Rooftop owners swing...but I think they missed.

Because the product that will be put on the field really is no interest to anyone right now, all attention has been put on the Wrigley Field renovation plans.

The rooftop owners are seen as one of the final hurdles to getting this plan moving forward and their stalling tactic basically revolves around the Cubs' wish to put up advertising in the outfield.  We can assume the advertising would be similar to the Toyota sign that is currently out there.  

Today the rooftop owners had their say...holding a press conference and giving their vision for the renovations.

They made a nice little video to demonstrate how they would like to partner with the team to try to maximize the advertising around the ballpark.

So the rooftops owners want LED boards on their buildings instead advertising inside of Wrigley that could potentially obstruct some of their views of the playing surface inside the ballpark.

I can actually give some serious problems to what is being proposed here.

First, the LED boards, where they are proposed to be located, will somewhat obstructed.  Part of the reason for putting up advertising is so people will actually see the advertisements.  Placing these LED advertisement boards off the facade of these rooftops will result in advertising that will be seen by parts of the stadium, but isn't likely to be seen very much on TV, which is actually the larger audience that advertisers are trying to reach.  (Why do you think they put that board off the brick wall behind home plate or on the doors of the outfield walls?)

Second, LED boards are bright and annoying...and the Cubs already have a number of them, with more likely to be on the way with the renovation (which doesn't include the outfield advertising the team is requesting).  They also will not have the same dramatic impact that a static advertisement has such as the Toyota sign.

A third issue I had with this proposal was with the video board they proposed to put on on what we have known as the Budweiser, Horseshoe Casino, or most recently, United Airlines building.  The Cubs should put up a video board, and I've even thought that building would be an ideal spot for it...but when I tried to create rendering of what that might look like, it turned out bad...really bad.  First off, the board is too far back from the main ballpark to make a dramatic impact.  Second, the video board would be too small...in fact, I don't think there are any primary video boards in Major League baseball right now that would be as small as that one would be.  If you are going to do something that dramatic, do it right.  I've said for a while that I thought the Cubs were likely in negotiations with some of the building owners over the possibility of put  in a video board, but anything beyond that no.  The video board the rooftops are proposing just won't work.

Look, I sympathize (barely) with the rooftop owners on this.  They have invested heavily in their buildings and are scared that their businesses will be hurt.  At the same time, many of these people have made a ton of money by stealing a product for years.  Some of them went into this with the expectation that they should be able to make money here, and they are justified to try to protect that business.

At the same time, the rooftops contribute virtually nothing to help the Cubs win on the field. (The percentage of revenues they give the Cubs is chump change.)  The presentation given here basically did nothing more than show that if there is advertising put in Wrigley, they think they deserve a piece of the revenues it generates, but they have failed to demonstrate how that would benefit the Cubs.

At this point, the Cubs seem to be digging in their cleats on the idea that they want to keep the advertising inside the ballpark.  I don't blame them.  This way they can control the actual advertising that goes up and they will likely do a better job to help keep the advertising set up in such a way that it blends in with the rest of the ballpark (like the Underarmour, Toyota, Target and Tervis adverts).  Remember, they had some real issues with the Horseshoe Casino sign, which led to the Toyota sign being put up.

One final point I'd like to make about this is that the Cubs have made deal after deal after deal with the rooftop owners, and while the Cubs usually get their way, it isn't without a ton of fighting in the process. Every deal made with the rooftop owners and the neighborhood in general has resulted in the Cubs being restricted in being able to do something else in the future.  While the Cubs tend to be able to get around these issues (expanding the bleachers, more night games, adding the Toyota sign), it has taken a lot more time and energy for them to actually achieve these items which are actually pretty important to the financial competitiveness of the franchise.  That energy would be better placed in with the on field product.

I didn't want the Cubs to renovate Wrigley.  My reasons are different from many others who think the ballpark should be left alone.  I didn't want to renovate the place because I think the team should move and build a new stadium somewhere else altogether.

But...if the team stays (ok, they aren't leaving...but still), I've felt that they should get to do whatever they want to the place.  The truth is, the neighborhood and the rooftops aren't going to suffer because of it. In fact, just like all the other changes to the ballpark over the last 30 years, they will benefit from it just like the Cubs will.

It's been a while...so let's talk about a rich owner asking for money.

Paying for the renovation? Here we go again.

The Sun-Times (and since, the Tribune) has been reporting since yesterday that a deal between the city and the Cubs to finance renovations to Wrigley Field is nearing completion.

The Sun-Times updated the story a little while ago to say that a source has told them that the deal will likely include using some portion of the amusement tax, which was part of the initial plan that the Ricketts family had proposed in November of 2010.

Overall, I thought the initial deal was a relatively fair one...especially since the Cubs (via the Cubs fans) have been paying the amusement tax for a couple decades now and have contributed more to that tax than anyone else without seeing any benefits from it.

The initial plan was immediately panned by almost everyone but Al Yellon and myself (ugh!) and was obviously not sold very well to anyone including those who needed to vote on the measure in the city and the state.

I'm not completely sold that the amusement tax will actually be used here. The plan was originally said to be a "non-starter" by new mayor, Rahm Emanual. It does not seem like Rahm to back track from a statement like that.

If indeed amusement tax funds are used, then some pretty good explaining will need to be done to sell this to the public. The Sun-Times story states that the Cubs have added a guarantee to their amusement tax payments that would help insure the city against any reduction in revenues from things like a drop in attendance. I suppose that is a starter, but I don't think it really does much to really settle the situation.

Adding TIF district around Wrigley would seem to be a more logical choice for this as it will affect the people who most directly benefit from Wrigley Field.

None of this, though, really resolves the issue here that the Cubs are asking the government, or more precisely, the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, for $200 to $300 million to rebuild the stadium. That money will need to be generated through the sale of government backed bonds that the ISFA has the authority to sell. The State of Illinois is still in a pretty nasty budget crunch...perhaps even worse than it was when the initial deal was proposed so nothing has really changed.

So the few people that actually support this idea have these two statements that they always use: This was how the Soldier Field nightmare was financed and his was how Comiskey Park (US Cellular) was financed. Here is the problem...both Soldier Field and Comiskey Park are publicly owned buildings. Wrigley Field is not. Wrigley belongs to the Ricketts family. What's in it for the public if they finance the renovations? The promises never live up to the realities when building stadiums. Yes, Wrigley Field and the Cubs are a large economic engine in the city of Chicago that brings in millions, perhaps tens of millions, of dollars to the local economy every year. To lend $200 million or more to a private company to help it expand its profits is a pretty hard sell in days like these.

But what might have changed in the last 18 months that might have made some people a little more receptive to this deal? Well, I'd like to offer this possibility...the 2011 Chicago Cubs and Jim Hendry. Attendance dropped significantly last year, and the Cubs had a hard time selling some of their more expensive seats. The result is that revenues from ticket sales dropped and, more importantly, the amount of money the Cubs paid in amusement tax also dropped. I don't know all the details of the amusement tax and how that money is distributed, but I do know the city gets a nice chunk of change from the amusement tax every year and that amount is based off the surplus after the bond funds are properly financed. The city likely received less money from the amusement tax from the 2011 season and that probably didn't help with an already horribly tight budget.

To maintain the health of the amusement tax revenues, it is in the best interest of the city and all involved to help the Cubs maintain their attendance. Without that renovation, believe it or not, attendance will not regain the levels we saw between 2004 and 2009. That has nothing to do with how to pay for the renovation...it's just a fact that everyone should agree to...Wrigley must be renovated or revenues will drop.

