Tom Ricketts sounds like a spoiled child having a tantrum.
Unless his grand plan for Wrigley is approved, he will move the team.
Most people believe it is an idle threat with no logical basis. Wrigley Field, not the Cubs, has been the main draw for fans for a century.
"The fact is that if we don't have the ability to generate revenue in our own outfield, we'll have to take a look at moving -- no question," Ricketts said.
But to where? The Rosemont IL mayor has offered 25 acres of expressway underpass next to O'Hare Field, but that property will have airport noise and traffic issues. When the White Sox threatened to leave Chicago (to extort the public ball park called the Cell), a parcel in Addison was selected as a possible landing area. Also, as the horse racing industry is dying without casino gambling permits, Arlington Park Racetrack in the Northwest Suburbs could be another logical relocation site. But all those alternatives cost time and money, something that impatient Tom Ricketts does not want to deal with as of today.
"I'm not sure how anyone is going to stop the signs in the outfield, but if it comes to the point that we don't have the ability to do what we need to do in our outfield, then we're going to have to consider moving," Ricketts said.
The signs in the outfield can be stopped by the city, the landmark commission and the courts. In 1985, the Tribune challenged the city's landmark ordinance which prohibits any structural changes to Wrigley, including adding signage in the outfield. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the ordinance. Ricketts bought the team knowing the restrictions on Wrigley Field. He can't cry foul now when his "guaranteed sell outs" in attendance have been falling for the last three seasons.
And the neighbors have a say in any zoning variances and changes in their community. The city council will need to approve this massive redevelopment project. What is more troubling from a health and safety perspective is that the new renderings show that the Wrigley foot print will grow to squeeze out all public walkways around the park, except for the large triangle plaza which will be filled with video obelisks and more signage on a 6 story retail building.
And finally, the rooftop owners can sue to enforce their 20 year contract agreement with the Cubs which provides them an unobstructed view into Wrigley in exchange for the Cubs getting 17 percent of the gross revenue.
"The fact that we are limited on advertising in our own
outfield has an annualized opportunity cost of $20 million," Ricketts
said. "These limits on advertising are obvious because of our
relationship with the rooftops across the street.
"The rooftops
have grossed over $250 million in the last 10 years. And while I think
many people view rooftops as incremental group events, over time they
have shifted to selling individual tickets and have become direct
competitors, selling both season tickets and aggressively discounting
tickets on Groupon and other sites."
And here is the real rub: Ricketts is mad that there are better businessmen than him. Ricketts is mad that some rooftop owners are providing a better fan experience than his box seats or luxury suites. He sees himself as the only person who is entitled to 100 percent of any revenue generated by the Cubs.
This line of reasoning sounds like the little boy telling his teacher that his dog ate his homework. Tom told his father that the Cubs were a cash making machine, win or lose. But since the Cubs have been losing, the Cubs have been losing revenue. So Ricketts needs a fall guy for his bad business decisions. He found it with the rooftop owners.
Advertising executives dispute whether the new LF scoreboard and signage inside the park will gross any more than $5 million a season (and not the $20 million Ricketts is now claiming). But if you do the simple math, the rooftop owners are paying the Cubs $4.25 million a year with the Cubs not spending a dime. Ricketts is willing to go to war over a possible $750,000 more in ad revenue? And if Ricketts is willing to pay the cost for breaching the agreement, is he willing to pay $200 million in damages to possibly collect the same amount of money from the new signs over the next 10 years?
The only explanation is the Cubs spite against the neighboring businesses.
"All we really need is to be able to run our business like a business and not a museum," Ricketts told the audience.
But the fact is Ricketts is running a museum. During games, he advertises the "Wrigley Field Tours." He actively promotes the history of Wrigley Field. It is a bit condescending to say to the public that Wrigley Field is in such poor condition when you had the opportunity to negotiate the purchase price with the Tribune to take account all the costs of rehabilitation Wrigley Field, like any buyer of a residential property would have done with their seller. If Ricketts overpaid for a money pit that is Wrigley Field, whose fault is that?
