LESS THAN HALF THE STORY

I take issue with the one-sided nature of Bruce Levine's report. He did not challenge Tom Ricketts statements to season ticket holders.


Levine stated Ricketts' comment were notable because owners and players have key financial discussions looming as they negotiate a return-to-play framework for a 2020 season that has been suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic. Owners have proposed a plan that includes 50-50 revenue sharing, which the union has pushed back against, saying that it's a form of a salary cap.
Some players have expressed the belief that they should be compensated on a full pro-rated basis because they're the ones taking the health risk, as Rays ace Blake Snell said recently. Beyond that, another argument is that it's unfair for owners to "privatize the the gains and socialize the losses," as powerful agent Scott Boras said. The union hasn't officially commented on its stance.

Under the system of paying players fully pro-rated money, the losses would be too significant in the owners' eyes. MLB owners stand to lose an estimated $4 billion if no baseball is played in 2020, MLB commissioner said on CNN on Thursday.

"This has been a total shutdown of Major League Baseball," Ricketts said. "Unlike the NBA or NHL who had played 80 percent of their seasons, we have played zero. We have to look at how economics will affect the rest of the season. If we are looking at games with no fans, then we do have a real challenge. For the Cubs, about 70 percent of the (gross) revenues come in on the day of games. It comes in through selling tickets, concessions and the ballpark experience (such as parking and merchandise). The other 30 percent comes in through media -- whether it's on Marquee Sports Network, our local media partners and our share of the national media revenues.

"So ultimately, what we are looking at if we can get players into the ballparks is playing a partial season without fans. We are looking at 30 percent of our economics cut in half, so the fact is we must dig deep to find a financial model that works -- the players must feel fairly compensated and ownership doesn't continue to absorb the kind of losses we have so far this season. We are all working diligently toward that. At some point, there will be more discussions. You will hear a lot about it and read a lot about it. It must come down to finding a solution that works for everyone."
Ricketts emphasized players safety is the top priority for the league and owners.

"Every week, the owners have met to talk about how to get baseball back on the field," he said. "We have currently talked about getting back into our home ballparks for this season. That would be without fans. The league has worked very diligently to put into place the most extensive set of protocols, medical safeguards that are out there anywhere. We would be limiting access to the players, limiting access to the number of people in the park. With a strong testing regiment and various other protocols, we can create the safest working environment possible for our players if they are able to come back this summer. We do not have a 100% answer or all clear, but we think the league has created a safe working environment for players to come back to the ballparks. That is very good."

The news report only soft peddles an owner who is not telling a complete truth by trying to gain sympathy over his greedy players. Ricketts is snake oil selling his season ticket holders WHO ALREADY GAVE HIM THEIR MONEY. But Ricketts is hiding in his figures.

As I have reported since the Zell sale, Ricketts family has divided up various parts of "the old Cubs" into separate legal entities: the Cubs as a baseball franchise, Wrigley Field as a real estate owner, the parking lots as a different LLC, the triangle parcel as a separate corporation, and the hotel block as a separate entity. In other words, the Cubs have been stripped of any outside revenue generating properties.

The Cubs team is merely a TENANT at Wrigley Field. It does not share ANY of the revenue from parking, the plaza, or the real estate development income.

When Ricketts says that 70% of Cubs income comes directly from fans (when the league average is only 30%) it is a three card monte financial statement illusion. He is not counting the RENT the Cubs pay to the Ricketts, or all the Wrigleyville income/outside ball park concessions and alcohol sales. The Cubs were stripped down of any outside income sources so the money could flow directly into Ricketts bank accounts.

As for the other 30% income: Marquee Network (a bust), local radio (on a station friendly low revenue deal because Kenney screwed up local rights years ago), and the national TV contract share (which is less than other clubs because Chicago is a large market city). When he says half of the media money is gone, he is saying that Marquee has generated nothing compared to his old Comcast partnership.

Ricketts's turned the Cubs baseball operation, if it is 70 percent dependent on the gate for income,  into a struggling, small market model.