Should the Ricketts family be paying for all of this? Throwing in the cost for the mythical Triangle Building, the cost of the entire renovation project is going to run anywhere between $400 million and $600 million. (This of course means it is going to cost $600 million because these types of project never run at budget.)

I still say that the Ricketts family royally screwed up when they bought the team. I believe they allowed their love of the Cubs and of Wrigley Field to blind them as to the true nature of the work that needed to be done to the ballpark. I think they went into this thinking "oh, this season we can put a new restaurant in, and next season we'll put in a new section in the bleachers with a new scoreboard, and the year after that, we'll add a new bathroom."

The reality was, and the Tribune knew this and tried to sell the ballpark because of this, Wrigley needs to be gutted and rebuilt.

People keep stating the Fenway model as to what should be done to Wrigley. That really isn't the case. Now I haven't been to Fenway since the renovations there took place, but if we are talking about $200 to $300 million for a renovation (and doubling that amount if you add the Triangle Building) that will take place over 3 or 4 years, I’m pretty sure the project that is being discussed is quite a bit more significant than the renovations done to Fenway over the last 10 years.

Heck, I'm still not convinced that it is the right move for the Cubs to play at Wrigley while these renovations take place. I don't really see how a simple rehab of the current structure solves many of the problems the stadium has. But that gets into a discussion for another time.

The point here is that the Ricketts family probably expected to pay about $30 million a year to maintain and upgrade the stadium. After one year of owning the team, they decided that wasn't nearly enough...and they were right.

What else we know is that the Ricketts family doesn't have $400 to $600 million in cash on hand at the moment. Perhaps they could go back to daddy and ask for more money...but I don't think they'll get it. We also know that, for 2 reasons, the Ricketts family cannot take out a loan for this. First, the Cubs are already over the allowed debt limit that Major League Baseball allows a team to have. Assuming they have the money to pay for half the renovation, that would mean the Cubs would have to finance a minimum of $200 million of the renovations which is added to the $450 million (probably slightly less now) that they currently owe from the purchase of the team. After seeing the debt problems that the Mets, Dodgers and Rangers have had to endure, there is no way that baseball will allow the Ricketts family to increase their debt amount by 50%. The other reason they can't do this is because it is unlikely that the Ricketts family will actually get a loan for $200 million from any bank. Things have probably eased up a bit since the financial crisis hit, but it is still not all that easy to get a loan of any type right now.

So what should be done? I still say that the initial deal proposed in 2010, while it had some flaws to it, wasn't that that bad. The stigma of this being a public financing of the stadium will still hold true. The Cubs need a deal, the city needs a deal, and the businesses around Wrigley need a deal. As much as it pains me to know that Cubs fans more than anyone else have paid for Comiskey Park and Soldier Field, I think the amusement tax plan needs to be dismissed for a plan that affects people who more directly benefit from Wrigley. The Ricketts family should pay the $300 million for the renovation and then sell personal seat licenses to finance a majority of the triangle building, with a TIF district created around Wrigley to pay for the rest over time. If more money is still required, they should sell the stupid naming rights for the stadium to Boeing or something.

****************

Opening day is tomorrow. I'll try to get there early and take some pictures of some of the changes around the ballpark.

The Cubs aren’t playing on the south-side in 2013…but they should in 2014

As I mentioned in my post earlier today, the rumors about the Cubs potentially playing their home game at U.S. Cellular Field in 2013 are completely baseless and just a flat out fabrication.

It’s unbelievable that a responsible news agency like this (no, I’m not posting a link to the story) could post whispers that probably were overheard at a bar in Wrigleyville.

If the Cubs were going to play outside of Wrigley Field, in 2013, a number of things would have had to happen by now. 

First off, finalized blueprints would have been released and we would have had some updated renderings.  Remember, if this were true, major work on the ballpark would be starting in about 8 months in either October or November.  Site preparation would probably already be going on.

Second, the Cubs would have felt obligated to inform season ticket holders of the potential change coming for the 2013 season…and even more importantly, the would have informed people who have been given the opportunity to purchase season tickets for the first time that they will only be at Wrigley for one season before spending a year at the Cell.  It would be smart for the Cubs to offer these people a delay in the decision until after the renovations keeping them at the top season ticket waiting list queue. 

Third, the Cubs still don’t have financing in place to pay for these renovations and no signs that significant progress has been made to secure that financing.

Fourth, the Ricketts family has not made even the slightest indication that this drastic option is on the table right now.  Of everything that Ricketts have been asked about, the idea of movie the team out of Wrigley for a year has been turned down by the Ricketts as strongly as the idea of tearing down the ballpark and building a new one somewhere else. 

Finally, the city would need to approve this renovation, and when the time comes for the major rehab to happen, you can bet it will take months of wrangling before everyone in the Wrigleyville neighborhood and the city in general will be happy with the plans to update the stadium. This quite frankly can't get done before work were to begin at the end of the 2012 season.

So with that all said, lets start getting to some hypotheticals here.  Should the Cubs consider moving out of Wrigley for a year?  Possibly in 2014?  It’s not going to happen, but I think they should consider it and actually do it.

(Warning:  Doc is going into one of his semi-annual "Wrigley Field is a dump" rants.)

Wrigley Field is a dump.  I know a number of people can’t stand it when I say that, but it’s the truth.  I’ve heard this from many people now: you can go to just about any other ballpark now and sit in the worst seats at those ballparks and those seats will still be better than the best seats at Wrigley.  It’s cramped.  It smells.  The food sucks.  And for the players, it doesn’t have the amenities that most AAA minor league parks now have. 

The idea of a patchwork approach to renovations where some larger changes happen during the off-season while minor fixes occur while the Cubs are on road trips just doesn’t seem like it would be enough. 

One plan has the Cubs have thrown out there involves digging out deep underneath the stadium to build the new clubhouse facilities.  Someone has to explain to me how that can be done in a single offseason…especially considering that it will require the Cubs to replace the field again…a task that took a number of months back after the 2007 season.  You can’t re-sod the entire field a few weeks before the season starts in a climate like Chicago. This just doesn't seem plausible right now.

Piecemeal renovations will give us updates more similar to the clubhouse renovation in 1982, the pressbox/skybox addition in 1988-1989 or the bleacher expansion in 2006.  Doing something like this is simply not big enough.  The main grandstand needs to go through a major restructuring.  In fact, some consideration should be put in to completely rebuild the upper deck, which currently contains the oldest concrete in the entire ballpark. 

Now I’m not an architect or in the construction business, so maybe there is a way to do these major renovations I'm suggesting without closing the park down for an entire year.  The Marlins played at ProPlayer/Dolphin/JoeRobbie Stadium during major renovations, as did the Royals when Kaufman when under its facelift.   The Royals and Marlins, though, never had to deal with crowds of 40,000 on a daily basis.  In fact, the Royals closed off parts of their ballpark during the season. The Cubs probably couldn't do the same.  

Of course the Red Sox played at Fenway during its decade long makeover, most almost all that work was done during the off-season.  I was at Fenway before it underwent its renovation (1996)…and I knew it was in desperate need for some work.  For most of the ‘00s, Fenway underwent a series of minor fix-ups and expansions that have now kept that ballpark viable for the foreseeable future.  Even with all this work, all the Red Sox did was make Fenway "viable".  Fenway is still cramped and missing some more modern amenities.  It's also likely to need renovations again in 10 years.  

