Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=87010		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Reared on the Score [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
I've never started a show thread, but this seems like an obvious topic of the day.

https://twitter.com/dan_bernstein/statu ... 2512791553

Quote:
Source: #Cubs hardball move due largely to one roofie who is "Too dumb to understand any negotiation. He's just a total a--hole."


I figure that source is someone who knows.how.to.close.deals.. Ricketts himself would close this if the other side just was smart enough to negotiate. Probably an uneducated oaf like Reggie Rose.

Anyway, it doesn't matter who co-hosts, and I won't listen unless the podcast feed has an interesting guest. Or you guys do recon and say it's an actually interesting show. Most of the time B&B is boring as fuck nowadays.
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Is there any doubt that Dan has become a Cubs mouthpiece on this issue?

I mean, just about any knowledgeable sports person would realize the rooftop owners at least have a case here to say "We have a contract that gives us certain rights". Imagine if the Bulls went to Derrick Rose and told them they were changing the terms of his deal because they were no longer in their best interests.
Author:  sinicalypse [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
incidentally, i think the band "ricketts on roofies" is playing the empty bottle tomorrow night.
Author:  Don Tiny [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
sinicalypse wrote:
incidentally, i think the band "ricketts on roofies" is playing the empty bottle tomorrow night.


Don Tiny: sini! How you doin'?
sini: Hey, Don Tiny! Who's playing today?
Don Tiny: Ricketts on Roofies and the Shitty Beatles.
sini: Shitty Beatles? Are they any good?
Don Tiny: They suck.
sini: Then it's not just a clever name.
Author:  Reared on the Score [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Imagine if the Bulls went to Derrick Rose and told them they were changing the terms of his deal because they were no longer in their best interests.


Dan would probably be all for that, too. He's been bemoaning the 'Rose rule' being some cap-crippling apparatus (that impedes super-smart-guy Gar Forman from championship aspirations) when it really just added a few million per season, and the real issue with Rose's contract isn't the amount, it's that he can't play. Which renders his deal a problem if he was making $5-7m less too.

And the only reason the rule was enacted was that Rose was putting up MVP production on a rookie-scale contract, which is a gift more than a curse. I wonder more how Dan would react if Reggie Rose demanded a raise after Derrick's first 2 seasons.
Author:  8675309 [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Image

Ignore the special needs owner in the background.........here's the asshole.
Author:  8675309 [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.
Author:  Don Tiny [ Thu May 22, 2014 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Is there any doubt that Dan has become a Cubs mouthpiece on this issue?


No.

That said, not everything he says in that pseudo-capacity is consequently inaccurate, wrong, or otherwise ill-informed, though I can see why some others might presume everything in that light .... I don't doubt that he could be unbearably annoying even while revealing the cure to cancer.
Author:  Rod [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.


Do you have a link to the Contract?
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.
Ok. That is easy then.

Start building things the day after the season ends!
Author:  8675309 [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
I get people find joy in the insane process because they have their own agenda - Sox fan - Don't trust Ricketts just because - Hate the evil rich white guy - dads polotics - sisters gay - hate change - Soldier field retro was a disaster...................forget all those and look at the facts.
Seems like a can't lose court case but I think Ricketts has been afraid that once he committed the resources (scheduled work) the rooftops would use their leverage of having a judge put a hold on things mid-project. Then what does Ricketts say? He'd have no leverage with them or the city about the even 5% chance they move.

Sorry I have issues posting links from my cell.
Just Google David Kaplan rooftop contract. He got it from a Cubs guy and confirmed with a former rooftop owner.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Does a Jumbotron constitute an expansion of Wrigley Field?
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.


That language is about as clear as mud.

