Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Chicago Cubs to the owners of property on Waveland Ave: Hope you enjoyed the view   (marketwatch.com) divider line 38
    More: Asinine, Cubs, Waveland Ave, Wrigley Rooftops, Andre Dawson, Ryne Sandberg, Ricketts, luxury boxes, Sammy Sosa  
•       •       •

3891 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Feb 2013 at 8:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-24 07:52:23 AM  
This is worse than when my neighbor installed thick curtains in his daughter's bathroom.
 
2013-02-24 08:41:51 AM  
This is not good. Much like the ballclub itself.
 
2013-02-24 09:02:14 AM  
The Cubs could always just buy the buildings across the street. Damn Rickets family's rich enough, if they'd quit funding tea bagger bullsh*t and run the damn ball club right instead. But hey I got an idea, lets pick a fight with the neighbors. Better than building a farm system back up.
 
2013-02-24 09:06:28 AM  
Having just read the "homeless guy gets lots of  donations" article I arrive here and see we're back to reality where people feel entitled to making money off someone else's business.
 
2013-02-24 09:11:08 AM  
Rooftop owners already have a solid counter proposal offered up. Wrigley installs electric signage on the top floor of each of their buildings. Wrigley would have complete control over power/messaging/revenues. All the building owners asked in return was non-obstructed views from the roof.
 
2013-02-24 09:16:39 AM  
I've always wondered how that was legal. Those clubs don't even bother with a subtle wink and nudge; they flat out tell customers PAY US TO SEE THE CUBS LIVE HERE.

To hell with them. It's not the team's job to make sure every other business can make money. Do what you have to do to upgrade that dump and maximize the number of people who pay YOU to see YOUR team.
 
2013-02-24 09:26:51 AM  

The Great EZE: I've always wondered how that was legal. Those clubs don't even bother with a subtle wink and nudge; they flat out tell customers PAY US TO SEE THE CUBS LIVE HERE.

To hell with them. It's not the team's job to make sure every other business can make money. Do what you have to do to upgrade that dump and maximize the number of people who pay YOU to see YOUR team.


This. Plus, it's not like those people on the rooftops are watching the game. Hell, people inside the park don't watch the friggen game.
 
2013-02-24 09:33:17 AM  

edmo: Having just read the "homeless guy gets lots of  donations" article I arrive here and see we're back to reality where people feel entitled to making money off someone else's business.


It's not like the rooftop fans get a good view of the game at that distance.  They can kind of just see that a game is taking place, the grass is green, and can cheer on live with the home crowd.
 
2013-02-24 09:52:54 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: This is worse than when my neighbor installed thick curtains in his daughter's bathroom.


She misses you, too.

i1.cpcache.com
 
2013-02-24 10:01:55 AM  
Yeah, Chicago. The winning side is going to have to demonstrate seriously $olid rea$oning.
 
2013-02-24 10:06:50 AM  

enik: Yeah, Chicago. The winning side is going to have to demonstrate seriously $olid rea$oning.


Either that, or make an offer they just ~can't~ refuse.


www.refinery29.com
 
2013-02-24 10:18:05 AM  
Screw the rooftop owners, if they cared so much they would have tried to buy the team when Rickets did. It's his team and he isn't asking for tax money. I hope he threatens to move the team to Arlington Heights.
 
2013-02-24 10:25:02 AM  
Only happens when teams suck. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
 
2013-02-24 10:30:19 AM  
Screw the local businesses and screw the neighborhood association.  Just be grateful that Wrigley attracts a shiat ton of business to your area.
 
2013-02-24 10:33:13 AM  
owners of the buildings across from the ballpark's outfield, on Waveland and Sheffield avenues, many of whom demolished traditional Chicago two- and three-flat apartment buildings
...
paying somewhere around $110 to watch a game, several times the price of a bleacher seat in the ballpark


Know how I know there wasn't a whole lot of research involved in this story?
 
2013-02-24 10:43:33 AM  
Chicago is known for their awesome upgrades of classic buildings. I bet Wrigley loses its historical status like Soldier did.
 
