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.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Chicago Cubs apply for permit to erect a 650-foot sign in right field that will spare people on the rooftops from running the risk of seeing a Cubs game   (suntimes.com) divider line 67
    More: Fail, Cubs, Tom Ricketts, legal standing, right fielders, Wrigley Field  
•       •       •

1775 clicks; posted to Sports » on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-28 01:28:03 AM  
They need to expend a little more energy on the team and less on the rooftop bleachers across the street
 
2014-01-28 04:42:50 AM  
Meh i knew this was going to end up in court,   Seriously if you do not like them their buy them out,   yes it will not be cheap but its the easiest way to deal with it, perhaps not the most expensive after all lawyers are expensive.
 
2014-01-28 05:18:58 AM  
Subby is weak in geometry or reading comprehension, or both.
 
2014-01-28 05:28:16 AM  

grimlock1972: Meh i knew this was going to end up in court,   Seriously if you do not like them their buy them out,   yes it will not be cheap but its the easiest way to deal with it, perhaps not the most expensive after all lawyers are expensive.


Somewhere in that grammatical nightmare I'm sure there's a this.  Whether they like it or not, the character of Wrigley revolves around the houses on Sheffield (and for whatever reason, a lesser extent on Waveland).  Owning them not only controls the revenue from them, it also controls the environment.

But then again, this is Cubs management we're talking about.  They don't have the first idea what I'm talking about.
 
2014-01-28 05:39:03 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Subby is weak in geometry or reading comprehension, or both.


You can't possibly expect people to keep track of two whole dimensions. That would take all kinds of ti....oh sh*t.
 
2014-01-28 06:12:27 AM  
The deep roots of the disputes of this are really kind of ridiculous. Million dollar property owners painting themselves as poor oppressed sports fans, as well as a team painting itself as needing signage when it is sitting on top of MLB megabuck TV deal money ... both sides can go suck sh*t as far as I'm concerned.

The Cubs keep sucking is the only fact in this that remains true to an outsider.

I'm sure they all can take some credit for that.
 
2014-01-28 06:45:00 AM  

grimlock1972: Meh i knew this was going to end up in court,   Seriously if you do not like them their buy them out,   yes it will not be cheap but its the easiest way to deal with it, perhaps not the most expensive after all lawyers are expensive.


Didn't they attempt this before and were turned down? Also didn't they attempt to get a deal where they received some compensation? The roof top owners are being assholes about it because there are millions in this for them to let people sit on the roofs and watch a game without buying a ticket for the ball park.

The funny thing is that neighborhood used to be a Puerto Rican slum in the 70's and all of those buildings across the street were rundown buildings owned by slum lords.
 
2014-01-28 06:58:43 AM  

ongbok: The funny thing is that neighborhood used to be a Puerto Rican slum in the 70's and all of those buildings across the street were rundown buildings owned by slum lords.


Then yuppies happened.

Of course, there's a simple solution. Once the signs are built, add a few extra floors to the buildings. More apartments to rent, and they still get their view of the field. Win-win.
 
2014-01-28 07:25:59 AM  
If you want more of this
img.fark.net

then maybe they should worry more about what's happening on this
www.wallsave.com

instead of pissing everyone off by focusing on this

cdn.fansided.com
 
2014-01-28 07:29:13 AM  

Fubegra: ongbok: The funny thing is that neighborhood used to be a Puerto Rican slum in the 70's and all of those buildings across the street were rundown buildings owned by slum lords.

Then yuppies happened.

Of course, there's a simple solution. Once the signs are built, add a few extra floors to the buildings. More apartments to rent, and they still get their view of the field. Win-win.


None of those buildings have apartments to rent anymore. They all have been gutted and basically turned into sports bars with roof top viewing of the cubs game, with a high door fee of course.
 
2014-01-28 07:35:14 AM  
At least they finally fixed their own stadium.  Yelling at the rooftop stand owners while chunks of concrete fell into the lower seats was hypocritical in the worst degree.
 