Several hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees will be spent on such scintillating topics as the definition of expansion.
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
I get people find joy in the insane process because they have their own agenda - Sox fan - Don't trust Ricketts just because - Hate the evil rich white guy - dads polotics - sisters gay - hate change - Soldier field retro was a disaster...................forget all those and look at the facts.
Seems like a can't lose court case but I think Ricketts has been afraid that once he committed the resources (scheduled work) the rooftops would use their leverage of having a judge put a hold on things mid-project. Then what does Ricketts say? He'd have no leverage with them or the city about the even 5% chance they move.
The problem with your theory is that if you are correct that the contract is iron clad then there is no way the process gets put on hold. Judges aren't just flipping coins to make decisions.

For whatever reason, the Cubs feel that agreements with the rooftop owners are vital to even starting the project. If they are worried the courts may halt it during the process then they believe the rooftop owners have a case.
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Hatchetman wrote:
Does a Jumbotron constitute an expansion of Wrigley Field?


exactly
Author:  8675309 [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Bleachers will be expanded and seating capacity will stay the same because some standing room only seats will be lost during expansion - NEXT
Author:  Rod [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
Bleachers will be expanded and seating capacity will stay the same because some standing room only seats will be lost during expansion - NEXT


Now we will have lawyers arguing over what a "standing room only seat" is.
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
Bleachers will be expanded and seating capacity will stay the same because some standing room only seats will be lost during expansion - NEXT
Answer the simple question then.

If the answers are this easy, then what is the point of any of this?
Author:  Rod [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
But I do think you may have hit on something. The new plan may be at least partially designed to remove some of the ambiguity over whether this is actually an "expansion".
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu May 22, 2014 11:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
But I do think you may have hit on something. The new plan may be at least partially designed to remove some of the ambiguity over whether this is actually an "expansion".


There is an expansion in terms of the contract. If the seating went up another 50 feet in height, I don't think there is any doubt this contract covers the circumstance.

Signage does not fit within that contemplated expansion.
Author:  8675309 [ Thu May 22, 2014 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
I'm done....for now but agree or disagree on who's to blame it's really sad that stuff like this and the Soldier Field eyesore have to be so complicated.
Toss in the ~no taxpayer money thing and the insane amusements taxes and I don't see why anyone would want to stay in the city limits going forward.
Author:  good dolphin [ Thu May 22, 2014 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
I'm done....for now but agree or disagree on who's to blame it's really sad that stuff like this and the Soldier Field eyesore have to be so complicated.
Toss in the ~no taxpayer money thing and the insane amusements taxes and I don't see why anyone would want to stay in the city limits going forward.


take a look at your local access cable one night and you will see the micro version of this in every suburb just about every month

It's like when Chris Christie used to bitch about Chicago style politics in the White House, just before several NJ town were raided by the feds for corruption and he shut down a bridge for a political vendetta

Everyone says "not me". They lie
Author:  Jaw Breaker [ Thu May 22, 2014 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
8675309 wrote:
Toss in the ~no taxpayer money thing


I like how Ricketts states in the video that the Cubs "didn't want" taxpayer money. More like "couldn't get."
Author:  Scorehead [ Thu May 22, 2014 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
So I gotta believe that Papa Joe told Tommy Boy to sack up & start getting things done, right?
Author:  City of Fools [ Thu May 22, 2014 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
look, the rooftop owners are the bad guy. But to state that it's not Big guy versus Little guy is disingenuous. The Cubs can be content to choke the owners out through the court system without ever deciding whether the contract is valid or not...
Author:  City of Fools [ Thu May 22, 2014 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Matty is doing a pretty good job of countermanding Dan today.
Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu May 22, 2014 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
City of Fools wrote:
look, the rooftop owners are the bad guy.


Really? Because Beth Murphy hasn't subjected me to four years of shitty baseball.
Author:  Tad Queasy [ Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Jerry Reinsdorf would have...
Author:  Rod [ Thu May 22, 2014 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Tad Queasy wrote:
Jerry Reinsdorf would have...


Really. Smart. Owner.
Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu May 22, 2014 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5/22 - Ricketts vs. Roofies
Jerry Reinsdorf would have what.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/