairs and maintenance that won’t generate any revenue but will hurt the bottom line.
spending $200 million on the triangle building and in the neighborhood is likely a good investment that would generate positive cash flow via high rents, museum admissions, merchandise sales, etc. it also increases the value of the franchise.
but renovations to wrigley are sure to be costly and likely to be a net negative. while it might extend the life of wrigley field it doesn’t directly generate any revenue since no one is going to buy a ticket because the bathrooms are nice or to imagine how nice the underground clubhouses are.
by circuitclout on Dec 2, 2010 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd ammend your last sentence ...
and say that very few people are going to buy tickets for those reasons. I would say that there is a small percentage of people who don’t go to Wrigley because the amenities suck. But you’re right in saying that the return on repairs would pale in comparison to investing in the neighborhood.
are you really suggesting
that someone walking past the ballpark would buy a ticket to a baseball game just to use the john?
No.
I’m suggesting that some fans (a small number, admittedly) are less likely to go to Wrigley if they know that the bathrooms are disgusting.
That does make some sense.
One of the Ricketts’ major justifications for asking for the renovation funds is that Wrigley is a huge tourist attraction and out-of-town visitors make up some a huge portion of ticket sales. That may at least partly explain why they’re so focused on developing the surrounding neighborhood, which probably has more appeal to casual “tourist” fans than up-to-date player facilities or even a winning team.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
when perception is reality
It’s the public perception that the Cubs were asking for a handout
maybe the public perceives that the cubs were asking for a handout because, well, the cubs were asking for a handout. the cubs asked the state for $200-$300 million dollars. of course, the state is virtually bankrupt so they’d have to borrow the money by selling bonds. the cubs proposed that bonds be paid back with future tax revenue.
so the cubs get $200-$300 million for renovations to wrigley field and pay nothing out of their pocket for it. how is that not a handout?
by circuitclout on Dec 2, 2010 9:18 AM CST reply actions 6 recs
+1
The Cubs were asking for public assistance. There’s absolutely no question that other businesses — indeed, the Sox and the Bears — do this. But the simple fact is that the Cubs are asking this when the state is in terrible financial shape, when the national economy is still really rough, and when the U.S. has a 10 percent unemployment rate.
There’s no perception problem. There’s a timing problem.
That's correct.
I believe it’s both timing AND perception. The timing is bad. The perception makes it worse.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
actually, that's wrong
it’s an inherently bad idea.
by circuitclout on Dec 2, 2010 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What's the perception problem?
Are you saying that the public was misinformed about the potential payoff of the public assistance? Because, other than that, the facts are pretty clear.
No, I'm saying it's perceived to be a bad idea because of the timing.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I think
the Ricketts are being kind of deceptive, or at the very least sneaky with the proposal.
They make it sound like they are doing a “if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” deal where the city pays for stadium renovations and the Ricketts pay for “neighborhood development”.
But the city should in no way be asked or obligated to renovate Wrigley. They have no ownership interest in it, they only get tax revenue from it just like any other business.
And the “neighborhood development” that they so generously offer to take on is simply them building a bunch of bars, restaurants and shops that the Ricketts will keep the revenue from, and will probably if anything hurt the local business owners in the neighborhood through competition.
The only jobs it will create woul be temporary construction jobs and low-paid service industry jobs.
It seems like the Ricketts are asking the city to scratch their back, and if they do, the Ricketts will allow them to keep scratching their back for the next few decades. It’s the whole concept that seems intentionally misleading to me.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Dec 2, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
it's not a timing problem either
even if the economy were booming it would still likely be a bad idea for the state to take on debt so they can give a $200-$300 grant to a thriving business while depriving the city of chicago and cook county of tax revenue growth for 35 years.
the white sox and bears situations are an apples to oranges comparison because the state owns both of those facilities.
by circuitclout on Dec 2, 2010 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but the assistance in those cases helped private enterprises -- the Sox and the Bears.
This part of the argument comes down to personal opinion. I don’t have a problem, in a vacuum, with government helping private enterprise (though Joe Ricketts seems to — but that’s another topic). But I can see why others generally would.
