State to own Wrigley?

by kaseyi on Dec 13, 2007 5:59 AM CST

Well..it's always been hinted at since the Cubs were put up for sale that Wrigley Field might be sold seperatly from the team. THe Trib is reporting this morning that the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority is looking at buying the park. I am not sure how I feel about this. THis might make improvements to the park easier to get approval of, but with the team not being in control of their stadium anymore, how many more concerts, conventions, tractor pulls, etc will we see there.

Besides, this probably will lead to a)selling of naming rights and b)much more advertising inside the park....all of which money would NOT go to the Cubs, but to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. Welcome to the future of Wrigley. Here is the link to the story.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-071212wrigley,0,2369448.story

Kasey

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 32 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ugh...

I don't like the idea of this...

by Yepsen on Dec 13, 2007 7:57 AM CST reply actions

Actually...

... I DO like the idea of this. The ISFA has been very pro-active in making changes to the Cell from its original configuration to make it more fan-friendly.

Selling to the ISFA would pretty much force any new owner to stay in Wrigley Field, and then the owner wouldn't have to pay for any changes made.

Intriguing idea.

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 8:28 AM CST up reply actions

If Wrigley was owned by the state...

...do any changes, updates, etc, get paid for through taxes or bonds? Don't live in Chicago, not sure how they're working it for US C Field or how the state can afford something like that.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Dec 13, 2007 8:33 AM CST up reply actions

The information you seek...

... can be found here.

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 8:44 AM CST up reply actions

Thank you. Very interesting...

...(except for the 'beloved White Sox' thing) :)

That may not be too bad of an idea. Seems to work for the Sox but any new owner may also want to purchase Wrigley and the Cubs as a package. It looks like the ISFA takes care of the park, handles all the vendors, security, etc and that let's the Sox owners/GM solely concentrate on the baseball team (not that you could tell that from Williams). I'm not sure what rent would be how revenue sharing with tickets/vendors/merchandising, etc would be handled but it could be lucrative for both sides.

Still don't like the idea of ???? Park at Wrigley Field, though (Even if it doesn't affect the team). Call me old school or stubborn but, well, there you have it.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Dec 13, 2007 8:10 PM CST up reply actions

How so?

Al, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm just wondering how that would "force" a new owner to play in Wrigley? Of course it could be written into any contract that the Cubs must play in Wrigley regardless of who owned the stadium.

Reds will finish above the Cubs in the NL Central. Book it.

by wicubfan on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM CST up reply actions

Who's going to build...

... a new stadium after buying the Cubs, when a perfectly good ballpark, which is associated with the Cubs, is available to play in at a reasonable rate?

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 3:59 PM CST up reply actions

I agree..

that it would make economic sense for awhile to stay in a Wrigley Field owned by the state. I guess I had trouble with the word "force". I understand if you meant it would make the most sense..

Reds will finish above the Cubs in the NL Central. Book it.

by wicubfan on Dec 14, 2007 8:50 AM CST up reply actions

I can see it now...

Republic Bank Park at Wrigley Field. There'd be a ton of companies who'd like to put their name there.

If I was a new owner, I would want to own Wrigley outright. That's part of the mystique. A third party owner doesn't have to keep the Cubs there. That would be a travesty.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Dec 13, 2007 8:05 AM CST reply actions

Im definitely concerned about naming rights

being sold. we will just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 13, 2007 8:29 AM CST reply actions

Concerned?

Seriously, why? If it's "Motorola Park at Wrigley Field", in what way does that detract from your experience going to a ballgame?

Doesn't bother me in the least, doesn't cost me anything, I don't care. I go to see baseball, not to think, "Oh, I'll buy that company's products."

Naming rights are absolutely meaningless to me.

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 8:45 AM CST up reply actions

Naming Rights

I don't care if they sell naming rights to the stadium either. More revenue and it doesn't alter the fan experience.

My only concern, from a traditionalist's perspective, is that the purchase of the naming rights would effect the name Wrigley. If the new sponsor doesn't think it's fair to give Wrigley Inc. free naming rights while paying millions themselves, they (and their dollars) could make a very persuasive argument that Wrigley should pay or lose the name.

I've never understood this in the first place...

"Look, what's important is to be in first place on the last day of the season." -Lou 8/1/07

by 26.2cubfan on Dec 13, 2007 8:55 AM CST up reply actions

I would hope...

...that any corporation would take a page from the Rose Bowl in naming rights.