2013-02-24 10:49:11 AM  
IIRC Cubby mgmt put up screens once upon a time until coming to an agreement with roof top seating owners. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Cubbies are taking a cut of the receipts from their neighbors. Not willing to research Cub mgmt shenanigans.
 
2013-02-24 10:57:40 AM  
The Ricketts family is responsible for the Cubs, not the neighboring businesses. The Cubs should have gotten into the local politicians' pockets, but the rooftop people beat them to it.
 
2013-02-24 11:20:15 AM  

Hoopy Frood: owners of the buildings across from the ballpark's outfield, on Waveland and Sheffield avenues, many of whom demolished traditional Chicago two- and three-flat apartment buildings
...
paying somewhere around $110 to watch a game, several times the price of a bleacher seat in the ballpark

Know how I know there wasn't a whole lot of research involved in this story?


Bleacher tickets start at $19, then $29 and then $39 (there's higher levels but we can ignore that for this).  I'm happy with $110 being considered several times the cost of a standard bleacher seat.
 
2013-02-24 11:30:35 AM  

det0321: IIRC Cubby mgmt put up screens once upon a time until coming to an agreement with roof top seating owners. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Cubbies are taking a cut of the receipts from their neighbors. Not willing to research Cub mgmt shenanigans.



Around 2004 or so the Cubs and the Rooftops came to an agreement.  They signed a 20 year contract allowing the rooftops to have the unobstructed view in exchange for a percentage of the total revenue (~20%).  The Rooftops had also agreed, per that same contract, to upgrade their facilities to a much higher level.  So all of those buildings were renovated and many of them were entirely reconstructed in the following three or four years to comply.  The Rooftop owners took out loans to pay for these modifications (since the costs were substantial) and relied on the 20 year term as security.  The reason they're fighting this so hard is the rooftop business brings in a lot of revenue without which they won't be able to pay for the loans they took on their building.  Between that and the fact that the Rickett's keep trying to take control of the stretches of Waveland and Sheffield around the Stadium (to mimic what Fenway has) it's leading some owners to conclude that the Rickett's are trying to acquire the properties by forcing the owners to sell out.
 
2013-02-24 11:32:41 AM  
Historical precedent. Back when the  A's were in Philadelphia there were roof top stands outside of Shibe park. Connie Mack got hard up for cash so he built a "spite  fence" a fifty foot wall that cut out the rooftop views. It effected neighborhood property values and eventually the area turned into a slum.
 
2013-02-24 11:51:30 AM  
The Philadelphia Athletics did the same thing.

That's why they're in Oakland now. The second they threw up the spite fence, the relationship with Philadelphia died and never recovered.
 
2013-02-24 12:07:29 PM  

JK47: det0321: IIRC Cubby mgmt put up screens once upon a time until coming to an agreement with roof top seating owners. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Cubbies are taking a cut of the receipts from their neighbors. Not willing to research Cub mgmt shenanigans.


Around 2004 or so the Cubs and the Rooftops came to an agreement.  They signed a 20 year contract allowing the rooftops to have the unobstructed view in exchange for a percentage of the total revenue (~20%).  The Rooftops had also agreed, per that same contract, to upgrade their facilities to a much higher level.  So all of those buildings were renovated and many of them were entirely reconstructed in the following three or four years to comply.  The Rooftop owners took out loans to pay for these modifications (since the costs were substantial) and relied on the 20 year term as security.  The reason they're fighting this so hard is the rooftop business brings in a lot of revenue without which they won't be able to pay for the loans they took on their building.  Between that and the fact that the Rickett's keep trying to take control of the stretches of Waveland and Sheffield around the Stadium (to mimic what Fenway has) it's leading some owners to conclude that the Rickett's are trying to acquire the properties by forcing the owners to sell out.


Pretty douche move if you ask me.

I have to side with the Rooftop owners on this one. If the Cubs signed a contract not to obscure the rooftop's view, they should either honor that contract or pay the rooftop owners a certain fee to break the contract.
 
2013-02-24 12:09:46 PM  

p the boiler: Screw the rooftop owners, if they cared so much they would have tried to buy the team when Rickets did. It's his team and he isn't asking for tax money. I hope he threatens to move the team to Arlington Heights.