I have a problem with this happening when the state budget is a joke and when the economy is rough. And I have a problem with the “this is a perception” argument.
my point is simply
that it’s a slightly different discussion when it comes to us cellular and soldier field because the facilities are publicly owned. yes, the tenants benefit from the improvements but in theory there is a return on investment since the teams are supposed to be paying rent and improved facilities should equal higher rents. but in practice i don’t know how much they are paying or if it would be considered “fair market value.” in both cases i’d assume the teams are being subsidized to some extent.
I agree on this point.
While I don’t know how much the state is actually receiving from the Bears or Sox, the pill goes down a lot easier when the taxpayers can think “at the end of the day, we own this stadium and the land it sits on.” There’s a real asset involved.
With the Ricketts proposal, the taxpayers would literally be rebuilding a stadium that would, thereafter, belong to a billionaire family. The Ricketts could turn around and sell it, and theoretically pocket the $200M profit.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
The taxpayer can think that, but it's not really true
Public entities might own US Cellular Field and Soldier Field, but it’s not like the taxpayer can easily use either of those facilities. They are not public parks with low usage fees for the everyday taxpayer.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
That's not the distinction that I'm making.
Obviously, everyone knows they aren’t public parks. But we also know that, if it really came down to it, the state could get some cash for those stadiums.
With Wrigley, our $200M would be gone, and the Ricketts would receive all the benefit.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Funny thing is, it would be OUR $200M
Well, the $200M or $300M would actually come from bond holders. But the bond payback would come from the amusement tax on Cubs tickets – mostly paid for by Cubs fans.
Obviously too straight-forward to be sellable to the public.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 12:57 PM CST up reply actions
No matter who pays off the bonds...
the end result will remain. The new triangle building will be the sole property of the Ricketts.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Right
Instead of a bunch of Chicago hotel visitors who paid for and own Soldier Field and US Cellular. Oh wait, they don’t own it. They just pay for it.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 1:23 PM CST up reply actions
Technically "paid for" by Cubs fans
but with money that would otherwise go to city & state. If the Cubs really wanted the fans to pay for it they could do what Broadway theaters do, they impose a surcharge specifically set aside for maintaining old theaters. How exactly would the Cub fans feel if the Ricketts ADDED another $5.00 per ticket for “renovation” fund. Doubt it would go over well.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Be careful what you ask for
sounds like a long term PSL, but without the license.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 4:26 PM CST up reply actions
I am definately not asking for it
just pointing out that the using the amusement tax is using funds that would in fact go to other services.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 5:15 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed.
If I had to choose between subsidizing the business decisions of the Cubs and the Cubs not fielding a competitive team, I would choose the latter. It’s a bad deal for most if not governments that do this, but the appeal is spreading the cost over many taxpayers and subsidizing construction jobs to specific labor groups that tend to vote. In fact, now that I think about it, it’s no different then what the State does all the time with interest groups, keep up the good work!
Surprise !!
Good…! Glad to hear it !!
It’s more than timing and even perception. Billionaire owners of teams should not get public money. It was my stance in the AZ / Mesa ST complex and here to for Wrigley.
I have to wonder though – this idea seemed so far fetched from day 1 – is if the family isn’t really just putting out feelers, knowing it won’t happen, so they can later either leverage the city and state or just plain move to a new (preferably outside Cook Cty) location.
Just win the next game...!
OK, I couldn't help but laugh at this:
If the Cubs can come up with a creative proposal that doesn’t raise taxes on anyone and that doesn’t cost the city, county or state needed revenue that could go for other things in a time when all these local bodies are running deficits, then I’m all for it.
It just reminds me of Michael Scott’s approach to economics and finance:
Michael Scott: OK well sometimes, sometimes, it makes financial sense to lose money, right? Like for tax purposes?
Oscar: Actually, I ran the numbers on this, and in this case, it makes financial sense to gain, money?
Michael Scott: Why don’t you run them again.
