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

Chicago Cubs
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=93330
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:41 am ]
Post subject:  Chicago Cubs

Great job on screwing up this ballpark reno. I guess greed prevented them from playing at Miller Park this year. I hope this continues to make them look like fools.

They better hope the team starts playing better.

Author:  sinicalypse [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

goddamn sox fans always have the cubs on their mind!

Author:  jimmypasta [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Matt,

Wow,it's like you were sitting on my knee and my lips weren't moving! :lol:

Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Peoria Matt wrote:
I guess greed prevented them from playing at Miller Park this year.

This was never going to happen, and the novelty would have warn off in week 2 of the season.

Author:  spmack [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

I would have loved for them to have played at The Cell and outdraw the Sox.

Author:  IMU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Oh no. A four year renovation is causing foreseen inconveniences. Panic! Let's just not take into consideration how old the ballpark is, where it is located, how large of an undertaking this project is, and the undisputed benefits after completion.

Calm yourself.

Author:  Kirkwood [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Logistically Miller Park would've been a disaster. Works for a series but not a season.

For example, take a guy like bigfan. Season ticket holder living in Wrigleyville. How the hell is the guy supposed to make it to Milwaukee for a 7:05pm on a Wednesday?

Northern burbs Cubs fan would be relatively OK. But a lot of others wouldn't even bother going.

Author:  jimmypasta [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

IMU wrote:
Oh no. A four year renovation is causing foreseen inconveniences. Panic! Let's just not take into consideration how old the ballpark is, where it is located, how large of an undertaking this project is, and the undisputed benefits after completion.

Calm yourself.


The Bleacher thing was disappointing but lack of bathrooms was a major mistake. Somebody is not thinking ahead or about "the head".

Author:  IMU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

jimmypasta wrote:
IMU wrote:
Oh no. A four year renovation is causing foreseen inconveniences. Panic! Let's just not take into consideration how old the ballpark is, where it is located, how large of an undertaking this project is, and the undisputed benefits after completion.

Calm yourself.


The Bleacher thing was disappointing but lack of bathrooms was a major mistake. Somebody is not thinking ahead or about "the head".

I'm not arguing it. They screwed up. I'm surprised the bathrooms weren't completed in the off-season. And portapotties aren't ideal, but should resolve the issue until the rest of the restrooms open up in May.

But again...this is an issue because the Cubs stayed in a 100 year old ballpark. Because the fans wanted it.

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

IMU wrote:
Oh no. A four year renovation is causing foreseen inconveniences. Panic! Let's just not take into consideration how old the ballpark is, where it is located, how large of an undertaking this project is, and the undisputed benefits after completion.

Calm yourself.


Exactly why they should have moved.

Author:  sinicalypse [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

can anyone else here picture IMU in a full cheerleaders getup waving the pom poms and doing those extra high leg kicks when kris bryant happens to be walking by?

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

And they didn't stay because the fans wanted it. They stayed because Lttle Tommy didn't want to be the bad guy.

Author:  SteveSarley [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

How could they have moved?
They own a stadium that is deemed a landmark.
If they had built a new stadium elsewhere, they'd still have to maintain an empty Wrigley Field and pay the taxes on a prime piece of property while gaining no revenue.
They are stuck in a corner.

Author:  IMU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Peoria Matt wrote:
And they didn't stay because the fans wanted it. They stayed because Lttle Tommy didn't want to be the bad guy.

One and the same. If the fans were screaming to get out, Tommy would have been the hero.

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

No it's not the same. Heart over head. Not the way to do business.

Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

IMU wrote:
Oh no. A four year renovation is causing foreseen inconveniences.
Are you sure these are foreseen? Just a few weeks ago, the Cubs told us that cold weather and snow in February wreaked havoc on their construction schedule.


Its easy to point and laugh at the Cubs. So far, they appear to have been doing things with Wrigley wrong at almost every turn. While I will point and laugh, I actually do feel sorry for the truly good Cubs fans who deserve a lot better than this.

Author:  IMU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Frank Coztansa wrote:
IMU wrote:
Oh no. A four year renovation is causing foreseen inconveniences.
Are you sure these are foreseen? Just a few weeks ago, the Cubs told us that cold weather and snow in February wreaked havoc on their construction schedule.

This is opposed to the Cubs, in October, announcing that they fully expect their project to be nowhere near completion come April 5th?

Which would you say? Of course they are going to publicly state that "this, that, and the third" delayed construction.

A small, short-term PR nightmare versus a large PR nightmare taking up an entire off-season.

Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

IMU my point is that if these issues are "foreseen" as you claim, then how in the world could they not foresee bad winter weather in Chicago, and have some sort of backup or contingency plan in place?