Claiming the Cubs are in dire straights in the coronavirus panic is a FALSE NARRATIVE because Ricketts brought this financial house of cards down on himself. Three restaurants in his buildings have closed in less than 18 months of operation. His big $$$$$ Cubs network is a disaster. Even his local radio partner stopped replaying classic games (when the station has no live content!) He is not selling merchandise; he is not selling alcohol by the barge load; he is not a very good businessman.

He wants "a solution that works" for everybody, but he is really whining about his own potential crushing financial losses.  The 50-50 revenue share works for a delusional Ricketts because no fans in the stands means at 70 percent pay cut for players. If the media income is down by half or more, that means another 15 percent pay cut for the players.

The outside the ball club revenue has to have taken a major hit as Chicago shut down bars and most of the restaurants. Without Cub games, there is no influx of tourists and fans to his Wrigleyville properties. Closed businesses are going to fall behind on rental payments or go out of business.  The Ricketts created their own overdeveloped real estate bubble which burst when the season was suspended by the pandemic.

RICKETTS IRE

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.

POOR EXCUSE

I will tell you the real reason:

Crain's reports:

The Chicago Cubs want to shut down car traffic on Addison and Clark streets adjacent to Wrigley Field during games, team officials announced today.

In a move to extend the security perimeter around the stadium, the Cubs say they are in advanced talks with the city about limiting traffic on both streets to city vehicles and buses during all events at the park.

The push, the team said, comes from a Major League Baseball security recommendation for ballparks to maintain at least a 100-foot perimeter of control in every direction.

>>>> Security is a poor, red herring excuse. The real reason the team wants to control the intersection like a border crossing  is that Ricketts is building an alcoholic plaza at Clark and Addison in which he wants to trap and control pre- and post-game sales to fans. This is not a safety issue at all - - - in fact, it creates one.

Addison and Clark are MAJOR through streets. Police and fire departments need access through this intersection. And what about the buses bringing people to/from the game? Talk about a major disruption. Then adding a hotel across the street, where will the taxi's go? Double park on the side streets?

It is not cynical to think that every move made in the last four years ownership has been an attempt to corral each and every dime from the public for any tangential Cubs experience, including bullying competing bars and venues for their patrons. Just because you own the entire block does not mean you have a right to close the streets for your own private parties. 

UPDATE: 1-19-16

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Cubs' idea of closing Clark and Addison streets to automobiles on game days is a non-starter, according to Mayors office.

Cubs business President Crane Kenney floated the idea at the Cubs Convention last weekend of shutting down the main thoroughfares to allow the team to create a 100-foot security perimeter around  Wrigley Field.

But mayoral spokeswoman Kelley Quinn shot down the idea, which would exponentially worsen already brutal traffic in congested Wrigleyville when the Cubs play.

"Of course we are not going to close Clark and Addison," Quinn said in an email. "Safety and security are everyone's top concern, and we will work with the community, Ald. (Tom) Tunney and the Cubs to achieve that without having to shut down two major roads in a neighborhood."

Cubs spokesman Julian Green said the team is trying to comply with new Major League Baseball security requirements, including a zone around each ballpark within which vehicles get screened. "This wasn't just a trial balloon," Green said of Kenney's talk of closing the streets. "This was a way to try to meet the security mandates."

Green said the team plans to work with the league and the city to meet the standards, hopefully by Opening Day. But he would not say whether there's a plan to do so without closing the streets. "We're going to keep talking and working with the parties, but at this point there aren't any specifics," he said. "If there are other ways to meet the mandates, we will listen." 

>>>> Again, when does MLB control the streets of a major metropolitan city? And when can MLB "mandate" anything on how a team runs its ball park? This is merely a cynical expansion of closing all the streets around Wrigley to have an enclosed theme park atmosphere controlled by the Cubs.
 

PRIORITIES

Every person has priorities in life.

Some have the pursuit of happiness. Some have the pursuit of a meaningful career. Some have the pursuit of a meaningful community service or legacy. Some have the pursuit of money.

