Last weekend, the Cubs marketing director was on ESPN radio talking about the continuing dispute among the neighbors and the Wrigley Field proposed new signage. The Cubs seem frustrated by the rooftop owners demands and how angry the other side has gotten in the past few weeks. The Cubs are trying to play "good neighbor" and want to win at Wrigley, but it seems the team or ownership does not want to be handcuffed in the process. The Cubs spokesman repeated the team line that the city has approved the additions, that the agreement does not prohibit Wrigley Field expansion with new signs, and that there is no remedy after 8 years if a rooftop is blocked by any expansion.
However, the rooftop owners spokesman countered those arguments, claiming that if one reads the "entire agreement" the rooftop owners believe their views cannot be blocked, period. The neighbors claim that they have offered compromise solutions, such as moving the signage outside the park, but the Cubs are totally against it. The businesses claim that their livelihood is at stake; that they poured millions of dollars into their businesses on the basis of the twenty year agreement. They want the Cubs to live up to their contract obligations, or buy them out.
The Cubs had been winning the public relations sentiment, especially after the team leaked only a few key paragraphs to David Kaplan. But other lawyers and fans have commented that without reviewing the whole document, no one can make a real conclusion on who is right in the agreement dispute, especially considering that the 8 year view blockage damage provision may have been directly related to the proposed bleacher expansion project which had not been approved by the city when the agreement was signed by the parties.
Also, one has to take with a grain of salt the "good neighbor" comments by the Cubs. The Cubs are desperate for new revenue resources. The owners have purposely tried to ratchet up the competition with the neighboring businesses by the Cubs offering more beer vendors, beer patios, new bars and restaurants inside Wrigley and more party decks. And the construction outside the ball park will create even more competition for the same Cub fan dollars.
The idea that the Ricketts will not spend one dime until they get their way on this issue seems petty or an excuse because the financing is not present to work for their massive real estate developments. The mild threat that the team could leave Wrigley Field may get more play if litigation drags on. The Cubs have whined about the fact that 27 other baseball teams have gotten public financing for their new stadiums. But they don't tell you that those are publicly owned venues; Wrigley is not. And other business consultants will say that the Cubs would be better off spending $500 million and build a new stadium in the suburbs, like at Arlington Park, and keep all the revenue resources to itself.
It is all about money. The Cubs want to skim off a greater share of any fan spending in Wrigleyville. The neighboring businesses want to keep the status quo so they will not be run over by the redevelopment projects. In the end, everyone loses; the team has been horrible, fans are not coming to the park and spending their money. In typical Cub fashion, that was probably met to be: misery loves company.
