I don't give a feather of a flying fuck about the Cubs' financial benefits.

"The Cubs should leave the city of Chicago and put up billboards so they can make more money and pay lower taxes."
-- any asshole

_________________

A team that generates an additional 40-70 million dollars can afford to sign 2-3 quality free agents when they are ready to contend, to bolster their roster. That's why making substancially more profit matters.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

You and Tunney must be a cute couple.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

Is that your argument? Some stupid homophobic crap? You seem to have to ridiculous opinion that the most profitable team in baseball, which enjoys an advantage over every other team in the game- save possibly one- in that people come from far corners of the world and the first thing they do upon arriving in Chicago is rush to see their antique ballpark, is going to make more money by playing in a shoddily constructed replica in some middle class suburb.

_________________
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

THEY ARE THE MOST PROFITABLE TEAM. How has that trickle-down economics worked for us? How has it worked for the NBA's most profitable team, the Chicago Bulls?

_________________

That's because the Cubs cut $56 million dollars in payroll. Any team can make a huge one year profit by doing the same thing. This becomes obvious when you put it against the attendance drop the Cubs saw. They made a lot more money with much lower attendance.

_________________
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!

Attendance is down across baseball, Rick. Besides that, did you expect attendance to go up when they purposely put a team out there to lose 100 games?

Surely you aren't suggesting that they will be less profitable in 2015 when they are winning the World Series, are you?

_________________
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

My point is that while attendance went down they got more profitable. You then look at the salaries and you can see where the profit came from.

As we've learned from many other teams, being bad at baseball can make you a lot of money. The Houston Astros were more profitable than almost every team that made the playoffs.

_________________
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!

And my point is that a new ballpark in suburbia isn't an automatic guarantee of more profits. We'll never really know until it happens though. To me the only sound argument for leaving Wrigley Field- a golden goose if ever there was one- is that at some point it simply becomes cost prohibitive to maintain a 100 year old ballpark. But I believe the plans for Wrigley are more of a rebuild than a rehab. And Ricketts knows that's the smartest way to go.

A lot of people seem to be taking it for granted the the Cubs are just popular and no matter what they do, they always will be. The Cubs were never more popular than the White Sox until all the old parks were knocked down and Wrigley remained and McDonough sold it. The foolish- though prescient- decision to put the Sox on pay-TV didn't help the Sox of course. But I think the Cubs' fortunes are far more fragile and tied much more closely to that ballpark than you do. As I said, we won't really know until it happens. And anyway, I don't really think it will.

_________________
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

Pretty obvious why the home of the White Sox is so adamant that the Cubs simply have to marginalize themselves.

_________________

I think you're giving WSCR "brain" trust far too much credit.

_________________
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

The Cubs would clearly lose a lot if they left Wrigley.

The question is how much would they gain by removing the rooftop leeches, making money off rent for the local bars, and selling more premium seating.

With the Cubs, it's less of a question of how much would they lose, but how are they not as valuable as the Yankees or Red Sox? The television deal will help when it comes up, but one could argue that the Cubs should be just below the Yankees in terms of value. They aren't close right now.

_________________
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!

Well, first off, I think the idea that the rooftops are "leeches" is misguided. I've never met anyone who made a decision to sit on a roof rather than attending a agme. They are two separate things and most people go on rooftops as part of a group. The rooftops are not allowed to sell game day singles. (Although I know some of them do. That's strictly an enforcement issue.) In any case, I think the effect the rooftops have on Wrigley Field attendance is negligible and perhaps they even help it. That 17% with zero risk or investment is gravy for the Cubs. They just don't realize it.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the Cubs- unchained from the special park that makes them "THE CUBS"- would be as valuable as the greatest winning franchise in sports.

_________________
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

In a world where every one of those rooftops is a skybox in the stadium the Cubs make more money. Also, it has to do with renting out the space around the stadium and maybe even apartments. The Cubs could even build their own rooftop apartment complexes in the new stadium.
The dominant baseball team in the Chicago market should be at least comparable to the Red Sox and Yankees.

_________________
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!

They are only dominant because of a special park and their location. Believe me, Tom Ricketts understands that.

_________________
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

I hardly think it's the same thing. I'd pay to go on a rooftop. That "Wrigley atmosphere". I'm only going to a skybox if I'm invited for free.



That's gonna be one hell of a replica!

_________________
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

So if the Cubs left for Rosemont should the Sox move into Wrigley?