The Cubs had three errors last night, including one that was charged to Starlin  Castro at second base. But Cubs manager Joe Maddon did not hold Castro liable, saying a ball hit by Adam Lind took "a bad hop."

Maddon blamed Wrigley Field conditions on a recent rock concert held at the venue. "Since the AC/DC concert, (field conditions) have been trouble. I don't know if they were out there taking infield before the game. But it totally messed up our infield."

And this is a valid point for the critics of Tom Ricketts plan to turn Wrigley Field into a year round, multipurpose entertainment venue. Wrigley Field was built as a baseball park. It withstood the onslaught of multipurpose, concrete mushroom municipal stadiums that took over professional sports. It was a historical icon for the fading American past time.

But one error in the infield could cost the Cubs a victory. And one victory could cost the Cubs a season (especially in a one game, winner-take-all wild card.)

But it is clear with all the "renovations" and "modernization" of Wrigley Field and the surrounding properties, the Cubs are not a priority to the Ricketts family. The Cubs are merely another tenant, or show, at the property. Rock concerts and that revenue stream is just as important as the baseball crowds. And with the plan to add football and other fall sports inside Wrigley, one can foresee Wrigley Field becoming the second coming of the bad Soldier Field turf complex.

And don't be fooled by the myth that the extra revenue is going into the Cubs treasury to build a winning team. The other Wrigley revenue streams are going into the other Ricketts family business ventures.

Long time fans are worried that this Maddon magical season has not had its "Cubbie occurrence" yet. It would be ironic that a torn up infield due to a rock concert could cost the Cubs a post season game and the rare chance for a pennant run.

SAFETY

There have been an epidemic of serious fan injuries this season at baseball parks.

Sunday's Cubs game was halted due to a fan injury.

The game was briefly delayed in the first inning after Kyle Schwarber's foul liner struck a female fan sitting just past the camera well on the first base side.

The woman was carried off on a stretcher and taken to a hospital. The Cubs said she was conscious, but had no further details on her condition.

''Oh my God, awful,'' Joe Maddon said.

Several fans around the majors have been hit this season by fouls and flying bats, and Major League Baseball has said it is studying the issue of crowd safety.

Maddon issued his own warning.

''Pay attention. I hate to say, but those are wonderful seats. Probably pay a lot of money for them, you're digging the fact that you're right there. I watch and and I see people turning their back to the field when action is going. You just can't do it, you can't do it,'' he said.

''But what I'm saying is, when you're at the ballpark and you're in those particular locations, watch what is going on. Don't turn your head away from the action. Every time a ball is pitched you look, you look and see, then you can go and talk. That's probably the best answer, to just pay attention.''

The problem with Maddon's advice is that it was fine twenty years ago but not today.

Tiger pitcher Justin Verlander went to social media to push for changes after a woman was hit by a foul ball in the eighth inning of a recent Tigers' home game against the Texas Rangers.

"More protective measures need to be put in place in all ball parks! Players are sick of seeing injuries that could easily be avoided!" Verlander said on the social media site after seeing medical personnel take the woman away in a neck brace, adding that Major League Baseball should make changes "before it's too late."

The Tigers said after the game that the woman, who was sitting behind the home team dugout, was hospitalized for tests but was alert and conscious.

Tigers third baseman Nick Castellanos said there was "no way" the fan could have reacted in time to avoid being hit by the ball of Anthony Goes’s bat.

He's in favor of increased security netting between the field and fans.

In July a class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco seeking to have Major League Baseball install such protective netting down the baselines. Currently such netting is typically used only directly behind home plate.

In the past, the license printed on the back of your ticket insulated owners from liability. The legal concept is assumption of risk. It presumes to have certain knowledge about the likelihood that objects can fly off the field into the stands, so the law imposes a duty on fans to take reasonable precautions for their own safety. The legal effect is if a fan  is even 1% at fault for their own injuries, they are not entitled to any legal recovery whatsoever as a matter of law.