Renovations or not, there is no excuse for running out of food and hotdog buns. Simply put, that is just fucking embarrassing.

Author:  IMU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Frank Coztansa wrote:
IMU my point is that if these issues are "foreseen" as you claim, then how in the world could they not foresee bad winter weather in Chicago, and have some sort of backup or contingency plan in place?

Renovations or not, there is no excuse for running out of food and hotdog buns. Simply put, that is just fucking embarrassing.

Frank, I'm saying they knew the entire time that the construction wouldn't get done in time for Opening Day, and that they didn't disclose that because of public outcry and pressure to do things differently. They are choosing to blame delays on inclement weather, when there were no true delays at all. This is simply a large project that takes awhile.

The bathrooms were terrible.

The food thing? I only heard that from a few, unreliable sources. And I'm not sure how widespread it was. When I was at the UC for Hawks playoffs last year, several 300 level concessions were out of a ton of food. Same thing when I was at Conseco for Bulls playoffs several years back. I've also gone to the Premium Beer concession in Section 144 at US Cellular and they've been out of a bunch of beers.

It happens.

Author:  Kirkwood [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Everything the Cubs do does seem to get scrutinized more given their popularity.

The Sox just received a $3.2M clubhouse paid by taxpayers. I didn't know the about the project until like 3 days ago.

Not much outcry for preservation or ruining tradition with that renovation. Or that it cost taxpayers $3.2 million bucks.

Author:  conns7901 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

They should of requested to start the season on the road for the first three weeks. Maybe some of these issues would of went away.

It also would of been fun to watch them outdraw the Sox at the Cell, but that is why Jerry would never allow them to play there.

Author:  Brick [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Kirkwood wrote:
Everything the Cubs do does seem to get scrutinized more given their popularity.

The Sox just received a $3.2M clubhouse paid by taxpayers. I didn't know the about the project until like 3 days ago.

Not much outcry for preservation or ruining tradition with that renovation. Or that it cost taxpayers $3.2 million bucks.
It was the first renovation of the clubhouse since 1991. Sounds overdue.

Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

No shit. How dare the Sox renovate a nearly 25 year old clubhouse!

Author:  Kirkwood [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Or you have the Ballpark Pass that was introduced to fill seats while blatanly skirting rules for paying rent.

Quote:
Filling more seats early in the season when weather tends to keep fans away would help boost its paid attendance figure, but it's unclear how the deals will affect the attendance number that affects the Sox's annual rent payment to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which owns the ballpark.

Under the team's management agreement, the Sox pay ISFA a per-head fee on a graduated scale for every ticket sold beyond 1,925,000 for the season. It has not paid such fees since the 2010 season, when the Sox drew 2.2 million fans.

But complimentary tickets and those that are sold for less than $3 apiece do not count toward that ticket total, which means the difference between what the Sox report as total paid attendance and what ISFA counts for rent purposes may be a bit inflated this year.

A spokesman for ISFA, which handles annual debt payments on the stadium, could not be reached for comment.


The White Sox find new ways every year to rip off Illinois.

Like everything, there's positives and negtives to being popular or being under-the-radar.

Author:  Bagels [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

everything old should just be "preserved" . its a great buzzword to avoid doing upgrades !

Author:  Rod [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Kirkwood wrote:
Everything the Cubs do does seem to get scrutinized more given their popularity.

The Sox just received a $3.2M clubhouse paid by taxpayers. I didn't know the about the project until like 3 days ago.

Not much outcry for preservation or ruining tradition with that renovation. Or that it cost taxpayers $3.2 million bucks.


The Sox don't own U.S. Cellular Field. The Illinois taxpayers do. Congratulations on your brand new clubhouse! :lol:

Author:  Brick [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The Sox don't own U.S. Cellular Field. The Illinois taxpayers do. Congratulations on your brand new clubhouse! :lol:
I'm sure the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority would have loved to have bought Wrigley Field for $1 and then build them a new clubhouse.

Author:  Juiced [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Frank Coztansa wrote:
I actually do feel sorry for the truly good Cubs fans who deserve a lot better than this.


I felt the same way when the Sox traded for Shark. You guys deserved a Lester or at least a J.Shields. :lol:

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

Add Peoria Matt to the pile of always optimistic Cub fans!

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chicago Cubs

rogers park bryan wrote:
Add Peoria Matt to the pile of always optimistic Cub fans!


I guess the 30 plus years of watching them fail has jaded me. Don't get me wrong....I'm looking forward to seeing the young guys but I was not in favor of them staying at Wrigley. Ricketts blew his only chance at moving at his 1st press conference.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/