2014-01-28 07:48:26 AM  
I wonder if everyone in support of the roof top seats would be ok with their neighbors renting out your barn.
 
2014-01-28 08:05:54 AM  
When they finally added lights, they did it the right way. As unobtrusive as they could possibly be, and the style fits into the architecture of the building. I hope they resolve this issue in the same way and it's a win-win for everybody.

/win-win. Let's play two.
 
2014-01-28 08:12:31 AM  
I never understood how adding a few signs to an old ball park "radically alters the look of the neighborhood", but adding rows upon rows of aluminum bleachers to the top of old apartment buildings somehow retains neighborhood charm.
 
2014-01-28 08:27:39 AM  

snowshovel: I never understood how adding a few signs to an old ball park "radically alters the look of the neighborhood", but adding rows upon rows of aluminum bleachers to the top of old apartment buildings somehow retains neighborhood charm.


Funny how that happens. I find it hard to sympathize with either side. That being said, if there's a contract, then the Cubs damn well should either honor it or pay the penalties.

IMO, it would have been far cooler to keep the rooftops as a fringe benefit for renters (or condo owners if they went condo) than to turn them into bars with grandstands.

TL;DR: people get greedy.
 
2014-01-28 08:43:14 AM  
I'm for the Cubs on this one. This bar is the Napster of baseball.
 
2014-01-28 08:47:20 AM  
Please take away one of the few unique and memorable things about that shiathole of a stadium. Just tear the whole thing down and rebuild it as a generic, flavorless multipurpose bowl while you are at it.
 
2014-01-28 08:51:32 AM  

great_tigers: I wonder if everyone in support of the roof top seats would be ok with their neighbors renting out your barn.


What the hell does this even mean? Cubs don't own the buildings next door to them.
 
2014-01-28 09:00:53 AM  
They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?
 
2014-01-28 09:01:29 AM  

Lost Thought 00: great_tigers: I wonder if everyone in support of the roof top seats would be ok with their neighbors renting out your barn.

What the hell does this even mean? Cubs don't own the buildings next door to them.


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2014-01-28 09:09:19 AM  

Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?


If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?
 
2014-01-28 09:15:50 AM  

ongbok: Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?

If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?


Proud?
 
2014-01-28 09:15:52 AM  

ongbok: Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?

If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?


I've never been, but I wonder about how much you can actually see that far up? The boyfriend and I have talked about going to a game, just wonder if it's worth it to sit up in the bleachers on a roof
 
2014-01-28 09:32:01 AM  

ongbok: Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?

If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?


The Cubs wouldn't make a single cent more if they shut down the bars, so basically they would be spending money just to spite others, not to increase their profits. I'm sure their shareholders would not be pleased with that.
 
2014-01-28 09:34:14 AM  

ongbok: If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?


Considering they're valued at a cool $1B, I'd probably feel like a greedy asshole.
 
2014-01-28 09:34:20 AM  
People go there to get drunk, not watch the game.
 
2014-01-28 09:36:06 AM  
Personally, I'd never want to sit on the rooftops to watch a game.  There's something about actually being in the stadium that makes the game most enjoyable.  I can't imagine that the sight lines are very good up there, anyway.  And I prefer to have a better view of the players and the action.  So, in the stadium for me.  That being said, if I happened to own a building like that, I would definitely check out a game from time to time while on the roof.  But make a buck off of it?  I don't know...that feels a lot like stealing, to me.  And the only thing I steal is bad music, not bad baseball.
 
2014-01-28 09:37:09 AM  

cookiefleck: ongbok: Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?

If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?

I've never been, but I wonder about how much you can actually see that far up? The boyfriend and I have talked about going to a game, just wonder if it's worth it to sit up in the bleachers on a roof


We had an office party on one last year. It's probably very dependent on which rooftop you go to, but in general, the view was actually pretty good. Plus you get a great sense of smugness looking down at the peons walking on the street, and knowing that you are shafting a large organization like the Cubs out of a few hundred bucks for the product that they are delivering...and giving that money to a small business operator just trying to make ends meet.