Wrigley Field is the main reason anyone still goes to a Cubs game anymore. What incentive would there be to see watch a team suck in some cookie-cutter ballpark in Arlington Heights?

/Cardinals fan
//Loves going to Wrigley Field
 
2013-02-24 12:15:12 PM  

JK47: det0321: IIRC Cubby mgmt put up screens once upon a time until coming to an agreement with roof top seating owners. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Cubbies are taking a cut of the receipts from their neighbors. Not willing to research Cub mgmt shenanigans.


Around 2004 or so the Cubs and the Rooftops came to an agreement.  They signed a 20 year contract allowing the rooftops to have the unobstructed view in exchange for a percentage of the total revenue (~20%).  The Rooftops had also agreed, per that same contract, to upgrade their facilities to a much higher level.  So all of those buildings were renovated and many of them were entirely reconstructed in the following three or four years to comply.  The Rooftop owners took out loans to pay for these modifications (since the costs were substantial) and relied on the 20 year term as security.  The reason they're fighting this so hard is the rooftop business brings in a lot of revenue without which they won't be able to pay for the loans they took on their building.  Between that and the fact that the Rickett's keep trying to take control of the stretches of Waveland and Sheffield around the Stadium (to mimic what Fenway has) it's leading some owners to conclude that the Rickett's are trying to acquire the properties by forcing the owners to sell out.


There are some owners out there who use sports teams as a front for more nefarious/unsavory business strategies. In the 80's/90's, many South American soccer teams were simply money laundering divisions of the drug cartels.
 
2013-02-24 12:29:28 PM  

JosephFinn: Hoopy Frood: owners of the buildings across from the ballpark's outfield, on Waveland and Sheffield avenues, many of whom demolished traditional Chicago two- and three-flat apartment buildings
...
paying somewhere around $110 to watch a game, several times the price of a bleacher seat in the ballpark

Know how I know there wasn't a whole lot of research involved in this story?

Bleacher tickets start at $19, then $29 and then $39 (there's higher levels but we can ignore that for this).  I'm happy with $110 being considered several times the cost of a standard bleacher seat.


$19? For a home game? Just looking at some of my old stubs, $26 was face in 2004 for a bleacher seat against the Expos.
 
2013-02-24 12:52:32 PM  
I know some of the owners of the buildings across the street. They are complete scumbags.
 
2013-02-24 01:02:28 PM  
Blocking unpaid spectators was the whole point of this bad boy:
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-24 01:47:21 PM  

Mrtraveler01: p the boiler: Screw the rooftop owners, if they cared so much they would have tried to buy the team when Rickets did. It's his team and he isn't asking for tax money. I hope he threatens to move the team to Arlington Heights.

Wrigley Field is the main reason anyone still goes to a Cubs game anymore. What incentive would there be to see watch a team suck in some cookie-cutter ballpark in Arlington Heights?

/Cardinals fan
//Loves going to Wrigley Field


I think perhaps you underestimate the level of masochism requisite to be a Cubs fan.  That said, it certainly wouldn't help.
 
2013-02-24 01:57:52 PM  

The Incredible Sexual Egg: Blocking unpaid spectators was the whole point of this bad boy:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x679]


Um, no, it wasn't.  Hell, there wasn't even anything back there in 1912, all they would've needed would be about 2/3 of what the wall is now.  Hell, before they got rid of it, people used to sit on the incline that was in front of the wall, and while it was being built no one expected it to even be hit over - a belief which lasted 1 or 2 games until someone put one out of Fenway right over the damned thing, in the dead ball era.

The Monster started out as a giant ad board with a scoreboard in the middle; the owner at the time, John I. Taylor, was the son of the Globe's publisher, so he probably had the ability to just cull ads from the paper's clients.  That's all it was.

\a lot of Boston is reclaimed land, something people tend to forget/ignore
 
2013-02-24 02:46:36 PM  

Generation_D: The Cubs could always just buy the buildings across the street. Damn Rickets family's rich enough, if they'd quit funding tea bagger bullsh*t and run the damn ball club right instead. But hey I got an idea, lets pick a fight with the neighbors. Better than building a farm system back up.