_________________

I can't imagine a single person buying tickets for a rooftop, but I could definitely see parties and corporate events hitting the rooftop in lieu of buying tickets. My work has rented them out a few times but when they do a Sox game they buy 50 or 60 tickets.

And the corporate outings are when the team really could cash in with food and bozoe.

Here is where you lose me, CH

I get your point of view for the most part, but you get dangerously close to the "Wrigley and the Cubs experience" is more important than winning.

I understand that trickle down doesnt always work, but you cant root against profits and root FOR the team. Its not realistic.

This is the way you see it.

I dont know why you are so sure.

The Raiders have been god awful for years. They are still the Raiders and they still matter more than the Titans ever will.

The WHY they got to be a National team is not important. It happened and cant be reversed.

The Sox will never be as popular as the Cubs in our lifetimes, JORR.

I agree, but you're supposing that a Wrigley Field existence and profit are mutually exclusive, when quite the opposite is true. That the Cubs have failed to win a championship at Wrigley has had more to do with bad luck and insufficient drafting/development (which often hides bad luck) than inadequate revenue streams. The Cubs have had no shortage of funds with which to buy free agents and obscure the lack of aforementioned drafting/development. How is that?

_________________

Did Wrigley makes the cubs, or is it WGN that makes the cubs. I think if Ricketts looks at this long term, the suburb option is definitely viable.

The team hits the real money when they roll out the Cubs network in another 5 years.

Losing wrigley takes away mystique and a walk up draw, but that hasn't always been there. In the 80's the stands weren't packed unless they were a winner. If he is confident of Theo to build a winner, they would sell out 55K in the NW suburbs just as they would in Wrigley, just with more seats.

But out in Arlington Heights, they could also take a cut of parking, hotels, increased restaurant space, and additional merchandising. Instead of looking to collect 500 for a family of 4 to buy tickets, drinks, food and a t-shirt. They are looking for 1K from the visiting family staying at the Cubbie Inn, eating lunch at Earnie's Bar and grill and never leaving Cubbieland.

The Cubs are what they are because of WGN taking games nationwide when in many cases they were the only game in town. That is why fans make the trek to wrigley field. Now that everyone broadcasts games nationwide. Its as more important than ever to make the game day experience as easy as possible. I choose not to go to Cubs games because its a pain in the ass to get there from NW burbs.

The rooftop experience right now sucks. Half the outfield is obstructed viewing. The food is pretty mediocre. You are so far from the infield you are better off watching the game on a monitor. Who would pay to sit up there when it becomes a Disney style situation?

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

Of course it's the way I see it. That's why I'm posting it.

NFL football is a poor comparison. It's a television game and there is little motivation for the franchises to strive for success. Everyone makes money. It's a non-competitive league.

The reason why I am so sure is that I saw it happen. I know exactly how it happened. And moving to Rosemont and ceding Chicago to the White Sox would be a mistake like the one the Sox made in going to UHF.

I don't know if the Sox will ever be the more popular team or not, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. The gentrification of the near South side which has led to people with more disposable income moving into Chinatown and Bridgeport looks like a harbinger to me. We'll see how it plays out. But I think your absolutist statement is a little silly. In 1981 nobody would have believed there would ever come a time when nobody gave a shit about DePaul basketball.

_________________
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

I think you underestimate how popular the Cubs are.


My absolutist statement is no more silly than yours that the Cubs are only popular because of the ballpark.

This is a topic I happen to know a little bit about. The model for these deals is the one Jeff Moorad set up in San Diego. It's a bad deal for everyone except Padres ownership. But it set a baseline, i.e. "if the Padres are worth that, what are the Dodgers worth???" In five years everyone is going to know a lot more about what these TV rights are really worth and how much the cable customer is willing to accept. I wouldn't count on a blockbuster like these teams signed in the immediate wake of the San Diego deal.

_________________
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

For full price...no one. But last year they ran quite a few Groupon deals. Pretty worth it when you're with a group of guys and the attention to the game is not a priority.

Are you trying to tell us that you would comment on topics you don't know a little about?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

And I think you oversteimate it. That guy from Seattle taking his picture next to the Harry statue likely isn't there because of the Cubs.

And I've never said the Cubs are "only popular because of the ballpark". They have the park which is a HUGE advantage. And they've used it very well to sell a team that has been mostly shitty.

_________________
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

What I meant was I have a pretty good working knowledge of everything that has occurred with the San Diego ballclub over the past few years.

_________________
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