..or maybe that's actually giving your money to a large, wealthy conglomerate of real estate and bar owners who wouldn't make ends meets if they weren't stealing someone else's product, and who use that money to grease the palms of the local politician to ensure they have a clear view of the field by bullying the Cubs into not making revisions to the stadium "due to historical considerations", and will probably wind up driving the Cubs out to the suburbs at some point in the future, leaving the neighborhood filled with a bunch of empty shells of 3-story sports bars topped with rusted out bleacher stands overlooking the eventual Walmart parking lot that will be built on the land.

(on the other hand, from last I read, the Cubs do take a cut of the rooftop club's proceeds to some extent)
 
2014-01-28 10:05:19 AM  

cookiefleck: ongbok: Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?

If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?

I've never been, but I wonder about how much you can actually see that far up? The boyfriend and I have talked about going to a game, just wonder if it's worth it to sit up in the bleachers on a roof


The view is alright, especially considering Wrigley doesn't have that great of sight lines anyway. The real benefit is that you usually pay an all-in fee up front (last time I went it was $60), and you get unlimited beer and food of at least decent quality, instead of dishing out $10 for every Old Style and $6 for every cold hot dog.
 
2014-01-28 10:13:52 AM  
The team gets ~17% of the rooftop owners revenues.....I'm sure the owners has some fine, upstanding accounting firm manipulating those revenues a bit, but the Cubs are at least making something on those seats...
 
2014-01-28 10:28:13 AM  

chevydeuce: The team gets ~17% of the rooftop owners revenues.....I'm sure the owners has some fine, upstanding accounting firm manipulating those revenues a bit, but the Cubs are at least making something on those seats...


This. From my understanding, the cubs get a cut of bar revenue from the rooftop bars. However they really really want the new scoreboard. To me it doesnt matter, if i want to see a good sporting event, I'll go watch the Blackhawks. If i want to get drunk with sports on in the background i will go to a Cubs game.
 
2014-01-28 10:31:34 AM  
Step 1: Build giant signs in/on Wrigley Field blocking rooftop sight-lines
Step 2: Rooftop buildings value plummets
Step 3: Rickets family purchases devalued rooftop properties
Step 4: Remove signs, restoring sight-lines
Step 5: Profit!

/Rickets family made their money in real estate
//They already own lots of land around Wrigley
///That whole area is going to be a Cubs theme-park some day
 
2014-01-28 10:34:58 AM  
I don't give a damn what the legal tiff between the team and the rooftop owners is, this still strikes me as Philadelphia Athletics spite-fence horseshiat. If Ricketts is getting broken by the money he's not getting from the rooftops, then he's in dire enough financial straits that he shouldn't have bought the damn team in the first place.
 
2014-01-28 10:36:39 AM  

cookiefleck: ongbok: Kygz: They still sellout every game, right?  Why do they care if more people want to come down and watch it?

If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?

I've never been, but I wonder about how much you can actually see that far up? The boyfriend and I have talked about going to a game, just wonder if it's worth it to sit up in the bleachers on a roof


lots of pics here
http://www.wrigleyfieldrooftopclub.com/index.php
 
2014-01-28 10:38:07 AM  
They should put the scoreboard behind the row houses on Sheffield... Between the rooftop bars and the red line tracks. Raise it up really high and make it really big. Everyone is happy.
 
2014-01-28 10:40:39 AM  
Besides, aren't the Cubs supposed to be, like, one of the most profitable clubs in the league? They have enough money to where they put in a serious bid for Masahiro Tanaka. Don't come crying poverty to me after you do something like that.
 
2014-01-28 10:59:17 AM  
SharkaPult:
/Rickets family made their money in real estate

Real Estate is traded online now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TD_Ameritrade
 
2014-01-28 11:01:53 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I'm sure their shareholders would not be pleased with that.


tell me more about Cubs "shareholders".
 
2014-01-28 11:08:56 AM  

Milk D: Lost Thought 00: I'm sure their shareholders would not be pleased with that.

tell me more about Cubs "shareholders".


