Jump to content


Photo

Wrigley renovations


  • Please log in to reply
877 replies to this topic

#16 rok

rok

    Chairman of the Board

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 November 2011 - 19:07

Rahm has a crush on Theo too...
http://www.chicagotr...,0,203194.story

Mayor Rahm Emanuel called Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein to City Hall for some face time.

Emanuel, who lives in Ravenswood, said he had already welcomed Epstein to the neighborhood over the phone, but the mayor invited the baseball wunderkind to his office to chat on Thursday afternoon.

"We had a very good meeting, he gave me a jacket," Emanuel said.


  • 0

#17 funkster

funkster

    Hall of Famer

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 November 2011 - 19:15

That's much better than yesterday's comments. Maybe yesterday was posturing?


http://chicago.cbslo...vation-support/
  • 0

#18 funkster

funkster

    Hall of Famer

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 06 November 2011 - 20:37

Great post from an NSBB poster.

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for).

What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds).

Again, that is WAY fair because:

A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox).

B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City.

C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it.

D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area).

E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities.

All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S.

Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans.

To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game.
  • 0

#19 funkster

funkster

    Hall of Famer

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 03 December 2011 - 19:06

Apparently Quinn said at the tree lighting ceremony that he wants Wrigley here for the next century and beyond. I'm starting to think some sort of verbal agreement might be in place.
  • 0

#20 Ace

Ace

    I ♥ to poop

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,737 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 December 2011 - 20:43

Apparently Quinn said at the tree lighting ceremony that he wants Wrigley here for the next century and beyond. I'm starting to think some sort of verbal agreement might be in place.

It was a surprising thing for a politician to say - they don't choose their words carelessly, especially in settings like that.
  • 0

#21 rok

rok

    Chairman of the Board

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 December 2011 - 01:03

Fuck Quinn.
  • 0

#22 funkster

funkster

    Hall of Famer

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:46

So as I'm sure everyone knows, it sounds like the Cubs are going to announce a deal on Saturday at the convention. Story floating around now that the Rickett's family has made a deal with Sheraton for a hotel across the street. Good news.
  • 0

#23 jstraw

jstraw

    Penus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Topeka, KS

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:59

If Ricketts actually got a public funding deal together with Rahm, he's a hero. I'm almost more interested in the logistics of the renovations than the financing.
  • 0

#24 funkster

funkster

    Hall of Famer

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 17 January 2013 - 13:07

The renovation presentation will probably be a, if not THE, highlight of the convention for me.
  • 0

#25 1060Ivy

1060Ivy

    Cubs Bench Player

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 17 January 2013 - 13:15

The renovation may be the highlight of the Cubs efforts over the next few years!

And the renovation probably won't commence breaking ground till after 2013 season is in the books.
  • 0

#26 veryzer

veryzer

    Glorious asshole

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Razzle Dazzleville!

Posted 17 January 2013 - 14:02

How about renovations of the team?
  • 0

#27 funkster

funkster

    Hall of Famer

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 17 January 2013 - 14:52

How about renovations of the team?

Oddly enough there is a tenuous link between these two things.
  • 0

#28 rok

rok

    Chairman of the Board

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 17 January 2013 - 20:57

I kinda hope the Ricketts family doesn't end up owning everything within a mile radius of the ballpark a decade from now. Not that I love the frat party douchebaggary that infects the neighborhood after every game, but if the area were to become corporatized and Disneyfied, it would lose some of its charm as well. I suppose if it meant bigger payrolls and sustained success, then I could learn to live with it though.
  • 0

#29 MickKelleherWasMyHero

MickKelleherWasMyHero

    JC Ball

  • Private Access
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 18 January 2013 - 15:36

If there's more money to be made by Disneyfying Wrigleyville, it will be done, either by Ricketts or someone else. Better to have the Ricketts own it; at least there's some small hope the cash could find it's way to the field.

I'm surprsied that it took this long for some rich guy to figure out that a hotel next to Wrigley would be a cash cow. Next step: more concerts and such at Wrigley.
  • 0

#30 rok

rok

    Chairman of the Board

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 18 January 2013 - 15:46

There was already a plan for a hotel and mixed-use development across the street on Addison that never was officially approved because the neighborhood and financial crisis held it up. Now there's a story on Crain's that the developer of that project is reconsidering now that the Ricketts plan is out.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users