I'd like to see the Cubs do better.  Make Wrigley comfortable for 40,000 people just like any new ballpark.   While Wrigley can "seat" 40,000, it wasn't designed to comfortably hold 40,000 on a daily basis.  Add more aisles, expand the concourses, widen the seats, add leg room and add more bathrooms.  I'd like to see it made into one of the best ballparks in baseball, in every respect, not just making it a viable Major League park.  I don't want the Cubs to have to consider having to do more massive renovations again just ten years after these renovations are complete.

It would seem to me that most of this cannot be done with a series of minor renovations.  It requires the ripping out of much of the concrete  and redesigning the overall structure of the grandstand.  Will this help the Cubs win games?  Not directly...but if last season taught us anything, it's that Cubs fans will not blindly go to Wrigley anymore.  Make the place comfortable and fan friendly for fans whether or not the team is good and whether or not the weather is cold like in April.  That adds to revenues.

Last season the Brewers out drew the Cubs while in the smallest market in baseball.  The amount that they outdrew the Cubs was only 50,000 or so...but if Major League Baseball actually published the number of people that actually came into the ballpark, the Brewers vastly outdrew the Cubs last year.  The no-shows at Wrigley last year were possibly the greatest they've ever been in the history of the franchise.  While the Cubs still get money from the ticket sales, no shows represent a loss of revenue.  Surely a team in Chicago should out do Milwaukee in both ticket sales and actual attendance almost every year regardless of performance on the field.  A major renovation of Wrigley could help achieve that.

Ideally, the Cubs would keep the bleachers and center field scoreboard, and completely gut and rebuild the rest of the ballpark.  The reality is, the main grandstand isn't what makes Wrigley the ballpark that everyone loves.  It's the ivy, the scoreboard, the brick walls, the bleachers, and perhaps the goofy neon red sign at the corner of Clark and Addison.  The rest of the ballpark could be replaced and it wouldn't make any difference.

To go to this extreme, the team would need to move out for a year...plain and simple.

As I said...this is all hypothetical.  The Ricketts family isn't interested in doing something to this extreme.  It's been said that the Tribune actually was considering doing this when they tried to sell the ballpark to the state back in 2007 and 2008.

I know this is an old argument...you can go through the CDE archives and see numerous posts where I bitch about Wrigley Field.  I can only hope that the renovations that are being planned are more massive and have a more drastic effect than I suspect they will. 

A new scoreboard coming to Wrigley

The biggest news to come out of the Cubs Convention this weekend was not the fact that Kerry Wood was re-signed (and never was), but the fact that the Cubs are going to be replacing the Bleacher Box seats in right field with a new patio deck and a 70 foot wide LED board.

This is quite a stunning turn of events here.

We can only deduce what this is going to actually be from the picture:

It appears, at least from the picture, that the board will contain advertisements and in-game stats.  I would guess that they could put some limited video on it too.

The patio will likely reduce the overall capacity of Wrigley by a few hundred, but should produce more revenue.  The Bleacher Box seats, which were created when the bleachers were expanded in 2006, never sold all that well.  The look of the patio has similarities to the seats that are on top of the Green Monster in Fenway Park and I'd assume the Ricketts family is hoping these seats sell as well as those Green Monster seats.

From the picture, which is obviously just a concept, it looks as if the video board will not be in play and the basket will still remain in place.  Personally, I'd like to see the basket removed and a home run have to be hit over the board itself.

The board will only be about 10 to 15 feet tall, tops, so it is going to be closer to what is already under the center field scoreboard in terms of what it can display than a true video board.

Overall, I like this development and it will be a revenue generator for the Cubs (which is why it is being done).  I'm hoping this doesn't completely extinguish talks about a full video board being put at Wrigley, but this is a step in the right direction.  The location of this board is not the best.  There will be parts of the first base side of the upper deck that will have a hard time seeing the board as well as areas of right field corner...but you are going have a tough time finding a spot inside the ballpark to put a scoreboard that can be seen by everyone.

This is also a very safe renovation to do since will have nothing to do with the mythical renovation of the main grandstand and makes for a very easy revenue increase at the ballpark.

Pretty cool.

“Be vewy vewy quiet…we’re hunting for cash.”

A small little blip in the Tribune today says that the Cubs are working very quietly behind the scenes to modify and revive a plan to raise cash to renovate Wrigley Field.

I’m guessing that the new proposal will be pretty much along the same lines as the original one which would have the Illinois Sport Facilities Authority sell bonds to raise between $200 and $300 million to help pay for the overhaul of the crumbling ballpark. In the end, the real issue comes down to how the Cubs would plan to pay off these bonds.

The original plan was to use any increase in amusement tax revenue collected by the Cubs to pay off the bonds. What this would result in is a freeze on any increase in payments to the city and county from this tax.

As all of you know, the original plan met with significant public and political resistance and it ended up never even being debated in the state legislature. I personally thought the proposal was fairly well thought out and created very little burden to the Illinois/Chicago tax payer…but the approach that the Ricketts family took in presenting it was horribly done and as a result they have been in damage control mode ever since. The good thing that this has done is that it has started a conversation on this subject and hopefully the Ricketts family will actually involve the important and powerful politicians, who need to approve this, in the discussions to come to a fair and reasonable compromise.

The Tribune gave little details as to what the Cubs are doing to modify the proposal, but it appears that a massive renovation to Wrigley is not going to happen without some form of public assistance. The Ricketts’s seem to be making every effort to avoid doing some simple things (and some personally painful things) to get the money they need to renovate the ballpark. Considering the backlash they have had from the fans in their first year of ownership, the Rickettses appear to be a bit gun-shy about asking anything more from them at the moment.

As 2011 approaches and the new session of the legislature prepares to start up, be prepared for the next round of the hunt for cash.

Report indicates Cubs are working on Plan B for Wrigley Rehab financing

The Sun-Times indicated today that the Ricketts’s plan to use the amusement tax growth to pay off bonds that were to be issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority is dead.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone as the public reaction to this proposal was almost entirely negative.

According to the Sun-Times story, the Cubs are working very closely with local officials now to try to come up with some scheme to help pay for the extensive renovation to the ballpark that they want.

It appears that they are going to try to explore every possible avenue to try to get some sort of public financing of at least part of these renovations. It won't be until they exhaust every option that they will look at some more internal ways of paying for the renovations (PSLs).

The current ideas being floated include expanding a restaurant tax boundary, or a TIF district around the Wrigleyville area.

In the end, it appears that there is significant political support for a public financing plan of some sort…it’s just a matter of finding the right way to configure this so that it has no burden on the normal tax payers in the Chicago area.

The negativity by a lot of people when the initial proposal was released was really an overreaction. This should have been looked at as just the starting point in this process as the Cubs try to come up with the cash to resurrect their crumbling ballpark. This was their way of starting a serious political discussion on financing the renovations. That being said, I think the Rickettses did a pretty piss-poor job in setting this up, and they have really fumbled a lot since buying the team. It might be a while before they can restore some credibility.

They may very well be able to ultimately get what they want here, but they have quickly made enemies in a city where that can, often times, mean death.

I still call for them to fire Crane Kenney and bring in a person who has extensive experience in running a baseball organization. If they don’t, they very well might suffer a significant number of other setbacks in the next few years.

Football at Wrigley: what to do in order to play there again

I wanted to say a quick note on the game yesterday.

I'm sure most all of you watched it. It was really cool.