The team is 95% owned by a trust, with Tom Rickets acting as chairman of the board, though I cannot find how that 95% is shared amongst the 4 Rickets family members who collectively own the trust. I cannot find exactly who owns the remaining 5%. All those people are collectively known as the shareholders of the team
 
2014-01-28 11:21:03 AM  

ongbok: If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?


Well the Cubs don't know, because they're getting a cut through a contract they negotiated with those rooftop building owners.

Someone finally got a hold of the contract, BTW:  http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/exclusive-look-inside-cubs-rooftop-con t ract
 
2014-01-28 11:34:10 AM  
Should have acted back in '89:

www.archives.gov
 
2014-01-28 12:28:11 PM  
Years ago my wife was friends with (or friends of a friend of) someone in one of those buildings, and a rooftop game was just that - standing on a rooftop of someones apartment building drinking a beer and generally ignoring the horrible baseball being played before your eyes.

Quite frankly I have zero sympathy for anyone in this story, the Cubs will continue to suck and the rooftop owners will continue to be whiners who leach off someone else.

That said I lived in Chicago for almost 20 years and paid for a Cubs game exactly once (to take my nephews to see the other team), and that was still one time too many.  Saw them more than that, but the tickets were always ones that a friend had and didn't want to use and couldn't resell (ah, the days before Stub Hub).
 
2014-01-28 12:32:13 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Milk D: Lost Thought 00: I'm sure their shareholders would not be pleased with that.

tell me more about Cubs "shareholders".

The team is 95% owned by a trust, with Tom Rickets acting as chairman of the board, though I cannot find how that 95% is shared amongst the 4 Rickets family members who collectively own the trust. I cannot find exactly who owns the remaining 5%. All those people are collectively known as the shareholders of the team


You're a moron.
 
2014-01-28 12:45:13 PM  
The cubs farked up when they signed the deal with the rooftops. Had they always maintained the rooftop viewing was unofficial, they would not be in a legal battle now and could put up whatever they want in their building (aside from landmarking issues). Because they smelled money, they made a deal to make that seating part of the Cubs experience, and taking away the view (that was paid for by the owners) while that contract is still in effect is shiatty.

They got greedy and took a quick buck and now it is handcuffing them.
 
2014-01-28 12:48:25 PM  
Wrigley Field is a dinosaur that needs to be replaced as badly as Tiger Stadium did. It is going to fall down with people in it if the Windy City doesn't get over their silly nostalgia. I'll bet Boston is glossing over safety concerns for Fenway Park, too.
 
2014-01-28 01:06:33 PM  

GQueue: ongbok: If you had a product you spend $100 million+ a year to produce, how would you feel if somebody was making millions a year directly off of it without giving you a cut?

Well the Cubs don't know, because they're getting a cut through a contract they negotiated with those rooftop building owners.

Someone finally got a hold of the contract, BTW:  http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/exclusive-look-inside-cubs-rooftop-con t ract


Thank you for posting this.  I have been dying to read this contract for months and it looks like the Cubs are probably going to win approval for the desired work.  The fact that the city has made portions of the field a "landmark" and protected some of it is ridiculous also.  The Cubs should be able to operate their business as they see fit, while following generally accepted zoning restrictions.  To have someone tell them they aren't even allowed to modify their sign or remove the ridiculously outdated scoreboard just sucks.
 
2014-01-28 01:32:02 PM  
$150 per person for beer, food and a view of the game.  That's the cheapest I could find....

Direct quote from the Wrigleyrooftops website:

"Rooftop
Rooftop Ticket includes access to the Rooftop and Stadium Club Levels, food and drinks (including alcohol) and a one hour pre game party. Alcohol is cut off at the end of the 7th inning.$150.00"


I'm pretty sure a fan could get excellent seats (home-first or third, first 30 rows) and have a brat and a couple of beers for much less....
 