They have one of the higher rated systems according to baseball prospectus.
 
2013-02-24 05:18:13 PM  
Business owner vs. business owners?  How are farkers supposed to know who to hate?
 
2013-02-24 05:26:31 PM  

Hoopy Frood: JosephFinn: Hoopy Frood: owners of the buildings across from the ballpark's outfield, on Waveland and Sheffield avenues, many of whom demolished traditional Chicago two- and three-flat apartment buildings
...
paying somewhere around $110 to watch a game, several times the price of a bleacher seat in the ballpark

Know how I know there wasn't a whole lot of research involved in this story?

Bleacher tickets start at $19, then $29 and then $39 (there's higher levels but we can ignore that for this).  I'm happy with $110 being considered several times the cost of a standard bleacher seat.

$19? For a home game? Just looking at some of my old stubs, $26 was face in 2004 for a bleacher seat against the Expos.


Yep, according to the Cubs website.  Based on level of games, of course; opening day against Milwaukee is a marquee game and $69 in the bleachers, but the next three days are bronze games so the bleacher seats are $19 face value.
 
2013-02-24 06:19:58 PM  

FriarReb98: The Incredible Sexual Egg: Blocking unpaid spectators was the whole point of this bad boy:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x679]

Um, no, it wasn't.  Hell, there wasn't even anything back there in 1912, all they would've needed would be about 2/3 of what the wall is now.  Hell, before they got rid of it, people used to sit on the incline that was in front of the wall, and while it was being built no one expected it to even be hit over - a belief which lasted 1 or 2 games until someone put one out of Fenway right over the damned thing, in the dead ball era.

The Monster started out as a giant ad board with a scoreboard in the middle; the owner at the time, John I. Taylor, was the son of the Globe's publisher, so he probably had the ability to just cull ads from the paper's clients.  That's all it was.

\a lot of Boston is reclaimed land, something people tend to forget/ignore


Third paragraph
 
2013-02-24 06:40:00 PM  

The Incredible Sexual Egg: FriarReb98: The Incredible Sexual Egg: Blocking unpaid spectators was the whole point of this bad boy:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x679]

Um, no, it wasn't.  Hell, there wasn't even anything back there in 1912, all they would've needed would be about 2/3 of what the wall is now.  Hell, before they got rid of it, people used to sit on the incline that was in front of the wall, and while it was being built no one expected it to even be hit over - a belief which lasted 1 or 2 games until someone put one out of Fenway right over the damned thing, in the dead ball era.

The Monster started out as a giant ad board with a scoreboard in the middle; the owner at the time, John I. Taylor, was the son of the Globe's publisher, so he probably had the ability to just cull ads from the paper's clients.  That's all it was.

\a lot of Boston is reclaimed land, something people tend to forget/ignore

Third paragraph


"It is the Green Monster "?
 
2013-02-24 07:31:14 PM  
Wrigley Field is 99 years old.  Whatever the agreement has been, it can not be denied that it is foolish to think it will last forever.  Frankly, renovation is only looking good right now because they Cubs haven't had a decent season in awhile.  If they had put together a decent couple years back to back, they would be talking about building a new park, not fixing up the current one.  If I were the neighbors I would be thankful for the opportunity that has been theirs for the last couple decades, and put my place on the market ASAP.  Get out while the getting is still good enough for you to make a bundle.  Because it is not going to be long before the Cubs will need a new park, and when that day comes those buildings won't be worth goat piss.
 
2013-02-25 10:11:32 AM  
B b b but what about the charming tradition of the locals going up to their roofs to watch the game?

<i>Plans for a major renovation of 99-year-old Wrigley Field could run afoul of <b>a group of well-connected property owners</b> who have provided baseball fans with a view of the action - and, typically, <b>all-you-can-consume party packages</b> - from their rooftops.  </i>

Oh.
 
2013-02-26 09:39:06 AM  
Wait, selling tickets to Cubs games across the street is a $20+ million per year business?

F those guys.  How are they better than the guy bootlegging movies on the street?
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report