What ‘creative proposal’ can raise public money without raising taxes or funneling money from some other needy entity? They bought the team. If they wanna improve the facilities/team, they need to foot the bill. I’m having a hard time envisioning what this ‘creative proposal’ could be. Do you have any concrete ideas or was that just your way of saying that you’d like to see the improvements made, but the financial requirements make it highly unlikely at this time? Curious what you think will actually happen.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Well you could do it PRODUCERS style
Have the state finance the renovation with bonds that mature when the Cubs win the World Series Thus like the Producers they sell 25,000% and The Ricketts just continue to run the team as they have. No problem until Christophew Hewitt comes in to manage and Dick Shawn plays 1B and the Cubs remove the bear on their uniforms for a Swastika.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 11:12 AM CST up reply actions
Still haven't seen the Producers.
But wasn’t that the one where they try to make the Broadway play horrible in hopes that it would flop? I don’t think the Ricketts will have to try to make the Cubs horrible. Sigh.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
One would rather hope they would
In The Producers it backfires and despite hiring the worst possible, director, writer and actors the play is a huge.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
Sorry Tom and Todd already have those parts.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 2, 2010 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
can someone explain this to me.
I was under the impression the amusement tax was set up for stuff like this and that it was not expected income for the state/county/whatever government to use to handle normal operations?
---AC 00 00 00 - Believe
Whether you own a massage parlor, a car dealership or a baseball team...
they’re all private businesses and they should freaking spend their own money to fix their mirrored ceilings, showrooms and clubhouses.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 11:37 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
the public/private debate is not inherently a political discussion...
but go ahead and interject politics into it if you want.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 11:43 AM CST up reply actions
Well, actually, it is.
I don’t usually care for political discussion here, but it’s hard to avoid.
Governments and businesses make deals all the time. There are plenty of incentives for private businesses to expand, relocate, etc. — why do you think Boeing is now HQ’d in Chicago?
It’s just when it comes to sports teams, people get their panties in a bunch.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
...
“It’s just when it comes to sports teams, people get their panties in a bunch.”
In this case, it’s because a sports team wants a bunch of $ to fix stuff that should have been taken care on thier own of over the last 3 decades.
Business and Government DO make deals all the time, but Boeing didn’t ask Chicago to write them a check so they could renovate their HQ’s that they had neglected for the last 30 years. The Ricketts seem to be OK with spending some $ to build some stuff, but want both their new construction AND the remodel and they can’t really afford both. So they’re looking to the city to cover the cost of the other half. I would actually feel better about a proposition like this if the remodel and the triangle building were split up as two separate projects, with the team financing the remodel of Wrigley and the city helping with the triangle building….with the triangle building NOT BEING OWNED OUTRIGHT BY THE TEAM.
The City of San Diego got FLEECED by John Moores and Larry Luchino in the PetCo deal in almost the exact same way the Rickttes proposal was presented.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
change this
The City of San Diego got FLEECED by John Moores and Larry Luchino in the PetCo deal…
to:
The tax payers of San Diego got FLEECED by John Moores and Larry Luchino in the PetCo deal…
But you make an excellent point; rec’d.
Just win the next game...!
Yes, that is a better way to put it.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions
Boeing got $25M to $50M tax breaks and other aid to move to Chicago
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
so what?
The Cubs aren’t looking to LEAVE or MOVE to Chicago…they want public $ to apply changes to their business to increase their own profitability. The Boeing and Cubs deals are apples and oranges, yes both are fruits…but their not really the same thing at all.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:21 PM CST up reply actions
Is that the bar you set?
If you threathen to leave the city or state, we’ll cut a deal. Great plan.
It’s a toaster to the new customer and nothing for the current customer – I get that. But current customers will ask a business – what have you done for me lately?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 1:30 PM CST up reply actions
Conclusion Jumping!!! WHEEE!!!!
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions
Lot of owners do this
Not sayin’ it’s right but it is what it is. There seems to be a 50/50 shot that a stadium renovation or new stadium is at the centre of “we’re gonna leave then” discussions.
Just win the next game...!
It's already been implied by the Ricketts.
They haven’t come right out and said it, but their tax $$ proposal stated that it would “ensure that the Cubs remain in Wrigleyville…”
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 1:52 PM CST up reply actions
Doubtful we will ever see the Louisville Cubs
Just bluster and posturing from Ricketts.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
I know. It still ticks me off.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
Well as long as there is something to feed your anger in life
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions
Is there a problem here?