I know I railed against the game at Wrigley earlier this week. I was very happy to see that the NCAA and the Big Ten decided to use only one end-zone yesterday. In the end, it was a really neat game and it was just interesting to see how it all worked out. I also did watch the Notre Dame-Army game at Yankee Stadium. That also was an extremely awesome experience (especially being a Notre Dame fan...please don't throw any tomatoes at me). The good thing about that game was that no special rules changes as the field fit safely onto the dimensions of the new ballpark.

Yankee Stadium was built with the idea that it could hold a football game there. There were even added bleachers coming off both the right and left field corners to increase the capacity and give special seating to the cadets in attendance.

Tom Ricketts stated he'd like to hold a fooball game there every year, as you all know (and I know you all know because I had more hits on Thursday than I ever had before), I thought this was ludicrous. The fact the Big Ten put a halt to the west to east offensive plays says that holding another football game at Wrigley is not going to happen unless the Cubs make some substantial changes.

Well, as luck has it, the Cubs are planning a renovation of the ballpark in the next few years. As I said before, the Yankees planned their stadium with the possibility of holding football games there. The Cubs should plan their renovation with the exact same thing in mind. Making Wrigley usable year round only increases revenue for the team.

The renovation plan for Wrigley pretty much leaves the bleachers alone. That's fine. We also know that the renovation, as currently planned, will replace most of the concrete and steel in the grandstand. My thought is to take the visitor dugout and the first 5 to 8 rows next to it and make them retractable or removable.

This would achieve a number of things if done..

• First, and most obviously, you can fit a regulation football field inside the ballpark with enough space to make it safe so players would have little fear about running into a brick wall at full speed.
• A north-south configuration is more standard in football for some reason, thus desired.
• Both teams will have space for a full sideline.  (The last time I saw both teams on the same side line was back when the Packers played at County Stadium in Milwaukee.)
• In a north/south configuration, the grandstand down the first base line more naturally angles toward the field, espeically in the upperdeck. 
• With a north/south configuration, a higher percentage of the rooftops will have better views of the entire field.

Now, I know my drawing isn't perfectly to scale, but it actually is pretty close, and I believe this could work.  This would also allow for soccer games to be easily held at the ballpark, lacrosse, polo...whatever.

If the Rickettses want to hold special events like this at Wrigley, they will need to take these things into consideration when renovating the park.

The real shame of yesterday's game was that so much talk was made about the special rules that had to be in place which distracted from the cool fact that football was being played at Wrigley.

If they can make football fit in Wrigley...hell, do it again!

***************************

Update:

One thing I intended to mention that I forgot about...

For those of you have any fears about ruining the "brick wall" by putting retractable seating in that area can be relax.  First off, half of that area is really used as both a dugout and as a camera well...and second, the area where there currently is a brick wall, during a ballgame the that area has the tarp rolled up against it.  Historically, the brick wall in that area really isn't that significant anyway.  The Cubs tore down the original brick wall (if it even was the original) to add 3 additional rows of seats there about 5 years ago.

So much for that...time for plan B

So this morning Tom Ricketts had a press conference to try to promote the plan to get the state to sell bonds to help pay for a major Wrigley Field renovation.

It appeared that the press conference was, A) not very well attended, and B) a bit of a publicity hit again....

As a result, it appears that just a few hours after the press conference that the Cubs are withdrawing their request for the funds. 

670 The Score is supposedly reporting this. 

Now we are back to where we were just a week ago wondering if the Ricketts family will have the guts and finacial resources to actually do what needs to be done and that is to majorly overhaul the obsolete park.

A model for what the triangle building should be

So it looks like the governor and the mayor have both come out against the Wrigley renovation finance plan...so the Ricketts family release this new rendering of the triangle building.

The scaled back plans for the triangle building.

All kidding aside now...

For years the Cubs have talked about this mythical triangle building. If you're like me (which, for your sake, I hope you're not), you've wondered what the heck the Triangle Building will actually be and what can we expect to be in it.

Well, I don't really know entirely what the Cubs are planning for this building off of Clark Street, but if they want a good example of what they should do, they should take a trip 5 hours north of Chicago to Lambeau Field, home of the hated Green Bay Packers. I've actually had the opportunity to be around Lambeau quite a bit over the last 4 years working races in the Green Bay area including the Green Bay Marathon which starts and ends and Lambeau.

The Packers completely renovated their horribly obsolete stadium starting in 2001. They expanded the capacity and added many great fan amenities.

As part of the process of renovating Lambeau, the Packers added a triangle shaped extension onto the stadium which they call the “Atrium”.

In the Atrium, the Packers moved their museum (which had been located across the street in another building), installed multiple restaurants, an ice cream shop, a team store, some other retail space, a ballroom, a bar and a huge center space that can hold small expos and other corporate events. The Atrium also contains office space for the team. The area is open to the public year round.

This is pretty much exactly what the Cubs should be aiming for in building the Triangle Building. Any plans should include basically everything that the Lambeau Field renovation had as well as some parking space in the building and some patio space on the roof.

Hopefully Lambeau Field is one of the places the Ricketts family is considering when drawing up plans for the Wrigley renovation.

Tom Ricketts has no plan B...but I do

The debate over the Wrigley Field renovation legislation has been rather fierce since it was announced last week. Personally, I’m ok with this, but I live in Wisconsin and am somewhat shielded from the disaster that is the Illinois state budget. In theory, the Illinois tax payer shouldn’t be affected by the Cubs plan, but it is Illinois and God knows what sort of corrupt mismanagement of this program will come about. I’ve said before that a person like me would probably pay more for this than the average Illinoisan.

But image is everything and in a time when people are out of work and the state has the credit rating worse than Germany after World War 1, trying to push a plan like this is like selling sand on a beach…it ain’t going to fly with the citizens of Illinois.

One thing that Cubs fans do need to realize is that if this team is going to be a consistent competitor in the future, Wrigley Field is going to need to be renovated.

Now, before I go any further, I think we need to be careful about what we are talking about with the stadium renovations here.

Fans need to look at the renovation in two ways.

First, the fan experience...Ricketts has continued to say that the Cubs need to improve the fan experience. I don't exactly agree with that, though I find watching games at Wrigley considerably uncomfortable compared to just about every other ballpark. Outside of some potential revenue gains from better concessions, exclusive clubs and such, there isn't much gain to the team in general. Fans seem to enjoy the experience already.

The second way to look at this renovation is to improve the facilities for the player...expanding office space, clubhouse and workout space...etc. I truly believe that Wrigley has become a competitive disadvantage for the Cubs. I used to not think this way, but when you see the amenities available for every other team, the Cubs have fallen horribly behind. Others might disagree...but I really do believe this now.

The Cubs need to do something in regards to item #2. It's as simple as that. I'd prefer them to take a wrecking ball to Wrigley and start over. That just isn't going to happen.

Tom Ricketts has stated on two different occasions now that there is no plan B if the legislature doesn’t pass the bill or if the governor vetoes it.

Tom better start getting plan B ready, because, like it or not, he’s probably going to have to use it.

I have a Plan B and here it is in three simple parts.

Part one: Minimal Personal Seat Licenses

A minimal PSL will generate immediate capital for the Cubs to start renovations at the stadium. Other teams throughout sports have used this. I personally would be affected by this, but a minimal seat license is something that I might be able to afford as a one-time charge. How much? Well, I think the plan would vary on the section, but among the 25,000 seats (estimate) in that are set aside for season tickets, an average license fee of $2,000 a seat would generate $50 million dollars. In reality, that amount might be slightly more considering they could put a license fee substantially higher for the luxury boxes and the number of seats used for season tickets is probably closer to 27,000 to 28,000.