But there have been a few court cases that have versed this old doctrine and imposed some liability on teams. Truth be told, owners do not want to aggrieve high paying season-ticket holders who like the unobstructed view from their close seats near the field in foul territory, and they believe these premium fans do not want something as foreign as safety netting getting in the way. But baseball owners are adding the danger of fan injury caused by the wave of new ballpark improvements.

Technology has become today's addictive distraction. People bend over their cell phones like nuns in a church pew. The world around them is lost; these people don't pay attention to where they are going (running into people on sidewalk, stepping out into traffic; texting while driving). 

And baseball owners, in order to attract younger fans, push team apps, stats, fantasy sports to patron's smart phones. They want fans to tweet and retweet during the game. They are fans to have "an interactive experience." 

The addition of large electronic scoreboards showing replays and information further distract fans attention from the actual game on the field. 

Twenty years ago people came to baseball games to watch a contest but also to have a social experience with family and friends. Sitting a park, with the ebb and flow of down time between pitches, allowed fans to actually talk to each other during a game. Perhaps, with the advances in communications technology, the average person is less engaged on one-on-one personal conversations than in the past. And that is the point that baseball does not fully comprehend.

A split second reaction time looking at a foul ball racing toward your head can be the difference between life and death. (The last baseball fan fatality by a baseball in the stands was in 1970 at Dodger Stadium). The human brain is hard wired to make instant reactions to protect itself from harm. Reaction times have been decreased for fans in the stands as in the case of Wrigley Field, the foul territory from the field to the seats has dramatically contracted over the years. Closer seats without protective netting equals fan injury. A distracted fan by his own phone or the video boards is a sitting duck in the stands.

But owners will say that tradition and the fan experience outweighs the rare fan injury. In the NHL, a young woman was killed by a stray puck which lead to the league putting in protective netting around the entire rink. It is possible to put a clear, transparent netting around the box seats to catch screaming liners or helicoptering baseball bats. But in the cost-benefit analysis, teams won't do it. 

Economic models show that the value of a human life is $3.5 million. Is it worth that much money to install safety netting in each park to avoid serious to fatal fan injury? Or do baseball men think the money is better spent on a veteran utility infielder as the 25th man on their roster?

SPENDING MONEY TO MAKE MONEY

SB Nation (via another publication) calculates that the Blue Jays trading deadline moves not only helped the club vault into first place but also helped the bottom line.

When the Blue Jays traded Jose Reyes and prospects for Troy Tulowitzki, no money exchanged hands. Tulowitzki was owed $94 million after this season and Reyes was owed $48 million. That means the Blue Jays assumed an extra an extra $46 million. It was a risk. Except, the Blue Jays have already made that money back.  From Financial Post:

Overall, (Team Marketing) estimates that group of four would pay $270.43 for the whole trip to the ball game, just a few dollars over the MLB average.

That works out to $67.61 per person. Multiply that by 465,000 more bums in seats and you’ve got a whopping $31.4 million — more than triple the extra spending on salaries.

I recall when Harry Carey commanded the Wrigley Field press box. A Tribune executive secretly whispered that Carey was the most underpaid person in the organization. Why? Because he brought in fans to the ball park. But beyond mere attendance, he brought in beer drinking fans (the most profitable segment of concession sales.)

For example, another 10,000 in ticket sales per game by fans drinking $7 worth of beer for a home season calculates to $5.67 million. Plus Carey was a great ambassador for the beer company, who would spend millions more on ball park advertising.

HR DISTRIBUTION

There was some question on whether the new electronic scoreboards at Wrigley would affect home runs because of new wind patterns.

There is not enough evidence to make any final conclusions, but the current home run distribution chart has some circumstantial evidence.

ESPN's home run tracker puts a dot for every home run hit in every ball park. In the first 24 games at Wrigley, 42 home runs have been hit. That is an average of 1.74 HR/game. The National League average is 1.82 HR/G. The American League average is 1,95 HR/G.

Milwaukee leads the majors with 73 home runs (2.81 HR/G) followed by Cincinnati (2.71 HR/G), the Dodgers (2.36 HR/G) and San Diego (2.30 HR/G).