You’re a fan of Ricketts implying that he’ll move the team if the taxpayers don’t give him $200M?
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not implying any team movement
Far from it. I don’t think he implied that. Others do. Not me.
I think Ricketts implied that the Cubs may not be able to play in Wrigley Field at some future date. But I heard no threat to leave Chicago.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 3:26 PM CST up reply actions
There appears to be much more angst over this than is warranted
Angst due to the current economy – It sucks now, ask us when we feel better/care a lot less.
Angst over team owners asking for stadium repairs – How people feel a sense of “state ownership” in US Cellular Field or Soldier Field is beyond me.
Angst over the dollar amount and where it will come from. – Even though the 2009 amusement tax on Cubs tickets represented less than 1/3 of 1% of the City of Chicago budget. In the scope of the City budget, this is nothing.
But everyone wants a pitch fork now.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 3:05 PM CST up reply actions
I think you're out of your element.
Can you really not see the difference between the state acquiring ownership of a stadium, and just giving Tom Ricketts $200M to fix up HIS stadium?
Secondly, who cares about the 2009 budget? Ricketts wanted the city to forfeit any growth in the amusement tax for the next 35 years.
Even worse, their proposal simply didn’t make sense numbers-wise. For the growth in amusement tax receipts from the 2010 baseline to pay off $200M in bonds, the team would be mandated to increase ticket prices by 5-10% annually, and to suffer no drop-off in sales for 35 years.
After that plan failed – as it inevitably would – they’d be reaching directly into the general fund to pay off their hundreds of millions in bonds.
All because they’d rather not fix the stadium they just bought – even though they have the wherewithal to do so – because they’d far rather use their resources to build a revenue-generating attraction to compete with / siphon business from local establishments.
If the economy was going gangbusters, I’d still object pretty strenuously to Tom and Joe Ricketts getting $200M from the general fund while giving absolutely nothing in return.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Fine, stay mad, enjoy your day
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions
I think you're confused on a few levels.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
"Giving"?
Sounds like a loan to me. Now, you can argue whether the loan terms are good or not, but it is most certainly not a “gift”.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The terms are almost non-existent.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 3:45 PM CST up reply actions
It's a loan paid off
Not by the Ricketts but by future taxes.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
It's literally giving, yes!
The bonds are issued, the stadium is fixed, and the Ricketts are immediately the owners of a brand-new Wrigley Field that’s worth (more or less) $200M more than it was today. They can keep it, sell it, whatever they want.
It’s certainly not a loan taken out by the Ricketts, in any respect. They have no obligation to pay anything whatsoever!
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Difference is
Boeing HQ came to Chicago and brough/created New, not existing jobs in Chicago. The Ricketts deal is looking for the City to pay out for jobs that will be there regardless.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
NO NO NO...this Cubs project is going to bring literally 3 to 6 dozen new seasonal jobs to Chicago!!!!
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:43 PM CST up reply actions
The project will get done regardless
The Ricketts aren’t NOT going to do the building. Just to spite the city of Chicago. The triangle building will be a revenue stream for them either way. It just might take an extra year to do it without state funding.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Wow...getting what you want by planning and budgeting for it...
what an irrational concept.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
Now they're proposing that the 1% restaurant tax be applied in the area, and given to them.
I have an even better idea – build the building, open the restaurant, and then 100% of said restaurant’s profits can go to the Ricketts, to help them pay for the restaurant!
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
But they'll need the 100% of the profits of the restaurant to pay for the 11 year $226M Adrian Gonzales contract.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 2:25 PM CST up reply actions
Business is not immoral
Business is amoral. If a business can do something and have someone else pay for it, that’s how’ll they’ll try to do it.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 2:25 PM CST up reply actions
Who's arguing that?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
I'm just saying that criticism of business acting like that is futile
and, in fact, is an argument against the free market system as much as anything else.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions
My criticism is more on the subject of governments agreeing to do dumb things than it is about business asking for dumb things.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions
How do you know this proposal would be dumb?
