Cubs file for the right to put up the RF sign. Let the games begin!

Bernsteins 'inside info' says this is just a show of force as talks will continue with the 2 sides, and a non legal resolution is desired.



Hey Danny, Mr insider, 'Talks regarding the sign issues will be discussed during the Wrigley field OPEN MEETING being held Tuesday Night, Jan 28, 2014 at the Addison Ave Police Station Community room"

_________________
"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.’”

What a fucking waste of time.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

funny thing you say that because I know some people going tomorrow night to complain to the Alderman that they are sick of him devoting so many hours to this and not dealing with the real shit going on in the community like the highest commercial vacancy rate int he past 40 years.

Tunney has dedicated an incredible amount of time to this issue and it seems that we are right back where they started. Nowhere.

_________________
"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.’”

Well he promised to be up their butt. Every day. Up their butt.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Here's what I don't get. How come neither the Cubs nor the Rooftop d-bags has leaked a copy of the contract? The roofies are trying to use the pity card any chance they can. If all of these changes are actually forbidden in the contract, why don't they just show us? If I had a contract that had the Cubs by the balls like they claim they do, I'd be posting PDFz of it with every media source I could.

Or am I right in my theory that if this gets dragged into court the contract doesn't give them a leg to stand on to stop anything, and they are just trying to get every penny they can before the finally get stomped on?

Couldn't agree more. Either the Cubs, in their greed, signed a deal forbidding them from blocking views for the duration of the contract, or the contract specifies only that the roofies have to give them 17% of whatever rooftop revenue there is (and if that revenue drops to nothing due to renovations and/or signage, too bad).

My hunch is that it's the latter, but the roofies will argue that the 17% revenue sharing implies that the Cubs are not allowed to do anything to negatively affect the roofie revenue. I'm no lawyer, but I can't believe that tactic would scare the Cubs into paralysis.

Either way, let's see the contract!

_________________

I agree with your analysis of what the contract states and implies. Unlike you, I think that is a pretty reasonable implication of the partnership.

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

I wouldn't be surprised to see rooftop owners respond with an emergency motion restraining the city from issuing the permit in order to keep the status quo until the contract dispute is resolved.

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