Part two: Video Board

A video board can generate upwards of $10 to $15 million a year in revenue for a team. If we average that to $12.5 million, let’s say the video board is installed before 2012, between then and the end of the 2020 season, in 9 years, the Cubs would generate $112.5 million. It is likely that these would also be conservative estimates. Also, we need to keep in mind that the revenue generated from the video board would continue to be accumulated after the 2020 season.

Part three: Naming rights

While in reality the name of the ballpark is commemorating William Wrigley Jr., it is really nothing more than free advertising for the Wrigley Chewing Gum company and as such, if Wrigley wants the name to stay on the ballpark, they should pay the Cubs between $5 and $10 million a year for the honor…or else find someone else to pay that amount. The Mets are getting $20 million a year for Citi Field. The White Sox are getting $3 million. The Astros get $6 million. The Mets are quite an extreme case, but there is no doubt in my mind that if the Ricketts family really pushed it, they could get $8 to $10 million for Wrigley. At $8 million, in 10 years, the Cubs would have (if you can’t do the math) $80 million. Naming rights can happen quickly too. It could get done before the 2011 season.

The Cubs should have no attachment to that name. Forget tradition…tradition has gotten us jack squat.

This three pronged plan would generated, by 2020, $242.5 million, in my estimation, which is in the ballpark that the Cubs are looking for as far as revenue to renovate the ballpark. They will have to take out a bit of a loan to do it all by 2016, but if they play their cards right, they should be able to pay it off only 4 or 5 years after the renovation is complete.

*********

I really do feel that going to the state was necessary for the Ricketts family. They had to. The Sox got money and the Bears got money…so the Cubs should at least attempt to get money too. I understand the general feeling that the people in this state are lining up rapidly against this legislation. It seems a bit unfair to the Cubs who have done more than anyone else to help pay for Comiskey Park and Soldier Field…but these are trying times and the reality of the situation is that this is a public relations nightmare. One other thing people have to remember here that, assuming everything is done on the up and up, if the Cubs don’t get this proposal passed, it’s not like the money will magically be used to reduce the state debt by $200 million.

With that aside, it is what is it, and the Ricketts family should be setting up a plan B. My plan I think will work well in moving the Cubs toward being able to afford a substantial renovation of the stadium. Even if only one or two parts of that plan are used, the money generated should at least be enough to make the renovations necessary for the players’ needs….and that should be the most important thing for us as Cubs fans.

The $200 million reaction.

So yesterday's news about the Ricketts family going to the state and asking for $200 million spread quickly and the reactions amongst the world was varied and heated.

I know seems like it is easy for me to sit back here in southern Wisconsin and say that this is a great idea and be happy about it. In the end, I've been helping pay for Comiskey Park and Soldier Field for years now, so I do indeeed have a stake in this. Technically the state tax payer shouldn't be effect by this loan to the Ricketts family, but stranger things have happened in Illinois.

• Tim over at Aisle 424 discussed the social morality of giving the Cubs this $200 million loan. The title of that post is "If Illinois Gives the Cubs $200 Million, I'm Moving"...I don't suggest moving to Wisconsin where the income tax is considerably higher, the infrastructure of the state worse condition, and we are still paying off Miller Park for Bud Selig. (Oh, and we just elected a moron as Governor who just decided that some other state can have our $810 million for a high speed rail...like the federal government will just let us use that money for other pet projects...ha...stupid moron.) Sorry...I got side tracked there.

• Julie at LOHO is excited about the fact that is looks like a Wrigley renovation is finally going to happen...she just wishes that the Ricketts family would do a better job at not pissing people off. I can't disagree with that at all. I don't know who the Ricketts's PR man is, but he seriously needs to be fired.

• Desipio.com tried depriately to be balanced in their post, but in the end reverted to blaming Crane Kenney for all the ills of the world. I guess I can't complain about that. They did determine that the plural of Ricketts is Ricketti. I think I'll ask their permission to use that.  I like it.

• On the profession media side, the Sun Times published an editorial condeming this idea and calling on the Cubs to finance the whole thing themselves. What is stupid and short sided about this view is the fact that the Ricketts family is willing to invest $200 million of their own money to help redevelopment of the Wrigleyville neighborhood. If the Cubs don't secure the financing, it is likely they will not to those infrastructure projects for the neighborhood deferring those funds back for the renovation of the park itself. That would leave it up to the city and county to deal with the other issues in the neighbhood including improved traffic control and parking.

• Ed Sherman of Crain's thinks it is unlikely that Ricketts will be able to sell this deal to the state and says the Cubs have very little leverage here. He's right on both of these points. The White Sox has Tampa to use as leverage in the late 80's. No one is going to buy a threat from the Cubs to move to Schaumberg (which I'm cool with).

I don't know what the overall concensus is amoung the legislators in Illinois (or Governor Quinn), but it appears to me, even with the fact the this shouldn't increase state taxes at all, that the general opinion here is that the Cubs should not get the money from the state even though their fans have contributed a large proportion of the Amusement Tax since its inception.

I personally feel that it would be a shame to see Cubs fans get stiffed here after helping finance both Comiskey Park and the Soldier Field renovation. Cubs fans encompass the largest contributor to the Amusement Tax and they have asked for nothing from it in that time.

I also know that the state is in a dire situation right now with a $15 billion deficit. The PR move by the Ricketts family to do this right now is piss poor at best.

I, in the end, believe that this will be rejected by the state legislature which will result in something along the lines of a Personal Seat Licence program leveed on the season ticket holders to help pay for the renovations. My estimates tell me that the Cubs could generate between $54 to $100 million with PSLs depending on the price they set.

This would be unfortunate. I say that not because I would have to pay a ridiculous fee or give up my season tickets, but because Cubs fans would not only end up floating the entire bill for the Wrigley Field renovation, but still continue paying for Soldier Field and Comiskey Park.

Another reason this would be unfortunate? Because less money would be generated by PSLs and this would likely result in either the Ricketts family taking out more loans (at a higher interest rate) to get the job done or a reduction in scale of the overall renovation which would likely leave the park in a condition that will push it to be obsolete again much sooner that the hoped for 50 year life expansion.

Wow...is the family actually doing something that they should?

ChicagoBreakingNews.com (aka: the Chicago Tribune)

The owner of the Chicago Cubs is asking the state to help finance more than $200 million in renovations at Wrigley Field that will ensure the team stays at the historic ballpark for the next 35 years.

I was floored. And this is indeed a true story. A bill with this will go before the state legislature in very short order.

I needed to check my phone to see if anything had been sent to the season ticket holders when I saw this breaking news. Sure enough...Uncle Tommy sent me a letter.

Dear Season Ticket Holder,


When my family and I took ownership of the Chicago Cubs just about one year ago, we committed to being good neighbors and to preserving Wrigley Field. We're excited to tell you today about an opportunity to achieve both.

As the third largest tourist attraction in Illinois, the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field account for more than $600 million annually in impact to the local economy, including almost $400 million in annual new spending - spending which would not take place but for the team and the ballpark. This spending supports more than 7,000 jobs and generates more than $230 million in annual personal earnings. The Cubs and Wrigley Field also generate nearly $60 million in tax collections each year.

For many years, Wrigley Field has required millions of dollars in annual maintenance and, partly as a result, the team-owned campus around the ballpark has remained largely undeveloped. The Wrigley Field campus development, the centerpiece of our future, has been on hold for nearly a decade.