2014-01-28 01:44:11 PM  

macdaddy357: Wrigley Field is a dinosaur that needs to be replaced as badly as Tiger Stadium did. It is going to fall down with people in it if the Windy City doesn't get over their silly nostalgia. I'll bet Boston is glossing over safety concerns for Fenway Park, too.


Well, too damn bad, because the ivy, scoreboard and marquee are all official local landmarks and cannot legally be torn down or modified without explicit city approval.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel once served under Barack Obama, a White Sox fan that the Ricketts family was making plans to run race-based ads against in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Emanuel will fark the Ricketts family over for shiats and giggles. Even if the Cubs relocate, Wrigley is going to be left standing anyway. And if they do relocate, you ask the average Cubs fan and the Ricketts become Art Modell, Walter O'Malley and Harry Frazee rolled into one. They will never, ever, EVER be forgiven.
 
2014-01-28 02:04:28 PM  

Gosling: I don't give a damn what the legal tiff between the team and the rooftop owners is, this still strikes me as Philadelphia Athletics spite-fence horseshiat. If Ricketts is getting broken by the money he's not getting from the rooftops, then he's in dire enough financial straits that he shouldn't have bought the damn team in the first place.


They were fine with people watching. But once you start building damn stands and charging admission, then advertising for "your" product publicly? Oh, just go f*ck yourself already.

/not a fan of any of this
//think it's cool to have some places where people can get really crappy seats for free
///the problem is that someone always wants to monetize it and ruin things for everyone
 
2014-01-28 02:06:40 PM  

macdaddy357: Wrigley Field is a dinosaur that needs to be replaced as badly as Tiger Stadium did. It is going to fall down with people in it if the Windy City doesn't get over their silly nostalgia. I'll bet Boston is glossing over safety concerns for Fenway Park, too.


Even if you ignore the "historical landmark" aspect, the Cubs really can't replace Wrigley. The Cubs suck. The Cubs have sucked for a very long time. People don't go to Cubs games to watch the Cubs. People go to Cubs games because Wrigley Field is a destination. If the Cubs played in a brand new stadium, they might get big crowds for a few years, but once the new-car-smell wore off, they would either have to put a more competitive product on the field, or they'd lose all of their fans. As it is right now, the Cubs don't even have to try to win, and they sell out.
 
2014-01-28 02:08:55 PM  
Also, the reason those rooftop seats are so popular is the view...they are far enough from, the field that you can't really tell what's going on...and at a Cubs game, that is what you want.
 
2014-01-28 02:17:35 PM  
Not sure what the difference between the rooftops and TV is.  Sure technically I buy stuff at Home Depot, and they pay the network, and the network pays the club ...  But I can just as easily stop at Lowes on my way home.
 
2014-01-28 02:23:46 PM  

Generation_D: The deep roots of the disputes of this are really kind of ridiculous. Million dollar property owners painting themselves as poor oppressed sports fans, as well as a team painting itself as needing signage when it is sitting on top of MLB megabuck TV deal money ... both sides can go suck sh*t as far as I'm concerned.

The Cubs keep sucking is the only fact in this that remains true to an outsider.


So much THIS!


i78.photobucket.com


"I say we take off and nuke the 'Friendly Confines' from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure."

 
2014-01-28 02:54:18 PM  

cnocnanrionnag: $150 per person for beer, food and a view of the game.  That's the cheapest I could find....

Direct quote from the Wrigleyrooftops website:

"Rooftop
Rooftop Ticket includes access to the Rooftop and Stadium Club Levels, food and drinks (including alcohol) and a one hour pre game party. Alcohol is cut off at the end of the 7th inning.$150.00"

I'm pretty sure a fan could get excellent seats (home-first or third, first 30 rows) and have a brat and a couple of beers for much less....


That $150 is way higher than I've ever paid, although I'm a White Sox fan and only go when one of my friends offers me a free or cheap one. That said, you can almost always get these for $60-90 through Groupon type deals.

