This was the phrase I thought was too simple from the contract released months ago, not sure why the Cubs didnt give them 30 days to resolve it and do what they are doing now.

"Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section," the sentence states.
-------------------

Those 20 words in Section 6.6 of the contract, which was obtained by the Tribune, are being cited by team executives as a factor in their favor should the rooftop owners sue the club over changes that would block rooftop views of games. Attorneys for the rooftop owners — both in 2004, when the contract was signed, and today — argue that the sentence was meant to refer to expansion of the bleachers, not other parts of the 100-year-old ballpark.

I would be calling my attorneys complete dumbasses at this point, to claim you were aware of what this was to exactly mean, but didnt clarify it in the contract at the time? I write plenty of semi legal crap up and then pass it on to an Attorney to "fine tune it", but I go out of my way to never leave things such as "it" or "they" as the hanging thought. Try to cover any other possible avenue that might arise.
----------
Legal experts contacted by the Tribune agreed that Section 6.6 might help the Cubs prevail in a legal battle. But they also cautioned that the language — in fact, much of the entire contract — is too vague to make a clear prediction about winners and losers.

Typical. That a way to go out on a limb! Shit, the Trib isn't even using your name as a "Legal expert", so just make a fucking prediction. ITS WHY THEY CALLED YOU!. They could have called Ike South and asked him what he thinks.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Spada?

i thought this was gonna be a BOARD GENIUS post and i was gonna choose the cubs



sorry, he's off doing his usual weekend routine of dressing up like the grim reaper and hanging around elderly/ish sports legends just to freak 'em out =D

_________________

yeah and the rooftops are pretty much what the spanglish call "el fuckedo" here. they'll have to hope they end up with a judge who met his wife @ a rooftop party or something.... cuz i mean, that's vague enough to be worked out by whoever has the REALLY. SMARTER. PEOPLE. aka the GOOD. MONIED. LAWYERS. and you think the cubs have way more resources to fight over the ambiguity of a phrase with the best and brightest minds that money can offer.

is there some politics going on like the cubs wont block certain rooftops if they pay up a chunk of their revenue streams to the cubs? cuz like, man, idk how they can get away with essentially building a business around a product that they're not directly paying for and then bitch and moan when people who own said product kind of do their own thing.

not to mention, would the wrigley field experience really be killed without those wonderful people who go to see the game @ rooftops? short of some sort of deep playoff run where tickets are super-hard to come by, i can't think of any reason i'd wanna go see a game @ a rooftop. call me old fashioned but i like going to the damn ballpark and thus while the rooftops are a kinda-cool aesthetic.... still man, when you're freeloading a product across the street beggars can't be choosers..... unless they play chicago politics i guess.

_________________

Looks like they needed MUCH. SMARTER. LAWYERS that were more thoughtful in their process.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

for a Lawyer to say something like 'We all know we mean the bleachers when writing this" is like admitting he fucked up.

the issue of signage potentially blocking the rooftops has been spoken about for years. doesnt seem like this really took much forethought on anyones behalf to see this coming, yet it seems both sides did a poor job of covering their respective asses in this case.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

plenty of illegal crap as well

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You are missing the point. You keep it vague when you think it could benefit you. The negotiations were probably very specific that expansion meant bleacher expansion and it was a smart move by the drafter to leave it vague so the possibility that expansion could be interpreted otherwise remained available.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Also, I think Section 6 is titled "Bleacher Expansion". It's probably a pretty fair argument to suggest that any subparagraphs thereunder pertain specifically to bleacher expansion.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

"Though most legal experts agreed that the parties would settle, one expert contacted by the Tribune believes the Cubs will go lick melted butter off his dirty asshole."

_________________

The way the Cubs are talking: The case is easy based on the wording.
The way the Cubs are acting: The case is very difficult and they think there is a good chance they will lose.

The Cubs would be smart in a few months to offer each rooftop a fairly good deal to just go away. I'd much rather deal with damages paid to one lone holdout rather than all of them.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

"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."

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the intention of the parties was to allow any obstruction as long as it produced revenue via advertising. If that were the case, the Cubs might simply have reinstalled the windscreens with some type of corporate logo on them.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don