In the next few weeks the Illinois General Assembly will consider a bill to preserve Wrigley Field. Simply put, the plan allows a portion of future City and County amusement taxes, the 12% currently added to each ticket price, to be invested directly in the preservation of the Friendly Confines.

The plan is fair, simple and focused. Most importantly, it will not increase taxes you currently pay and will not create any new taxes.

This plan will preserve the historic character and tradition of the Friendly Confines for the next generation and will enhance the Lakeview community. If approved, the Cubs will undertake more than $200 million in renovations during the next five years and, in addition, the Ricketts family will invest a comparable amount in neighborhood development. The team will commit to play in Wrigley Field over the long run and to remain in the field during construction so, in this difficult economy, local businesses will continue to enjoy revenues the Cubs help attract.

We understand the importance of community and fan participation in this process. Wrigley Field renovation designs are being developed and we look forward to input on our surveys, discussions in forums and other communications we will send to you int eh weeks and months ahead.

We have an opportunity in this upcoming legislative session to begin the process of renovating and restoring Wrigley Field and securing its continued future. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and hope you, like me, see this as a fair and straightforward way to accomplish our mutual goals. If you would like to support our legislative proposal in the fall session, please contact us at renovatewrigley@cubs.com.

Sincerely,
Tom
Tom Ricketts
Executive Chairman

In the end, the renovation of the ballpark and development around the surrounding area will cost about $400 million dollars.

I'm impressed. I said just a few weeks ago the Cubs should go to the state for money to get this done, and it appears that is exactly what they intend to do.

It also means that Wrigley 2014 is going to be more like Wrigley 2016 with no attempt to get the All-Star game until that point.

We also know that the renovation process will not be fast. The reason? The Cubs don't want to have to vacate the park and play elsewhere in the process.

This is very good news for anyone that truly cares about this team and we hopefully will see some significant movement on the Wrigley renovation plans along with the release of some renovation concepts in the near future.

Cubs give hints to potential renovation plans

A few days ago I received an e-mail from the Chicago Cubs...a survey asking for opinions about different plans that Cubs are considering as part of the the mythical renovation of Wrigley Field that we all have been waiting for for about 50 years.

It was very interesting to read through this survey because it actually gives the fans a first glance at some of the stuff the team actually thinking about doing for the renovation.

I'm not going to go into detail about every question, but I'll give you a general idea of what they were asking and I'll show some pictures that they posted along with these questions.

First, some non-stadium specific things..

They asked if it was desired for the Cubs to hold night games on Friday and Saturday.  Also, they wanted to know if fans would use access, via mobile devices, to in-game replays, stats and such while they were at the ballpark. They also asked if we would like the option of paying for concessions and souvenirs via mobile devices.

Then to the ballpark...a lot was asked about the quality and quantity of the concessions.  They also wanted to know if the bathrooms were ok (they seem very pre-occupied with this) and if the ushers/fan ambassadors were good.

Another set of questions came up about seat size and leg room.  These are two things I desperately wish they could do something about...but it's likely that nothing can be done without significant cost and reduction in capacity.  

The question of whether or not we wanted a video board was asked.  For me, this is a no brainer (get one and put it on top of the Horseshoe Casino building on Waveland).  A couple questions were asked about corporate sponsorship of parts of the ballpark.  I'm fine with this...but they curiously didn't ask if we would be ok with them selling the naming rights of the ballpark in general.

Now for some pictures...

The Cubs basically asked about what we thought of putting different fan amenities around different parts of the park.

First, the dream of all dreams...the Triangle Building. 

An improved Wrigley Field may also include access to a hospitality club lounge in an adjacent new building down the left field line. The hospitality lounge would not have views of the field but would be connected to Wrigley Field via a foot bridge. (snip)...the Membership Club would not be associated with a specific seating section. Ticket holders in any location could purchase a membership, which could provide access to the club for the member and up to three guests. The club could offer pre-game dining, upscale food and beverage offerings, HD Televisions with surround sound, private restrooms and access to a business centre with Wi-Fi internet service. There could be a green outdoor terrace with views of the skyline including food stations, themed outdoor bars, verandas and areas that can be reserved for business functions as well as parties. The club could be open to the public on non-gamedays.

 

 

 

 

 

Next is something that the Ricketts family mentioned briefly last year.  The patio area by the batting cages was supposed to be the beginning of this, but they are looking to create a right field Entertainment Area which can be rented out for 100 or so people.  (As you can tell, they've used pictures for similar areas in other ballparks for this.)

An improved Wrigley Field could include a single game group entertainment area located on the field level immediately beyond the outfield fence and along the first base line. This area could accommodate approximately 100 guests and could include a private bar, a full buffet and HD flat screen televisions. Because it could be located at the current right field gate, the club would not cause a change to the dimensions of the playing field or the ivy covered walls. This area could be available for rental on a game-by-game basis, with prices inclusive of 100 game tickets, a pre-game buffet and unlimited beverages.

Another thing they mentioned was some bleacher party areas...there are no pictures of what they are thinking of here...but, again, here is the description:

An improved Wrigley Field could include six to eight Bleacher Group Party Areas located immediately above the right and left field bleacher seats. Each Party Area could be an indoor/outdoor structure with private access to the area directly in front of the Party Area and reserved seating in the top three rows of the bleachers immediately in front of each area. The Party Areas could be enclosed on cold or hot days to create a climate controlled lounge area or opened up to become an indoor/outdoor space. Party Area patrons could have general access to the bleachers. The areas could accommodate approximately 16 people, with amenities including preferred parking, state-of-the-art televisions, upscale couches and seating, access to a private bathroom, in-suite waitress service and more. The Group Party Area could be available for rental on a game-by-game basis with prices inclusive of 16 game tickets or on a seasonal basis.

They mentioned something called the Marquee Club which would be located in the lower deck in the back of the grandstand behind home plate.  Their description:

Most new stadiums offer multiple lounge and climate controlled spaces throughout their ballpark. An improved Wrigley Field could include Marquee Club Seats. The Marquee Club Seats might be located at the top of the lower deck in the three sections immediately behind home plate. The seats could be wider and offer more leg room as compared to the existing seats. Marquee Club patrons could have exclusive access to a new, private lounge area that could be devoted to the top of the lower level behind home plate.

In order to not miss the game, the lounge could offer views of the playing field and large HD-TV screens. The club would include upscale food and premium beverage offerings as well as an extensive desert bar and direct access to private washroom facilities. The club could include stand up tables as well as padded benches. Fans could also have the ability to make an advanced purchase of premium parking spaces for the day of the game. Child-friendly options could include a sweet stand, popcorn stand, Kids Cart with school-lunch favorites and smaller-portion items, such as peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, milk and small hot dogs. As a Marquee Club seat holder, you could have the opportunity to purchase tickets to concerts and other stadium events (subject to availability). Unlike the Home Plate Lounge, The Marquee Club price would not include food and beverage within the price of the ticket.

And finally, something that I have been saying they should do for a while...the additions of more patios in the upperdeck like the one that already exists under the press-box.  There's only one lame picture of this, but they did mention something about being able to view the field from said patios.  They might be considering doing something similar to what they did in Kansas City (the second picture I pulled up to demonstrate and it not from the Cubs).

A Wrigley Field capital improvement could include the creation of new spaces to service the upper deck seats. The spaces could provide additional restroom space and include outdoor spaces similar to the Smirnoff Patio with points of sale, seating and views of downtown Chicago.

Kauffman Stadium has concession patios in the upper deck.

There are two patios, both face the field.

