Sports reporters cannot write proper financial stories because all they do is parrot what owners claim. It is quite frustrating reading an article that is so full of nonsense and b.s. that even market hogs would vomit.
ESPN Chicago has another article quoting Cubs owner Tom Ricketts and his crusade to get everything he wants from the city and rooftop owners. Everything is couched in a nuclear meltdown threat that if does not get his new outfield signs, the whole $500 million development project will come to a grinding halt.
Ricketts comments should have drawn "are you stupid?" follow up questions from the reporter.
For example:
"Ultimately you have to have control of your own outfield." Yeah - - - you already do . . . you sell the most expensive bleacher seats in baseball!
"We can't live for the next 100 years with this kind of situation." But the rooftop deal you knew about, a binding contract, expires in 10 years - - - not 100!
"If we can't grind out these last few steps (for a rooftop deal), I don't know what's going to happen." It is simple: you DON'T have a new deal and you have to LIVE with the old one!
"We've
stepped up the maintenance in the park in hopes this will all work out.
That said, if you're going to go out and scrape up another $300-$500
million, you have to know what you're investing in." But that other
money is NOT for the ball park but your grand overdeveloped real estate
project across the street! (And it seems the bankers who may loan the
Ricketts money for the project will not approve the loan without more
revenue - - - for which Ricketts has fixated on new signage. This seems to reinforce the notion that the Ricketts don't have the money to move forward on any project without the new signage revenue, reportedly to be around $10 million/year. )
"We
all have an incentive to get it done," Ricketts said. "Hopefully all those
incentives add up to getting something that works." The rooftop deal was
working for 10 years! What incentive is there for a rooftop owner to have his view blocked and ruin his business? None.
The
article also states that the Cubs believe, as private owners of the
team and park, that they should be able to do what they want, EXCEPT
every private business in America can't do ANYTHING they want with their
property because they all are subject to zoning, health, safety and
this case landmark and private contracts! If you talk to any local
Chicago businessman he or she will tell you that it is bureaucratic
nightmare to operate, maintain or expand a business in the city.
Ricketts concluded by saying that "You can't just pretend Wrigley Field is another ballpark that's built out in some suburb that no one cares about." Because people and fans have a connection to an iconic old ball park does not grant the owner a blanket license to build a massive hotel-commercial-retail (including new taverns and an entertainment plaza) and parking structure. He has constantly said that he is not running a museum; that the ball park must change - - - which dilutes the connection many older fans have to Wrigley Field.
The Cubs don't need a "new deal" with the rooftop owners if the Cubs publicly stated view is that once the city approved the new signage, the team can go forward and build them. So the Cubs have hid real legal concerns from their public relations. The rooftops are the villain to help distract the public from the slow, tedious and bad rebuilding program that has left the Cubs with horrible team after horrible team.