Everyone is agianst governments doing dumb things.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 3:16 PM CST up reply actions
No, everyone disagrees on whether or not the things government does are dumb.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 3:20 PM CST up reply actions
So you really don't know if this particular proposal would be dumb or not.
You just think there’s a good chance this might be dumb.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions
On this particular proposal...I have no doubts that it's dumb.
my comment was about you saying everyone is against the gov doing dumb things.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 3:42 PM CST up reply actions
Who isn't against government doing dumb things?
On this proposal, I haven’t been convinced it’s a bad deal for Chicago or it’s citizens. It looks bad for sure, but I’m not convinced it is bad.
Honestly, I haven’t looked in depth at this or read up on what professional business people think of the proposal.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 3:48 PM CST up reply actions
This proposal - which is, thankfully, failing - was "dumb" in that asked us to believe 1+1=5
The numbers don’t add up.
It’s extremely unlikely that the Cubs can continue to increase ticket prices by 5-10% each year for 35 years without some serious attendance issues.
Ultimately, the general fund would have to cover the shortfall.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 3:21 PM CST up reply actions
But if that shortfall gets covered by increased taxes recieved
wouldn’t that make sense then?
If they build the Triangle Building and other things to draw people to that area in addition to people jsut for the games, the expectation is that they would spend. This spending has a lot of benfits other tha just to the Cubs, for example the local bar owners. Whatever is good to increase business activity is good for government.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 3:40 PM CST up reply actions
I don't get what you're saying. The point is that tax receipts can't increase that much.
There would be a few hundred million in bonds.
According to the Ricketts, those bonds would be repaid ONLY by the amusement taxes received over and above 2010 levels.
Obviously, we aren’t going to be increasing attendance, and everyone shouted to the rooftops that the 12% amusement tax would not increase. So the only way to have incremental tax receipt increases for tickets sold is through ticket price hikes – annually, and severely. And with attendance remaining at 2010 levels.
If I read your post correctly – and I’m not sure I am – you’re saying that the Triangle Building will drive enough economic activity to create a surplus in the general fund, which would pay off the hundreds of millions of dollars in defaulting Wrigley bonds?
I’m not buying that.
I’m also not buying the idea that a massive, brand new bar/restaurant complex right next door is going to be a boon to the Cubbie Bear or Sluggers or Vines or whoever, not on game days and certainly not in the dead of winter.
Does anyone really think that people are going to make Wrigley a “year round tourist destination” because of the Triangle building? I have some serious doubts.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2010 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
You read me right
But the only quibble I have is with “hundreds of millions … Wrigley Bonds”. I thought that it was starting at $200M topps and then it would be reduced by the increased amount of additional tax revenue that you noted above.
While I doubt that the increase would the $200M, I dont’ think that "hundreds of millions’ would be accurate. It would be much less than that.
Could the increase in activity caused by the Triangle Building bridge the rest? I don’t know. I think it might be possible.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 4:01 PM CST up reply actions
In that case...why doesn't the city have 3 "triangle building projects" and put a dent in the deficit?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 4:06 PM CST up reply actions
But the job per dollar cost to what Chicago gave away to get Boeing to move here
was absurd. There’d be a bigger economic ripple if the city just had someone stand on the Michigan Avenue Bridge and hand out the tens of millions instead of helping out a company that already makes a good chunk of its money from the pockets of us tax payers.
What do you think happened to those jobs in WA state?
Sure there’s new jobs here but they had to come from somewhere. Not everyone in WA picked and moved so there were lots of folks there that had to find a new job.
Bottom line is Boeing got a very favourable tax situation by moving. Otherwise they wouldn’t have moved.
Just win the next game...!
I'm not saying I advocate the Boing tax breaks
I’m just saying that its the difference in giving them to Boeing as opposed to giving them to the Cubs.
One brought new jobs, the other is asking to be compensated for jobs they already provide regardless.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Yes business and government make deal all the time
In some ways, the Boeing deal is a good example, however, reading the comments, the way the business interacts with the public on a daily basis is quite different.
