The Chicago Tribune reports this morning that Ricketts will push for "revised" plans with the city.
There are two ways of looking at this latest development in the Wrigley development saga:
1. Ricketts was insincere when his last grand plan was approved when he said that was all that was needed to bring in the necessary revenues to build a championship team. Or,
2. Ricketts does not have the money to do any redevelopment projects so in order to save face he will revise the plans (to delay the project) and blame someone else for the delay. For if he worried about the rooftops suing over the old plan, why up the ante now with more signs (and the costs of revising plans that may be shot down in court?)
Ricketts has a selfish, spoiled child reasoning for this latest forway into city hall politics: If the rooftop owners are going to sue the Cubs anyway over blocked views into the stadium, the Cubs might as well get more of what we want in an upgraded ballpark. Ricketts blames the rooftop owners for not agreeing to his original new signage plans. The rooftop owners cite their revenue sharing settlement agreement that provides unobstructed views into Wrigley through 2023. That means no electronic billboard or advertising signage in the bleachers. As a result, the rooftop owners don't have to agree to any changes proposed by Ricketts because the parties already have a contract in place.
The Trib reports Ricketts will submit a revised proposal to City Hall that
would feature:
1. more large electronic signs
2. additional seats
3. bigger clubhouses
4. relocation of the bullpens from foul territory to a spot under the bleachers by removing bricks and some of the iconic ivy and covering the space with a material that would allow relievers to see onto the field.
The Sun-Times reports that part of the revised plan will include 92 foot tall outfield light towers to illuminate the outfield during night games. This aspect of the new plan severely alters the historic view from home plate to the bleachers and beyond.
The revised proposal would ask for seven signs lining the outfield, including three 650-square-foot LED signs in left field, along with a video board of nearly 4,000 square feet. In right, there would be another, 2,400-square-foot video board, along with a 650-square-foot LED sign and the illuminated script sign.
Capacity at the ballpark would be increased by 600, to 42,495, with the addition of 300 new seats and 300 new standing room positions, according to the team.
This is a significant change from the compromise plan approved by the city last year. Under the compromise plan, the Cubs were allowed to put up a 5,700-square-foot Jumbotron-like video board in left field and a 650-square-foot, illuminated script sign in right as part of a $300 million, five-year renovation of the ballpark. The Cubs also won the right to build a nearby hotel, plaza and office complex, replete with several more additional signs, at a cost of $200 million.
Alderman Tom Tunney made it clear that the Rickettses could be in for a battle. "Through lots of pain last year, we approved a very generous sign package and they haven't done anything with it," Tunney said. "I think we gave them a fair package to get going (on renovations), and I think the neighborhood gave them a lot of concessions. We rolled out the red carpet to keep the team at the historic corner of Clark and Addison."
For the Cubs ownership and management, this is another public relations disaster. They spent all of their PR capital convincing the general public and fan base that the changes to Wrigley Field was necessary in order to pay for talent on the field. They had the elements of an old, broken down ball park and a bad team as reasons for massive renovation needs. But, the team also wanted to have city zoning and building breaks no other business development in the city would ever get - - - because the Cubs are a unique property.
But here is the real reasons the Cubs are in such a mess. The Cubs cannot redo their local broadcasting deals until after the 2020 season. The Tribune stuck Ricketts with allegedly bad radio and TV deals as part of the sale process. (But again, Ricketts knew or should have known about them when he bid on the team.) The rooftop deal was also a known factor when Ricketts made his bid. For many people, this seems to be Ricketts realizing that he made a "bad" or "costly" purchase of the team and Wrigley Field, and now is trying to find a way around the financial binds of his purchase agreement. But only Ricketts is to blame for cornering himself.
Ricketts will have to convince the Landmarks Commission, the Plan Commission and the City Council that he should be allowed more drastic changes to Wrigley Field as set forth in his revised plans. This will be a harder sell than the last proposal. These commissioners and alderman will ask why the team is coming back in less than a year with revised plans. What has really changed to cause a drastic change in the approved plans? The fact that the Cubs may be losing money is not a good reason to alter what had already been approved by the city.
