The Sun-Times picked up on a Deadspin story about "stolen emails" which
stated that the Ricketts family was upset with Mayor Emanuel who did not
give them $200 million for their private, outside Wrigley real estate development.
The Cubs spokesman did not deny the details of the story, per se.
Deadspin went through the email trail in its story.
In 2013, when the Ricketts had not yet broken ground on their renovations to Wrigley, disagreements with the mayor on public funds for the family projects appeared to have inspired at least some of the family to consider abandoning the project—or moving the Cubs to a friendlier location, possibly in the suburbs, where Mayor Emanuel would not be so dismissive of the family's huge investment in the city.
It was reported at the time that the Ricketts were looking to build a new stadium in Rosemont, next to O'Hare, but those plans fizzled because of the infrastructure costs and site plan did not allow outside development. (Rosemont squeezed in a minor league park instead.)
In the few years after the Ricketts Family Trust purchased the Cubs, they repeatedly sought to use taxpayer money and subsidies to fund the development of Wrigley and its surrounding areas: They first wanted $200 million to develop the Triangle Building near Wrigley Field, sought the use of local amusement tax funds that might otherwise be spent on public services, and attempted to use a hefty federal subsidy to pay for renovations of the historic field. Though the negotiations, Mayor Emanuel remained unimpressed: “I will not put my money in their field so they can take their money, and invest around the field, and get a greater economic value,” the mayor said in 2012. “If it’s important, they should invest there.”
The angst over Emanuel’s public position apparently lasted even after the Ricketts family offered to put $300 million of their own money into the field, as well as an additional $200 million into surrounding businesses. Having received a final proposal for the Ricketts investment in the Cubs, the mayor said:
When I first started this discussion, the Cubs wanted $200 million in taxpayer dollars. I said no. Then they said we’d like $150 million, and I said no. Then they asked whether they could have $100 million in taxpayer subsidies, and I said no. Then they asked about $55 million in taxpayer subsidies. I said no. The good news is, after 15 months they heard the word ‘No.’”
Todd Ricketts, a prominent Republican fundraiser and the current finance chariman of the Republican National committee, forwarded the story to his father and siblings, writing:
I think we should contemplate moving, or at least recognize that we are maybe not the right organization to own the Cubs.
In a later email, he added:
I just hate the thought of Tom having to grovel to this guy to put money into a building we already own.
Patriarch Joe Ricketts, a prominent conservative, replied:
Yes Todd, it makes me sad, it hurts my feelings to see Tom treated this way. He is way superior to the Mayor in every way.
I have been brought up to deplore the type of value system adopted by the Mayor of Chicago. This is stating it mildly.
Though Tom Ricketts is the chairman and public face of the trust that purchased the Cubs, ownership is split between Joe Ricketts’s children, including Todd. The Ricketts sons did not responded to a request for comment on these emails.
No public funds were spent on upgrading Wrigley Field, and the Ricketts grudgingly paid for the $575 million, five-year renovations that will conclude this winter. But with changes and cost overruns, the investment was closer to $750 million (a figure Theo Epstein stated during one of his post season press meetings).
This report confirms the mentality of the Ricketts clan as it is "business first, community second if at all" philosophy. They should have been happy that the mayor rode Alderman Tunney to agree to allow the Ricketts to "overzone" and over build the land around Wrigley Field. A lot of neighborhood businesses closed because of this massive redevelopment. Neighbors are still not happy with the result.
And neither is the Ricketts clan. People were not spending all their savings on $11 beers at the 12 new alcohol venues Tom put in their paths on the way to the gates. There has to be a large revenue shortfall from the projections made in their original business plan. (As a side note, prior to the purchase, Tom Ricketts convinced his father that the Cubs were a cash machine. Even when the Cubs were lovable losers, the ball park was filled with people spending money.)
The bean counters and marketing people probably had over-valued the revenue from the projects and team performance. The high density, lower than expected revenue bump has to have the Ricketts hard this year. That is why Theo was grousing about how the Ricketts spent $750 million on new construction and that he has no money to spend on players. (Or as some have speculated, that Epstein overspent and borrowed from future payroll budgets to field the 2018 team). The Ricketts are also upset that the city won't allow them to do whatever they want (unlimited night concerts inside and outside Wrigley Field) to make their place a 365 day theme park.
The Ricketts have an entitlement complex . . . being rich means what you say should be followed like the golden rule. They hate following rules enacted by inferior people (politicians). There should be no road blocks in the path of making money.
Well, that is not how over-regulated America works in the 21st Century. Tom Ricketts must have been naive to think that his vision that the Cubs were a modern day gold mine; an ATM machine printing profits. Baseball economics, lower fan interest, declining sports ratings are severe negative trends that were on the table before the redevelopment process. Ricketts wrote some big checks that he may not be able to cash without spending down his daddy's inheritance.
So, even after a celebrated championship, ownership is starting to finger blame on others. The mayor, who is not running for re-election because of the negative crime news and imploding pension deficits, is an easy target. The family is also moving to try to unseat the local alderman who they perceive is a continuing thorn in their side. The family may have to do a double take if MLB signed away its baseball streaming rights to Fox in its new national TV deal extension. It is clear that the Cubs will not get in 2020 a multi-billion Dodger Network deal. Cable operators are not going to fall into that trap.
The Ricketts spent a large chunk of the family fortune on their Wrigleyville real estate ventures. The realization that their return on investment has evaporated would send chills down their spines especially when they continue to read about how other billionaires have extracted huge windfalls from cities to build them state-of-the-art sports complexes.
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.