At the end of the survey, they asked for comments...this is what I said:

For me, the most important thing is that the renovations deal with the comfort of the fan.  Wrigley was designed to hold only 25,000 people comfortably even though the capacity is 41,000.  All the new ballparks are designed to hold their capacity in comfort.  More leg room, wider aisles, etc.  I'm not sure how you do this without affecting the capacity and without demolishing and rebuilding significant parts of the stadium, but as a season ticket holder, I typically enjoy going to the less attended games because I don't feel like a sardine.  And I'm not that large of a person.

My suggestion also would be to start negotiations with the owners of the Horseshoe casino building on Waveland to put up a video board off of that rooftop.

Please work with the neighborhood on allowing for night games on Friday nights...not for the fans, but for the players coming off of road trips to play a day game at Wrigley.

The only other focus should be on player's amenities to ensure these guys can play at the best level.  Wrigley is a disadvantage to the team as much as people want to say differently.

There are a number of good ideas here.  Now let's see if they can follow through on any of this.  So what do you all think?  Do you like this glimpse of what the Cubs are thinking about with this renovation?

Options for Wrigley.

Frank brought up a very good point in the comments about my last post...if what I suspect is true, what can the Ricketts family actually do with the ballpark if their finances won't allow them to renovate it?

This is a question that a number of other teams have had to deal with. Often times, it results in a team holding a city (or state) hostage in order for them to get a new stadium. The White Sox did it. The people of Wisconsin got dupped by Bud Selig into doing it.

The truth is, very few teams, outside of the Yankees and Red Sox, are able to finance entire stadium projects themselves. So I see two things that could be done. First sell the ballpark to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. Second, sell the naming rights to the ballpark.

So first, selling the ballpark.

Very few teams actually have full control over their ballpark.

Now it is easy for me to say sell the ballpark to the state as I sit here in Southern Wisconsin paying for Miller Park. Currently the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority owns Comiskey and helped in financing the renovation (or flying saucerfication) of Soldier Field. As many of us know, Sam Zell tried to do this while in the process of destroying Tribune Co. For Zell to do this would have been a disaster for the new owners as they wouldn't have received much of the financial benefits of selling the team and having little control over the renovation as it probably would have begun before the team was sold.

The selling of the park could fetch (in my completely 'pull-out-of-my-ass' estimation) around $100 million. With about $250 million needed for the renovation (an estimate many people have tossed out there), the Illinois people would be on the hook for $350 million. I'd guess this would be raised with the selling of bonds and some sort of luxury tax.

The other option...selling the naming rights.

Selling the naming rights allows the Cubs to maintain control of the ballpark while getting a yearly payment for sacrificing the name "Wrigley" which, in the end, is free advertising for the chewing gum company anyway.

Most people expect that the Cubs would leave "Wrigley" in the name. I say screw that. Go all the way on it. Name the place "Boeing Stadium" or "Sears Field" or "Portillo Hot Dogs Park".

Other teams that have done this have received some very nice compensation sacrificing the name of their ballpark to some corporation. On average, naming rights fetch about $2.6 million a year. The Reds receive $2.5 million for Great American Ballpark. The Pirates get $2 million. The White Sox receive $3.4 million. The Cubs likely would fetch at least the $3.4 million that the Sox get, but I would guess that they would get more like $5 million. For a 25 deal, the Cubs could, in the end fetch $125 million, which would be half the amount for a major renovation. If lucky, the Cubs could approach the $20 million a season that the Mets are getting for the name "Citi" on their stadium. That Mets deal, which goes for 20 years, will fetch them $400 million, or half the price of their new stadium.

The result doing either (or both) of these things could be a huge benefit. The sale of the stadium, while not fetching a significant amount of money, would give the Ricketts family a little flexibility to either increase payroll or to payoff part of the debt. Second, it removes the responsibility of upkeep of an aging ballpark allowing them to focus on more important operations of the team. That money could also be used for something a little more radical...purchasing establishments around the ballpark...more specifically, the rooftops. The purpose of this would not be to shut them down, but, rather, to turn them into the up-to-date luxury suites that the Cubs are seriously lacking inside the ballpark.

Look, there have been some pretty grand ideas out there as far as expanding the "Cubs" brand including things like a Cubs network. Unfortunately, everything we've seen so far since the team was sold indicates that the Cubs don't have the ability to spend any money right now beyond what they have (as a reduction in payroll for next season demonstrates). If the Cubs want to become the revenue powerhouse that they think they are, they'll need to make some sacrifices in the short term. Either sacrifice the park or the name...but they need to do something so this ballpark can be the world class facility that the Ricketts family claims they want it to be.

Now I'm off to enjoy my first weekend off of work in 6 weeks...oh, crap, it's raining out!

Wrigley Field: Year 97...same as it ever was.

A few weeks ago the season tickets holders got a long (and by long…it was 4 pages) letter from the Tom Ricketts over the state of the team and what they can expect to happen during this offseason.

The letter was published in a number of the newspaper sites and Tim over at Aisle 424 did a wonderful analysis of the letter (broken into five parts here, here, here, here, and here).

The truth is, nothing in it, for the most part, should have surprised most of the season ticket holders.

But I was very disappointed and somewhat surprised by one aspect of the letter…the plans for renovation of Wrigley Field.

From the letter:

“We committed over $10 million to that effort last year, largely to improve restrooms, add new food options, recast concrete, upgrade steel and other general maintenance. We will continue this effort in 2011 but again the focus will be more tactical than strategic.”

Crap…what the hell?

The rumor has started going around, also, that Wrigley 2014 has been put on hold…but have no confirmation of this at all and may have just been a joke. (For those of you who don't know Wrigley 2014 is/was a program the Cubs wanted to put in place to completely overhaul the ballpark in time for the 2014 season, which would coincide with the 100th year of baseball at the ballpark.)

“We spent much of the 2010 season assembling a team of renowned architects, engineers, designers and project managers to develop a master plan for a more significant Wrigley Field overhaul and Triangle Building development.”

I’m sorry, and I know this is somewhat of a delicate issue with Wrigley being as old as it is and the semi-landmark status it has, but the Ricketts family has had 1 year to evaluate the state of Wrigley and put together a plan for the renovation. Seriously, they must be working with some of the slowest architects and engineers that are available out there.

“Our planning will continue in 2011 and your involvement through the quality assurance surveys mentioned earlier is very important. We look forward to completing the analysis phase and getting underway with the construction and occupation phase.”

I'm guessing my comment about them just blowing up the damn park and starting over is being ignored.

So we wait another year.

The Tribune Company spent their last year of ownership working with HOK Sports (now known as Populous) on a renovation plan for Wrigley (of which would have been part of a sale of the ballpark to the state)…and I believe, in the end, the Ricketts family pretty much threw out that proposal. So what’s going on here?

I know I might sound a bit impatient here, but we’ve been hearing about massive renovation plans for Wrigley Field since the Tribune bought the team in 1981. In the end, only three truly major projects happened during their ownership stint…the new dugout/clubhouse work in the early 80's, the skyboxes and press box (along with the lights) in the late 80's and the bleacher reconstruction 5 years ago. Those first two projects, (clubhouse/dugout/skyboxs/pressbox) resulted in changes to areas of the ballpark that are now again obsolete and need to be renovated again.

The biggest fear is that a major renovation to the ballpark may continue to be put off for years under the excuse that the revenues aren't there to do the work. This could very well turn into a nasty cycle that looks something like this...

-Renovations won't happen because of lack of revenues.
-Revenues are likely to continue to sag unless the team starts winning.
-The team will have a hard time competing because of inadequate facilities.