Thus, rather than your example (Motorola Park at Wrigley Field) we'd have something like "Motorola presents Wrigley Field"....a little awkward, but a better ring to it. You could hear the announcer each game say "Motorola is proud to present Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs."

by Chadnudj on Dec 13, 2007 9:48 AM CST up reply actions

Right.

Something along those lines which would incorporate both the company name and "Wrigley Field".

Incidentally, although "Wrigley" is obviously a company name, the ballpark wasn't named after the company per se. It was named to honor William Wrigley, the first of the family to own the Cubs, after he died in 1933. Before that the park was known simply as "Cubs Park".

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 9:50 AM CST up reply actions

As a Federal League park...

...it was first called Weeghman Park. Heh.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Dec 13, 2007 10:06 AM CST up reply actions

I knew that, of course.

After Weeghman sold the Cubs, the park no longer bore his name.

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 4:00 PM CST up reply actions

while it's true

that it doesnt affect me in anyway, to me its the idea that wrigley is wrigley, not EA Sports Field.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 13, 2007 1:46 PM CST up reply actions

Horrible Idea

Why should tax payers assume the risk inherent in a building such as Wrigley? It is an old building that will be facing some tough choices in the next few decades.

I'm glad the state can find funds to purchase Wrigley but can't put busses on the roads and has an L system that is crumbling.

Good job Hot Rod! That's really thinking things through.

Besides, won't this commission be busy enough if the Olympics come around? This is such a bad idea on so many levels that it could only be thought of inside an Illinois government building.

by NO100 on Dec 13, 2007 9:12 AM CST reply actions

Funny

n/t

Reds will finish above the Cubs in the NL Central. Book it.

by wicubfan on Dec 13, 2007 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

Well atleast we can make sure that....

it wont be named after the worst wireless phone company.

by xene on Dec 13, 2007 9:14 AM CST reply actions

I can just imagine it now.

"This weekend, a three-game series will be played between both Cells in Chicago, hosted by the North Cell. The first 10,000 fans will receive a free 40. Look out for a brawl in the yard!"

by Flatley on Dec 13, 2007 10:08 AM CST up reply actions

Whoever owns the park should...

upgrade the food. Seriously it's 2007, get better food.

Old Style is the nectar of life.

by Mordecai on Dec 13, 2007 12:14 PM CST reply actions

irony

is in your statement, followed by your tag line... :D

Worst to First in 2007, brought to you by Lou, Sori, A-Ram and D-Lee.

by drewishdrewid on Dec 13, 2007 12:58 PM CST up reply actions

This is certainly not unusual

and this might be the best way that the team's purchase price won't hamper a future owner. This is a unique sale, and it's not like transferring the Tampa Bay Rays.....this isn't going to be an easy transfer of ownership.

Although, the Red Sox were able to pull their transfer off without state help, as far as I know.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Dec 13, 2007 1:21 PM CST reply actions

No

Not a good idea.

by Snake Plissken on Dec 13, 2007 7:23 PM CST reply actions

Why?

That's a serious question. What are your reservations?

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2007 9:24 PM CST up reply actions

Al

The state is a steaming pile of ick right now do you really want the state running Wrigley?

We are all waiting for that glorious October night when we finally win it all. Until then we will continue to cheer, never do the wave and hope.

by puckishcubsfan on Dec 13, 2007 10:43 PM CST up reply actions

This is a silly post...

... however, I will give it a serious answer. Though the ISFA is a state agency, it seems pretty immune to the petty politics that have bogged down Springfield.

I have never heard a single complaint about the way the Cell is run; they've been proactive about making changes there when necessary, and they haven't used any tax dollars for that purpose (it's all been bonds and whatever rent the White Sox are paying).

I'd have no problems at all with the ISFA running Wrigley Field. It's one of the few state agencies that seems to be doing its job correctly.

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

by Al Yellon on Dec 14, 2007 9:21 AM CST up reply actions

Normally....

I am very distrustful of government in general. Not an anarchist at all, just a "small government, low taxes" guy by nature. That said, I would not have a huge problem with this. Here's why. First, as long as Gov. Blajgo is in office, we have nothing to worry about, as he is a die-hard Cub fan. Even after he's gone, though, you have to figure that all Illinois politicians, being from Illinois, realize what Wrigley Field is all about and would know that they are putting their own necks in the noose if they try to mess with it. Then again, if they can't come up with funding to fix the damn CTA, what would they do when a big-time renovation a la Solder Field was necessary? There are definitely pros and cons.

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

by ctcoff99 on Dec 13, 2007 9:19 PM CST reply actions