At Wrigley, the home run distribution was:

23 to LF (54.7%)
6 to CF (14.3 %)
13 to RF (31.0%)

The number of "front row" home runs were:

14 in LF (61% of total)
2 in CF (33% of total)
4 in RF (31% of total)

The question is whether the large LF video board is creating a down force in the left field bleachers that is creating a larger percentage of home run balls landing in the first rows.

HELPING THE ENEMY

All the attention of the "fan experience" reasons for the new Wrigley video boards has been overshadowing a concern: it helps the opponent.

The LF video board is in direct line to the visitor's dugout.

The manager, coaching staff and players have a clear view of the video replays, including the Cubs pitcher's pitches on strike outs. This is real time scouting information during a game.

During the Washington series, I observed the Nats looking at the video board after at bats. Seeing how a Cub pitcher's spin, bite and arm angle of that day's "out" pitches can lead to quicker adjustments for batters.

It is one thing to have a scout in the press box looking at the TV broadcast PitchTrack to relay information to the dugout. But it is another to have a player actually see the replay of the pitcher's game arsenal. 

I doubt that the Cubs realized that a video board could be used in this manner by their opponents. The motivation for the new signage was revenue. New revenue.

CUBS STARTING LINEUP

The Cubs conveniently announced that tonight's second game against the Cardinals 

is cancelled due to the possibility of rain or cold weather. Right. Weather.

WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT

Even with a daily dose of Deadspin commentary and a few photographs, the callers on local sports talk radio on the evening commute made it clear that the situation at Wrigley on Opening Night was worse than previously reported.

The Cubs continue to sugar coat the situation as being opening night jitters, construction delays and that it will have fixed for tonight's game with portable toilets.

And the city officials have been silent on the issues that plagued the fans.

As more than one caller said it was a health and safety hazard. The concourse was packed for the entire night with people not moving, a crushing situation. The lines backed up into the stands, causing many sections to be blocked from viewing the game. The men's restroom floor was a soaked with standing urine. People began urinating in cups and discharging themselves on the walls in the concourse. Wrigley was a crowded and open sewer.  If you were any other Chicago business, you would have been red tagged, closed down, and not allowed to open for business.

As other callers stated, this is more evidence of the incompetence of Cubs management. Half of the restrooms were going to be out of commission before the season opened so management should have known there would be an issue for 35,000 fans (the Cubs knew the attendance in advance of opening the gates.) When the upper deck restrooms failed, the Cubs did nothing except adding to the confusion by directing patrons down the jammed and stopped ramps to the lower level two functioning restrooms. It was so bad, callers indicated that they stood in line for one to one and half HOURS. Many of them just quit and left the park to use facilities of neighboring businesses.

The Cubs said that once the bleachers are finished, the restroom capacity will be expanded under the left field area. But that is no comfort for a couple of callers who said they were very concerned about bringing their young children to tonight's game. No one knows whether the Cubs had a top to bottom Hazmat cleaning of the concourses and restrooms. Parents are concerned for the safety and welfare of bringing their children to Wrigley Field. There is no public relations spin today that can change that objective parental concern. Considering the Cubs fan price index puts the cost for a family of four to see a game at more than $300 (third in the MLB in cost), it is probably not worth subjecting children to sardine concourses, urine soaked restrooms and people peeing on stadium walls.

The Cubs also stated that they don't think it will be a problem tonight because they expect less people. But that is not the point. Even if they put in portable toilets inside Wrigley (which are actually made to be outside for ventilation purposes), the damage has been done. The team touted the improvements as enhancing "the fan experience." It was a total fail in the national spotlight.

Neither Theo Epstein, Jed Hoyer, Crane Kenney or Tom Ricketts have stepped up to the podium and admitted this failure of epic proportions. This shows the problem in how the Cubs are organized: Epstein is in charge of the baseball team while Kenney is in charge of the business side. But the business of the Cubs is baseball which includes ticket sales, concessions and fan service. In essence, no one is in charge of this mess. The idea to focus the night on how great the Jumbotron looked while looking away as their customers waded their way through urine soaked concourses is going to negatively affect any future fan goodwill.