I'd say some people easily spend $150 at a game (after accounting for the ticket which gets cheaper as the year goes on and the Cubs inevitably disappoint), and that's on shiatty beer and sub-par food. As far as I remember the rooftops I've been on had a much better drink and food selection. I know not everyone drinks 10+ beers at a ballgame, but the rooftops in my opinion have always been geared towards the revelers.
 
2014-01-28 02:58:53 PM  

FriarReb98: grimlock1972: Meh i knew this was going to end up in court,   Seriously if you do not like them their buy them out,   yes it will not be cheap but its the easiest way to deal with it, perhaps not the most expensive after all lawyers are expensive.

Somewhere in that grammatical nightmare I'm sure there's a this.  Whether they like it or not, the character of Wrigley revolves around the houses on Sheffield (and for whatever reason, a lesser extent on Waveland).  Owning them not only controls the revenue from them, it also controls the environment.

But then again, this is Cubs management we're talking about.  They don't have the first idea what I'm talking about.


I agree with you and I apologize for my poor grammar.   When i type fast it goes all to hell.
 
2014-01-28 04:03:27 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Even if you ignore the "historical landmark" aspect, the Cubs really can't replace Wrigley. The Cubs suck. The Cubs have sucked for a very long time. People don't go to Cubs games to watch the Cubs. People go to Cubs games because Wrigley Field is a destination. If the Cubs played in a brand new stadium, they might get big crowds for a few years, but once the new-car-smell wore off, they would either have to put a more competitive product on the field, or they'd lose all of their fans. As it is right now, the Cubs don't even have to try to win, and they sell out.


you have a few good points - but attendance is noticeably down.  I think it's the lowest it's been in 10+ years.

There are 2 types of fans that go to Wrigley - Cubs fans and Wrigley Fans.  Wrigley Fans are the ones that go to the games and get smashed and don't realize that there is a baseball game going on.  They go to the ballpark and treat it as a giant open air bar with, to them, a long slow game taking place in front of them.  Cubs Fans usually know who's pitching that day even if he's making his major league debut.  Cubs fans are the people with cubs scarfs, gloves, and hats (cause you need them in those early April games) that are scoring the ballgame because they love their team.  Cubs fans know that you would pitch down and away to Alfonso Soriano if you wanted him to strike out.  Wrigley Fans boo him when he strikes out with 2 men on and 2 out down a run.  Cubs fans would prefer a foul ball off of Darwin Barney's bat.  Wrigley Fans would prefer the hot girls phone number from a section over.

The difference between them is clear as day (or night 35 times a year this year) and it's the Wrigley Fans that give the Cubs Fans a bad name.  So when you see a drunk 22 year old get hit in the head with a foul ball because he was trying to get a girls phone number and you see a 40 year old who gets the ball and is the happiest guy in the world because it's his first foul ball he's ever gotten at Wrigley...you'll know which is which.
 
2014-01-28 04:10:17 PM  
Either way, without Wrigley, the Cubs are like Gregory Helms post-Hurricane. With Wrigley, they're at least somewhat entertaining. They have at least some semblance of a positive identity. With another stadium which no matter how nice it is will never replace Wrigley in many fans' minds, they're just... some guys. Who suck.
 
2014-01-28 04:35:50 PM  

Gosling: Either way, without Wrigley, the Cubs are like Gregory Helms post-Hurricane. With Wrigley, they're at least somewhat entertaining. They have at least some semblance of a positive identity. With another stadium which no matter how nice it is will never replace Wrigley in many fans' minds, they're just... some guys. Who suck.


And that's why no one believes they'll move and any threats to move to the suburbs will just be laughed at by the rooftop owners.  The Ricketts family has already bought enough real estate around Wrigley that they'd be eating a big loss on if they moved the team, plus the Cubs would be giving away their big differentiating factor over the White Sox.  Moving to the burbs wouldn't be cutting off their nose to spite their face, it'd be cutting the whole damn head off.  They MIGHT be able to get away with it if the team weren't so terrible, but yeah, it's terrible right now.
 
2014-01-28 04:48:17 PM  
I cant wait until the rooftop buildings get painted bright pink in retaliation.
 