The same sort of cycle could be done as far as a new facility is required for generating revenue, but the team doesn't have the revenue to build a new facility.

To me, lack of revenue, not planning, is what is delaying this. Plenty of time has passed to plan this out. The owners are $450 million in debt, and did not meet budget on income this season (we all assume).

The last point in my list up there (inadequate facilities) is probably something some of you would disagree with. Until recently, I would have said the Cubs could compete even with the current state that Wrigley Field was in. I no longer feel that way. Look, it's not the only reason the Cubs can't put together a consistent winner, but I believe that now, it is a serious contributing factor.

That's a discussion for another day, as this post is getting too long already.

The truth is, though, the longer the Cubs continue to delay work to Wrigley Field, the more damaging it will be the team in the long run. The stadium, in my opinion, has become a joke. It shouldn't take this long for a renovation plan to be devised. Something else might be at work here...and I have a hunch that it has something to do with the $450 million in debt the Ricketts family is right now, and the fact that the team is worth less now than when they bought it one year ago.

The State of the Cubs (with commentary)

Crain Kenney, the man who's lucky to even have a job, addressed the media today giving us almost no new information about the state of the Cubs as an organization.

Carrie Muskat sums everything up for us.

And I'm going to add smart-ass commentary to it.

First, about the new spring training facility:

The plan for the Cubs' facility can be managed through the Mesa property tax referendum, that will happen in November, and the car rental tax. The proposed Cactus League ticket surcharge is not needed for what the Cubs are building, Kenney said. The team needs $84 million to build the facility, and a portion of that comes from the city of Mesa, a portion comes from the state and a portion comes from the Cubs

So it looks like the "Cubs Tax" is out. Darn. I wanted Sox fans to pay for this place. Dammit!

Even if the referendum passes in November, Kenney expected the Cubs would play two more years at their current site in Mesa.

No matter what, they will only play at their current site for 2 more years because the apocalypse comes in 2012.

Triangle building: ... Kenney said they're halfway through finalizing those plans. The goal is to complete it by 2014, which is the 100-year anniversary of Wrigley Field.

Four more years before we see the Triangle building? Boo!!! Expect an actual plan and new pretty drawings for this building to be unveiled around All-Star break (to help distract us from the horrible season the team is having).

The men's and women's restrooms on the concourse level have been renovated. 

 They've installed the latest cow feeding troughs from all the most modern farms.  Enjoy peeing in them, guys!

The scoreboard is being re-faced

 Instead of green, it's going to be a wonderful shade of purple.

The batting tunnel in the outfield is being turned into a lounge and there will be a one-way window in which fans can watch players hit.

 So you can flip off Soriano during batting practice, and he won't be able to see you.

There's $100 million budgeted for restoration and renovation of the stadium.

That's a lot of money for troughs.

Player development: The Cubs have added an academy in the Dominican Republic and expanded their scouting internationally to try and develop players in the system. The future is bright with players like Andrew Cashner, Brett Jackson, Starlin Castro and Tyler Colvin in the system. Kenney said that's a credit to people in the organization like Tim Wilkens, Paul Weaver and Jose Serra, among others.

I can't make fun of this.  Good work, guys!

Team payroll: Kenney said the situation has improved with the Ricketts family because they are not putting a penny in their pockets, but re-investing all profits into the team and the facilities. "Every time we can stage a concert or a hockey game or a football game or bring a new marketing partner in or find a way to grow the business, it directly impacts what we can do on the field and with the facility," Kenney said.

Great...more concerts so we can pay for more players like Carlos Silva.

If the Cubs need to make a player move by the trading money, Kenney said GM Jim Hendry should have funds. A year ago, the team owner was bankrupt and the sale was still being finalized. It's a different situation with the Ricketts family in control.

So hurry up and trade for Kerry Wood!

Kenney said the Cubs have a long-term agreement with WGN-TV and they have not forgotten how important broadcasting the games on that station are.

I've forgotten.  I WANT A CUBS NETWORK!

Free agents: What will the Cubs do with Derrek Lee and Ted Lilly, who are in the last year of their contracts? "That will be down the road and that will be mostly Jim," Kenney said.

Trade 'em.

Lou Piniella: This is Piniella's last season on his contract. Kenney said they will talk at some point.
"If he feels well and wants to keep going, we'll have an interesting conversation," Kenney said. "He's done a great job. He's raised the bar and that's a little bit of the burden we all carry now. As I tell everybody in our organization, it's a lot better than being picked to finish fourth or fifth and having everybody talk about failure all the time."

Um, I hate to tell you, but there are a lot of people picking the Cubs to finish fourth this year.  Fire him. 

Ok...that's all.  Like I said, nothing new here.  So BLAH!

************************

Silva pitched a scoreless 1st.  So the Cubs have declared him ready to be the #5 starter.

More 2010 Wrigley Field renovation details revealed

Bruce Levine of ESPN has released more details of the renovation work going on around Wrigley Field this off-season.

Anyone that has driven around the ballpark lately will have noticed work being done to the back of the scoreboard and on the corner of Addison and Sheffield. BCB has been doing a nice job documenting the work outside so far...go here and here for the latest.

Previously the Cubs had release some information including the creating of a new weight room and players lounge. The umpires dressing room is also being moved. And work is proceeding on a new club on the the skybox level.  There have been conflicting reports on what this club/lounge will actually be for, but Levine states it will be rented out to corporations who are on the skybox waiting list.  We'll see.

Levine reveals more on what is happening on the interior of the ballpark, though...some stuff that I had not heard before.

First, what's going on in right field:

The team also is building a mirrored opening on the back end of the right-field wall with the intention of allowing fans outside of the park to watch Cubs players take batting practice under the right-field stands.

The window will be open on Sheffield Ave. as part of a plaza the Cubs are building, which will also access their Sheffield Grill, the restaurant that will be open to the public before and after games. New food at the Grill will include bison beef specialties. That’s correct, it is buffalo, which is raised on the Ricketts’ ranch in Omaha, Neb.

This is interesting. Late last year, something that few people noticed was that the doors under the right field grandstand wall disappeared and were replaced with gates similar to the "keyhole" fence under the bleacher boxes in right field.  This might have something to do with this "mirrored opening".

Right now the Cubs also appear to be removing those ugly concrete panels on the Addison side of the park (finally).  This might be part of this mirrored opening and new restaurant as well.  This seems rather close to the "Captain Morgan Club" that sits near the Harry Caray statue.  There has been a lounge down in that corner off of Sheffield for a number of years, so I would assume that is where the buffalo will be served.

Of course this is all the tip of the iceberg.  The major renovations will likely start at the end of this coming season...and the Ricketts' appear to be gearing up for those renovations:

The team is hiring a construction manager to oversee the building of their new triangle building that will cover 400,000 square feet.

The new manager will oversee that construction as well as the construction of the new complex in Mesa, Ariz.

During the season, expect extensive details to be revealed.  I sincerely hope that they get started on that triangle build relatively soon after the 2010 season ends.

There is also a bit of a mystery of what is going on down the left field line where tarps are covering the brick wall. I suppose all will be revealed in 2 months.

One last note in the Levine story...a new marketing campaign will be starting up in the next week or so:

The team will announce a new marketing campaign that will be introduced next week, focusing on the future while retaining the culture of the past.

Overall, it does appear that the Ricketts' are committed to a substantial renovation...and that's good.  I have feared that they might only do a half-ass job with this renovation, but already they have done more this season than I could have possibly imagined.