THE UNFINISHED CONFINES

The national ESPN Opening Night showcased everything that is wrong with the Cubs.

The one film clip that was overlooked but summed up the night the best was a picture of a grounds crew guy with a metal detector and a bucket looking in the outfield for debris.

The funerary drapes of Ernie Banks to cover up the disastrous unfinished bleachers would have made even the Nixon White House blush. 

If you got one large, in-your-face impression from last night's nightmare, it was this: Cubs ownership knows about how much the fans cared about their iconic and historical ball park, but they basically told them "we don't care, we are in business to make money."  Every flat surface in range of a TV camera had new advertising plastered to it. The "see through" Budweiser sign in RF was much larger and thicker than the "artist's renderings" shown to the public during the zoning approval process.

The jumbotron is so huge and annoying that it makes the CF scoreboard look like a pimple on the face of an old woman. The white glare was shocking, so much so that the background color had to be changed to a light green. It had to affect the batter's line of sight, especially from right handed pitchers.

How the Cubs got an occupancy permit to allow the public to roam the under construction concourse is beyond belief. If you were a little shop owner in Chicago, you would have been red tagged and closed for safety reasons. But even then, the Cubs had condescending signage to remind fans that they have not finished their work, like new restrooms (relieved?)

When the announcers and team kept droning on about the changes to the park were "for the fans," that was not true. Reports this morning said that wait times to get to the open restrooms were from 1 to 2 hours long. The concourse was packed like a sardine can. Some patrons started peeing in cups, while others left the park to use adjoining businesses restrooms. 

It seemed that everything else was secondary to the Cubs having their advertising signage in place.

With all the high expectations for the team, the Cubs fell flat. Joe Maddon was upset in spring training about the lack of fundamentals. The Cubs new management gurus had three years to train the prospects on fundamentals, "the Cubs Way."  Soler booted a ball in RF (but got no error). There were two near collisions in the outfield with players. And we learned for the first time that superstar pitcher has a phobia of being unable to throw a ball to a bag!

Maddon was also screwy with his line-up card. Batting Soler second and Castro fourth made no sense. Also, batting Coghlan sixth and Lester eighth also made little sense (though it was explained that LaStella batting 9th equals a second lead off hitter). But LaStella looks like Sam Fuld's little brother at the plate, and seemingly out of place for cut off throws from the outfield. It could have been opening night nerves, but the whole team reverted to last season's epic woes.  The Cubs were 0-13 with men in scoring position. The Cubs were shut out.  Cubs batters were swinging for the fences and missing contact.

If anything happened last night, it was the deflation of expectations. The Cubs remain a bad ball club until the roster turnover is complete. The prospects and rookies are still unproven commodities.

One thing is certain. The fear that Ricketts would turn Clark and Addison into a mini-Times Square of advertising blight is coming true, but also inside Wrigley Field. The amusement park is open for business, but the baseball ride is still out of commission.

THE WINDY QUESTION

An unreported story in regard to the New Wrigley Field is the affect the new signage and scoreboards will have on the wind patterns during games.

Prior to construction, it was clear that when the wind was blowing in (northerly), balls hit into the outfield were held up, pushed back and down. When the wind was blowing out to center (south-southwesterly), balls would carry especially in the power alley of LF.

I have not seen any published study about the effects of the new scoreboards will have at Wrigley. It is an important factor in considering on this team is being constructed (with young power hitters).

I am not an aerodynamic engineer, and I realize the the dimensions, angles, and variables in wind speeds can led to differential results, but using general urban wind patterns on structures, I postulated the following diagram:

One would think that if the wind was blowing into Wrigley, the large new scoreboards would "block" the prevailing wind and make it easier to hit homers in the power alleys. Except, the opposite is apparently true as the winds climb up the back of the structure then dive over the top to create a drag or low pressure area (like a air foil). Therefore, there may be actually more down force coming off the scoreboards than in a regular breeze.