2014-01-28 06:02:58 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Subby is weak in geometry or reading comprehension, or both.


Probably written by a south sider. They're an infamously dumb breed.
 
2014-01-28 06:10:40 PM  
Once upon a  time The Philadelphia A's had the same problem. Houses just outside of Shibe Park erected stands on the roof, pissing off Connie Mack. Mack's response was to erect a 60 foot tall "spite fence." The fence in turn ticked off the locals and property values around the stadium began to crater. By the 1930's the neighborhood was falling apart. By the 40's it was a slum which killed attendance in general. Ultimately the A's left town and  The Philles had to threaten to leave town to get a new ball park.

  I HATE the Cubs so I WOULD LOVE to see this scenario repeat itself. The Montreal  Cubs has a nice ring to it.
 
2014-01-28 07:59:31 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wellon Dowd: Subby is weak in geometry or reading comprehension, or both.

Probably written by a south sider. They're an infamously dumb breed.


hmmm. I wonder what you mean by that? Seriously, clarify so that we all know what you're saying. since you're such a bad ass, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
2014-01-28 08:36:32 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wellon Dowd: Subby is weak in geometry or reading comprehension, or both.

Probably written by a south sider. They're an infamously dumb breed.


And Northsiders don't have idiot fans either?
 
2014-01-28 08:40:26 PM  

Delawheredad: Once upon a  time The Philadelphia A's had the same problem. Houses just outside of Shibe Park erected stands on the roof, pissing off Connie Mack. Mack's response was to erect a 60 foot tall "spite fence." The fence in turn ticked off the locals and property values around the stadium began to crater. By the 1930's the neighborhood was falling apart. By the 40's it was a slum which killed attendance in general. Ultimately the A's left town and  The Philles had to threaten to leave town to get a new ball park.

  I HATE the Cubs so I WOULD LOVE to see this scenario repeat itself. The Montreal  Cubs has a nice ring to it.


The area around Wrigley was a slum in the 70's.
 
2014-01-29 12:45:08 AM  

interstellar_tedium: Years ago my wife was friends with (or friends of a friend of) someone in one of those buildings, and a rooftop game was just that - standing on a rooftop of someones apartment building drinking a beer and generally ignoring the horrible baseball being played before your eyes.

Quite frankly I have zero sympathy for anyone in this story, the Cubs will continue to suck and the rooftop owners will continue to be whiners who leach off someone else.

That said I lived in Chicago for almost 20 years and paid for a Cubs game exactly once (to take my nephews to see the other team), and that was still one time too many.  Saw them more than that, but the tickets were always ones that a friend had and didn't want to use and couldn't resell (ah, the days before Stub Hub).



So much this. If a building can advertise itself as a corporate boardroom with "the best seats in the house," and it isn't even the team making the money, fark them and the horse they rode in on.

I too recall those 70s rooftops, though I was never lucky enough to make it up there, it was just a buncha guys and their friends standing around drinking in the sun and ignoring the game unless a home run got hit.

The team and the property owners all can just go fark themselves now as far as I'm concerned. The team is incompetently run, and these leeching neighbors are yuppie scum as we used to say.
 
2014-01-29 10:51:35 AM  

Scottybobotty: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wellon Dowd: Subby is weak in geometry or reading comprehension, or both.

Probably written by a south sider. They're an infamously dumb breed.

And Northsiders don't have idiot fans either?


He seems to be one of the idiot fans. Probably afraid to venture south of Division or West of Ashland.
 
2014-01-29 01:17:01 PM  

macdaddy357: Wrigley Field is a dinosaur that needs to be replaced as badly as Tiger Stadium did. It is going to fall down with people in it if the Windy City doesn't get over their silly nostalgia. I'll bet Boston is glossing over safety concerns for Fenway Park, too.


Unfortunately, Comerica Park is a terrible place to watch a baseball game. It's great if your kids want to ride a Ferris wheel or ride a carousel or visit the food court. But not so good when it comes to watching the game.
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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