The Cubs bring in $40,000+ people intothe Wrigleyville neighborhood where they spend lots of money on parking, at bars/resturants, and elsewhere. Boeing doesn’t do that, at least not near to the level that Wrigley does. So, just talking about the jobs that come in are only a part of the equation.
The simple answer is that there really are no compaisons with what the Cubs situation is. The governemnt has to get to an understanding to see what sort of benefit the Cubs bring to the CIty (in regards to tourism dollars, tax revenues, …) and then do a calculation of what that’s worth. My guess is that it’s worth FAR, FAR, FAR more than 200M, but the Cus wouldn’t make the money they make anwhere else. So, the government has to play the Cubs’ bluff. In this political/economic climate, they can do that. The CUbs arent’ moving anywhere and the public is behind the legislators.
I do think that the government wants to work with the Cubs. They’d lke to see the Triangle building too, but not as much as the Ricketts would. So, this deal will get done on the CIty’s terms. .
by jerry morales rules on Dec 2, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions
If the Cubs were asking for state money to help them move TO Chicago
Then I suspect it would be a different conversation.
I do agree with everything you said there though.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Like it or not, the Ricketts have brought politics to 1060 W Addison. That's not going to change soon.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Back to the drawing board for Ricketts
fortunately for them, the state, city and county are loaded with corrupt politicians. They just need to find the right combination, and when they do, they will get the deal that they are looking for. Ricketts are new to the game, they just need to find out how it is played here.
No doubt there's a lot of corruption.
But anything the Ricketts do now in regards to Wrigley will be under a microscope. This is a monumental screwup by the Ricketts and the Cubs.
The microscope
Hasn’t everything they’ve done the past year been under the microscope?
"I'm a Cubs fan. I'm very, very patient." -- from a Shoe cartoon.
by No Southern Belle on Dec 2, 2010 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
This is really making me wish yet again
it was Don Levin that bought the team.
Just win the next game...!
Good.
Now worry about this crappy team. If the team’s good you’ll make money, you know that, right, Ricketts?
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
But they can't make the team good until they make money first....
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
They have 200 Million sitting around for Construction/Repairs
Surely they can AT LEAST give the fans a 135-140 million payroll?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
I thought I read that the payroll should be around $130 million this season.
Spending that extra $10 million just for the sake of spending it seems unnecessary. And I can’t imagine that the Cubs are $10 million away from being contenders.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
Ricketts said that he figures we will stay in the top 3-4 in NL payrolls going forward.
2010 NL Payroll figures
1. Cubs 146
2. Phillies 142
3. Mets 132
4. Giants 97
So in essence all he did was speculate we would stay within 50 million dollars of last years payroll. Not really much of a promise IMHO. High end is 130 and the lower end is probably 100.
Maybe we can bring Andy McFail back to run this thing for nostalgia sake?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
The Cubs sit at $100M right now for 2011
Not counting free agents, arbitration cases, or raises.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
WE'RE THE WORST $100M DOLLAR BASEBALL TEAM IN MLB.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 12:55 PM CST up reply actions
and your point is??
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 1:31 PM CST up reply actions
well, to be honest...
I was trying to say that bottlenose dolphins have what could be called type 2 diabetes, but unlike humans, the animals are able to turn it off and on—perhaps an evolutionary adaptation to maintain their big brains…but I think I may have oversimplified it, so I apologize.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
Next time, the least you could do is site National Geographic as your source
or the National Marine Mammal Foundation
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
This is kind of absurd.
First, you are assuming that the top four will always have a floor of $100 million. That’s an unwarranted assumption.
Second, “top 3-4” doesn’t necessarily mean a specific rank. It could mean $132 million. Or more, depending on how these increase.
Worrying about this is silly.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Tread carefully Al, worrying about a group of millionaires playing a child's game is also kinda silly.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:18 PM CST up reply actions
Then let aaron wring his hands over payroll.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 2, 2010 1:30 PM CST up reply actions
But it doesn't make sense.
Because he’s making assumption that are likely not true.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
and that kinda thing
just never happens around here.
I thought I saw something in a recent Muskat article quoting $130 million.
I’m not sure how much of that was speculation vs. something she had heard. That’s where I got the # from.
