Sportswriters and visiting teams (most vocal being Ozzie Guillen) called Wrigley's infrastructure a dump. It was old, dank, musty, dirty and rodent infested locker rooms. It has no modern player facilities. The Tribune had to put up netting to catch falling concrete from the upper decks. There is no question that Wrigley is in poor shape due to the fact that prior owners refused to do capital and routine maintenance.
Tom Ricketts knew or should have known the condition of Wrigley prior to his purchase of the team. The Tribune was talking to the governor about selling the place to the State so it could fund the $400 million renovation. Instead of asking for a reduction of the purchase price to off-set the repair issues, Ricketts paid Sam Zell's full price. In addition, the new owners had to use large amount of financing as part of the purchase (and currently have more debt than MLB ownership rules). When purchasing the club, Ricketts should have known the costs of maintaining Wrigley in his own budget process. It could not have been a surprise that a large capital expense was required to bring Wrigley back up to speed.
So when Ricketts claims that he needs to spend $500 million to bring his property up to par with other professional teams, he is being slightly disingenuous. He is throwing around large numbers which include the large commercial redevelopment across the street from Wrigley. The Ricketts bought the McDonald's block in order to control both sides of Clark Street. The preservation of Wrigley plan really includes a massive hotel-retail-commercial center in the heart of Lakeview, which is lost in the discussion of the massive changes to the aesthetics of Wrigley Field.
Further, Ricketts claims that he needs to "maximize" all revenue opportunities to pay for his redevelopment plans. He wants advertising signage in and outside the ball park which rivals Times Square. He wants to expand the ball park foot print in order to add more bars and restaurant facilities inside the ball park. The plan is to try to capture every dollar possible from the fans who enter the neighborhood.
The problem is that a) you have existing businesses in the neighborhood who predate Ricketts ownership; b) you have rooftop owners who have a valid contract with the team not to block their views; c) you have a alderman with zoning power concerned about the nature and extent of the development projects; and d) you have residential neighbors concerned about traffic, parking, safety and pollution issues.
Wrigley Field as a unique use is not exempt from city building and zoning laws. Every business in the city has to go through the hearing and approval process. Most business owners find it frustrating, lengthy and expensive. Even though privately owned, property owners are at the whim of city regulations and use restrictions whether you are opening a nail salon, a restaurant or running a baseball team.
Last night, the city landmarks commission approved the last of the signage requests of the Cubs. It approved a 5,700 square foot video board and a 650 square foot see-through sign along the outfield walls. This vote allows the Cubs to have the Plan Commission and City Council consider the team's full $500 million plan to not only renovate Wrigley Field, but also redevelop surrounding land in the Wrigleyville neighborhood with a hotel and an office-retail complex.
Previously, the commission gave the Cubs
permission to nearly double the amount of signage at the ballpark to
45,000 square feet — not counting the two massive signs approved
Thursday. In reality, the landmarks commission has voted to rescind much of the landmark features of historic Wrigley Field. A new video scoreboard next to the smaller manual center field scoreboard takes away any historical significance of the bleacher configuration.
However, everything still needs to be approved by the city council. Ald. Thomas Tunney testified that he objected to the scope of the ball park changes and the impact on the neighborhood including the rooftop businesses. In the past, alderman in the city council followed what the ward alderman wanted to do in regard to zoning and construction in his district. It is still uncertain how the city council will vote on these plans. It appears Tunney and the mayor are at odds on this issue.
The Cubs claim that all the signage is necessary to complete the restoration process. A team spokesman said that the expected revenue will fund much of the plan and keep Wrigley Field a competitive ball park. Reading in between the lines, this means that the new advertising revenue streams will be used to pay for the construction (i.e. the new mortgages and construction loans) and to used to maintain the building and facilities. This means the new revenue sources are earmarked for capital and operational facility costs, not baseball operations like player payroll.
Several rooftop club owners told commissioners they have invested
millions in their buildings, in part to meet city demands, and the signs
would harm their ability to repay money they borrowed.
"How are we going to pay our mortgages after we are blocked?" said rooftop club owner George Loukas. As a result, the rooftop owners could sue the Cubs for an injunction to stop construction of the signs for the remaining length of their current deal, approximately 10 years. Some of the rooftop owners have threatened to sue if the large signs block their views, saying it violates both the stadium's historic protections and a revenue-sharing agreement they have with the Cubs.
"How are we going to pay our mortgages after we are blocked?" said rooftop club owner George Loukas. As a result, the rooftop owners could sue the Cubs for an injunction to stop construction of the signs for the remaining length of their current deal, approximately 10 years. Some of the rooftop owners have threatened to sue if the large signs block their views, saying it violates both the stadium's historic protections and a revenue-sharing agreement they have with the Cubs.
But the Ricketts plan is not about historic preservation. It is about money. The Ricketts family have turned into aggressive real estate developers. The family wants to turn Wrigley Field into a multi-purpose entertainment facility, a mini-Disneyland destination for concerts, meetings, special events, football, soccer and corporate outings. In order to pay for this vision, Ricketts will need to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars. Lenders will want to see how they will get paid back - - - and that is why Ricketts needs all the new signage (especially outside the ball park) so he can generate more revenue throughout the year (beyond the baseball season). All the new revenue sources will be diverted to pay for the construction loans. This diversion could last ten to twenty years.
The foundation of the development plan has little to do with the Cubs. The Cubs have been a bad team and project to be bad for the next several years. Attendance is falling and no shows increasing with each home stand. The Cubs are paring down their payroll. The front office is flipping its veteran players for prospects. The baseball rebuild is being pushed further down the road towards 2017. Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer have refused to answer direct questions on
when the team would get the benefits of the new revenue streams. There is nothing in the project plans that gives the baseball team an influx of money to buy long term free agents or build a competitive team right away. On the contrary, the financial aspects of the development projects put the Cubs in the position of a mere tenant in the new Wrigley, a transformed multi-purpose entertainment facility.
It is a misrepresentation to say that granting the new revenue wish list to Ricketts will guarantee the Cubs in the World Series. It is also a slight of hand shell game to say that the new revenue streams are needed to "restore" Wrigley Field when most of the new funds are going to pay for new construction in the triangle section and hotel complex across Clark Street. If one listens closely what is being said, the projects are not tied to increased revenue for baseball operations but for real estate improvements and facility maintenance. There is an emotional link between Cub fans and Wrigley Field, and those emotional strings are being played like a violin. The scope of the project is bigger than the Cubs at Wrigley. The New Wrigley facilities are going to be more important than the Cubs. The owners want the New Wrigley is going to be the Metro on steroids, a destination bar-restaurant-concert-entertainment facility, especially when the Cubs are not playing baseball.
