okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
I was hoping for Scumberg, but Rosemont has a nice ring to it. Rosemont Cubs? Suburban mayor makes his pitch | CSN Chicago
Rosemont Cubs?
- Thread starter okeefe4prez
- Start date
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
I don't like the idea of the Cubs playing at the intersection of a bunch of interstates with O'Hare as a next door neighbor. The team needs to be patient with the city. The Wrigleyville folks will cave eventually and the team will be able to renovate where they are.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
The Wrigleyville folks will cave eventually? Are you nuts? They haven't caved for decades and that ballpark doesn't have another decade in it.
I used to not really care for the Cubs and I still wouldn't call myself a Cub fan, but bince I moved up to Evanston it has become a bear to get down to Comiskey (biggest problem is the long train ride home with a bladder full of spent beer) so I actually hit more Cubs games than Sox games last year. But if I had to drive to Rosemont or take the purple line to the red line all the way downtown to the blue line and then out to Rosemont, I would go to 0 games a year.
The issue is you get all these NIMBY morons who don't realize that, while they have to deal with some drunks and some puke and some urine, their property values and the surrounding neighborhood are what they are solely due to that ballpark.
Doublewide
Well-Known Member
What is the beef with the people who own places in Wriglyville? Would those places need to be demolished to build a new Wrigly or what? Or what is the hang up with building a new stadium in the same location?
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
Wrigleyville folks didn't cave because the Cubs had very poor management that used leverage poorly. The Ricketts family isn't the Tribune Company. The Wrigleyville folks know they're property values and retail sales are a direct result of the Cubs being in the neighborhood. I think they'll cave eventually because I don't believe they're completely stupid.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
According to this article and others, there seem to be two main points of dispute between the Ricketts family and the Wrigleyville folks. The first is that the Cubs want to play more night games, and the second is that the Cubs want to put up more advertisements around the park. The article claims that these two issues and a few other more minor issues are costing the team as much as $100M/year.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm dense, but what leverage other than threatening to move did Tribune management have? The Trib had PR pressures from running their core businesses, too. You threaten to move then the proles threaten to boycott WGN and the Trib. I think you are overestimating the intelligence of the old folks pushing to keep things the same. They care about one thing - is it quiet outside at night when they are fixin' to go to bed at 8:30?
Jjgoiowa11
Well-Known Member
This is sad. I'm a big Cubbies fan but Wrigley is a D-Ump. #Sorryboutit.
LG210
Well-Known Member
The Cubs wouldn't be the Cubs without Wrigley, and Wrigleyville would have very little appeal without Wrigley.
They will come to an agreement because both would benefit from the relationship. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to go from 20% equity in my residence to -30% overnight.
They will come to an agreement because both would benefit from the relationship. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to go from 20% equity in my residence to -30% overnight.
LG210
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I really think there is a lot of bargaining power for the Cubs in this negotiation.
Jjgoiowa11
Well-Known Member
I'm all for Wrigley but it really needs upgrades. It's a shathole.
MikeDog70
Well-Known Member
I've been a Cubs fan practically my whole life, and used to be of the opinion they could NEVER leave Wrigley. I've changed that opinion in the past 10 years or so. I want the team to be competitive and I think the park plays a role in them not being so. Not THE reason (that would be a goat), but it does play a role. In this day of free-agency and little loyalty they need more leverage to attract some of the big names or the players with huge potential. New facilities/club house would go a long ways in doing that, I think. Plus having a better fan experience would be great, too. I mean, I love Wrigley and the history that is there, but I recently went to a game at Miller Park and just absolutely loved it! Great amenities and awesome fan experience. Not sure right under O'hare would be my first choice, but this fan would not complain about a new site/park.
Jjgoiowa11
Well-Known Member
Wrigley is embarrassing. It reminds me of the Major league movie when theyre flying at night and Dorn has that sleeping mask on looking around..Best sports movie of all time BTW.
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
The correct move for the Cubs here is to declare that Wrigley Field is unplayable in its current condition and announce that they will be renting out Comiskey Park for the season.
At that point all of the bars and resturants that pay bloated rents because of 81 days per year will fold or stop paying their rents. The landlords will be irate. The rooftop owners will have to deal with just having roofs with nothing to rent out.
Then when the condos that go for sale don't sell because you have a bunch of vacant bars, that's when they'll go crawling back to the Cubs and BEG them do whatever the **** they want.
NIMBYism is the single biggest problem in cities across the country.
At that point all of the bars and resturants that pay bloated rents because of 81 days per year will fold or stop paying their rents. The landlords will be irate. The rooftop owners will have to deal with just having roofs with nothing to rent out.
Then when the condos that go for sale don't sell because you have a bunch of vacant bars, that's when they'll go crawling back to the Cubs and BEG them do whatever the **** they want.
NIMBYism is the single biggest problem in cities across the country.
Jjgoiowa11
Well-Known Member
Church.