Follow me on Twitter: @brandonrifkin
No Surprise
times when public funding for sports stadium construction in general is getting a rather dim view. The Cubs say the perception doesn’t match the reality.
Considering the economic times when the Ricketts bought the Cubs, they should have put more thought into what Wrigley would cost and possibly used it as a bargaining chip against the Trib. This park should have been refurbed 10 years ago when the $ was out there for it but the Trib was to cheap to do anything.
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra
I suspect that this has already been brought up, but..
when Ricketts bought the club I suspect he had to know the stadium needed repairs. Why didn’t he negotiate that problem with the Tribune and if he did and the cost of purchasing the club was reduced because of it, why is he asking for help? I guess it just irritates me that so many people (even billionaires) and corporations have their hand out looking for money! Seems like it always ends up being the taxpayers problem even though the rhetoric at the time always seems to rule out taxpayers funds being used. If in fact Ricketts gets the loan through these bonds who will suffer the loss of these funds which will be redirected to Wrigley? I just feel that somehow and somewhere the taxpaper will get the green weenie as usual.
Saratoga
The $200MM Renovation, pt. 2
This was my point in my fanpost “The $200MM Rennovation – Shooting from the Hip”, which was up for a while.
The question many of us want answered is: “Where is this money going to come from?”
We do not know the answer yet, however, some here have said it is going to come from us. In the form of ticket price hikes – so you can sit in the Bleachers, for $75-$100 face value? Its been discussed that there will be a point that if the product on the field does not reflect this price, the Ricketts are going to have big problems. They will this year as the team struggles to a third-place finish – or worse.
It seems that other than raising tickets, they would HAVE to consider their own cable station, ala the Yankees, as well as licensing rights, and more ads in the park. OR – PSL’s, but the Ricketts have gone on record saying that they do not prefer this method.
They may find this as the last viable solution, however.
I as well find the “jobs card” as a straw man argument, and agree with the above poster:
“The only jobs it will create would be temporary construction jobs and low-paid service industry jobs.”
That, and more t-shirt vendors, who also double as vendors in Wrigley, during the game.
Also, the argument that “we don’t have MLB-worthy batting cages” is also full of holes for the simple matter, that unless the team builds a tunnel to an off site cage at this proposed “triangle”, there physically is no room at the current site.
All I can say right now is I am glad I have a Combo Plan. Those of you who will be paying for 81 games soon could be needing to take out second mortgages the way things are going. If the organization could come up with a winning consistency like (I HATE saying this) the Cardinals, it would be more palatable.
But the Cubs have a long way to go.
This deal...
…was destined for failure from the beginning. It was completely mishandled and never had a chance.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Exactly.
I can’t believe a businessman as smart as Ricketts is supposed to be could have shot himself in the foot any worse. This was handled in a very clumsy way, that really gave the politicians no choice but to reject it. Also, wouldn’t the obvious maintenance issues with the ballpark have been reflected in the purchase price that Ricketts negotiated with Sam Zell? After all, it only took two years to close the deal.
The fact is...
…I believe the Rickett’s have come to the conclusion they overpaid for the club by quite a bit and now they are trying to scramble for their own mistake.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Why am I starting to wish that Mark Cuban had bought the Cubs?
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
For the same...
…reason why I still want Don Levin as owner. Because it seems like nothings’ really changed, except the ownership name.
Just win the next game...!
Dang, Al - I was hoping you'd go with the headline from The Tribune
Got the following news alert e-mail from the Trib today…
Cubs’ plan to use tax dollars to renovate Wrigley stalls
The Chicago Cubs’ proposal to use tax dollars to finance more than $200 million in improvements at Wrigley Field has so far missed the strike zone, but the team’s ownership is not giving up.
…and had to laugh. I mean, last year they worked on the troughs; so it makes perfect sense that this year they’re working on the stalls. ;-)
Maybe one of these years, they’ll decide to work on the product on the field.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I say, let them renovate the stalls
the way the team played most of 2010, every fan had to throw up in disgust at least once, shangri-la stalls…yes…all the pretty lights…and unicorns!
The 2010 Randy Hundley Fantasy Camp ruled!!!!
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