To be honest, the revisions will forever alter the look and feel of Wrigley Field into a Times Square billboard hell hole. It seems the real plan is to squeeze every dime out of every nook, cranny and patron at Wrigley.
1. more large electronic signs
2. additional seats
3. bigger clubhouses
4. relocation of the bullpens from foul territory to a spot under the bleachers by removing bricks and some of the iconic ivy and covering the space with a material that would allow relievers to see onto the field.
The Sun-Times reports that part of the revised plan will include 92 foot tall outfield light towers to illuminate the outfield during night games. This aspect of the new plan severely alters the historic view from home plate to the bleachers and beyond.
The revised proposal would ask for seven signs lining the outfield, including three 650-square-foot LED signs in left field, along with a video board of nearly 4,000 square feet. In right, there would be another, 2,400-square-foot video board, along with a 650-square-foot LED sign and the illuminated script sign.
Capacity at the ballpark would be increased by 600, to 42,495, with the addition of 300 new seats and 300 new standing room positions, according to the team.
This is a significant change from the compromise plan approved by the city last year. Under the compromise plan, the Cubs were allowed to put up a 5,700-square-foot Jumbotron-like video board in left field and a 650-square-foot, illuminated script sign in right as part of a $300 million, five-year renovation of the ballpark. The Cubs also won the right to build a nearby hotel, plaza and office complex, replete with several more additional signs, at a cost of $200 million.
Alderman Tom Tunney made it clear that the Rickettses could be in for a battle. "Through lots of pain last year, we approved a very generous sign package and they haven't done anything with it," Tunney said. "I think we gave them a fair package to get going (on renovations), and I think the neighborhood gave them a lot of concessions. We rolled out the red carpet to keep the team at the historic corner of Clark and Addison."
For the Cubs ownership and management, this is another public relations disaster. They spent all of their PR capital convincing the general public and fan base that the changes to Wrigley Field was necessary in order to pay for talent on the field. They had the elements of an old, broken down ball park and a bad team as reasons for massive renovation needs. But, the team also wanted to have city zoning and building breaks no other business development in the city would ever get - - - because the Cubs are a unique property.
But here is the real reasons the Cubs are in such a mess. The Cubs cannot redo their local broadcasting deals until after the 2020 season. The Tribune stuck Ricketts with allegedly bad radio and TV deals as part of the sale process. (But again, Ricketts knew or should have known about them when he bid on the team.) The rooftop deal was also a known factor when Ricketts made his bid. For many people, this seems to be Ricketts realizing that he made a "bad" or "costly" purchase of the team and Wrigley Field, and now is trying to find a way around the financial binds of his purchase agreement. But only Ricketts is to blame for cornering himself.
Ricketts will have to convince the Landmarks Commission, the Plan Commission and the City Council that he should be allowed more drastic changes to Wrigley Field as set forth in his revised plans. This will be a harder sell than the last proposal. These commissioners and alderman will ask why the team is coming back in less than a year with revised plans. What has really changed to cause a drastic change in the approved plans? The fact that the Cubs may be losing money is not a good reason to alter what had already been approved by the city.
To be honest, the revisions will forever alter the look and feel of Wrigley Field into a Times Square billboard hell hole. It seems the real plan is to squeeze every dime out of every nook, cranny and patron at Wrigley.
But for all the hue and cry Ricketts will make, it is possible the neighbors and city will say they have had enough and deny the revised plans. This would be calling Ricketts weak bluff of moving the team to the suburbs. But for $500 million, Ricketts could build exactly what he wants to build in the suburbs. If he was truly worried about keeping the historic Wrigley Field as a iconic venue, then why is he smothering all of its charm with electronic signage?
It is all about money. The bottom line is the bottom line. This is another signal that the Cubs revenue projections going forward, even under the old plan, may be insufficient to keep the team (and its debt service) in order. Ricketts will never open his private ledgers to public scrutiny, so no one can feel sorry for his plight.
The final straw may be that Ricketts ownership has made the Cubs an "unwatchable" team. An unlikeable team. An unlikeable ownership group. All of these grand plans may come off for naught if the fan base stops caring about its team. Loyalty can last only so long in the face of adversity.