Then, one would think that if the wind was blowing out of Wrigley, the large new scoreboards would have no effect on home runs. In the past, the center field scoreboard had little difference in air patterns blowing out since it is set back away from the 410 mark of the outfield wall. But from the air flow charts, air hitting a solid object will drop towards the ground. Since the new scoreboards are so close to the outfield walls, they could take the winds blowing out downward near the outfield wall (in effect increasing the distance for a home run to travel to clear the wall).

Now some may say that the space between the signs and scoreboards could create a canyon effect when the winds are blowing out of Wrigley (at some point increasing the air flow to the path of least resistance.) Whether that is true will have to been observed this year. Hitters could have to then thread a needle to find the super power alleys.

Besides affecting hitters, the down draft zones could cause problems with outfielders trying to judge hard hit fly balls. Even before the renovations, many players have publicly said that Wrigley Field outfield is a challenge to play due to the wind patterns and lack of safe foul territory. Adding another element of new wind circulation and down draft patterns could complicate defenses.

After writing this post, the Chicago Tribune posted a new graphic to help fans understand how "big" is the new jumbotron.

As I have said before, fans are going to be shocked at the size of the new scoreboards and the change in character of Wrigley Field.

CONTINGENCY PLAN?

The Cubs will announce soon "contingency" plans if the bleachers are not completed by
Opening Night.

I thought, maybe that contingency plan is to move the games to the Cell.

Because, based upon the construction photographs I have seen, the brick outfield walls
are not structurally sound - - - meaning an outfielder racing to catch a deep fly ball
may actually bend, break or tumble through the bricks like an old Charlie Chaplin movie.

And since the brick and ivy is THE most important landmark feature at the park,
why risk it? Perhaps the Ricketts do not believe any damage to the brick facade will
do any more damage to their own reputations as gravediggers, oh, caretakers, of Wrigley Field.

And what city inspector is going to approve games in an active "construction site?"

Construction safety standards require fencing and hard hat areas to be secure from
the general public, which during games would include the players on the field.
It has all the foresight of the failed Northwestern football game at Wrigley, where the
conference and officials on game day said the field was unsafe to play because the end zones
were too small (and players could get hurt running into the brick walls).

With the harsh aspects of Winter in Chicago bearing outdoor construction to a crawl, it is really doubtful that the debut of the "new" Wrigley on national television is going to be the glittering success that the Cubs PR department had hoped for. . . and as I had said before, and now confirmed by a few die hard baseball fans who visited the site during the holiday season, that the gut fan reaction is going to be negative.

CRAZIER THAN IT SEEMS

In the never ending moving target that is the Wrigley "rehabilitiation" project, the Ricketts are going back to the Chicago Landmark Commission, again, to revise their plans.

This time to eliminate one sign and reduce the size of the scoreboard.

These requirements are needed in order to trying to get approximately $70 million in "historic preservation" tax credits from the federal government. For those unaware how tax credits work, it gives a person or corporation in essence non-taxation on other income in order to promote the maintenance of landmark structures.

So when the Ricketts initially said they would not be using any taxpayer money on their project, they lied. Tax credits take tax dollars from government treasuries so taxpayers have to make up the difference.

But the most crazy aspect of this whole scheme is lost by everyone in the media like a deer in headlights: Wrigley Field is a historic landmark in its current structure, but the Ricketts family wants to designate it a "historic landmark" AFTER all the new, modern, electronic signage has been built in the bleachers.

None of the new signage has anything to do with the century old character of the building.

It is like a movie theater chain buying Ford's Theater in D.C., knocking it down to build a 20 screen Cineplex, then ask for huge historic tax credits because Lincoln was shot in the premises.

The whole idea that the new signs have any "historical" significance is absurd. They have not even been built yet! How can any person with common sense believe that preservation tax breaks can be used not to preserve the existing structure but totally change it.

IN many communities, landmark districts have strict rules. Owners of buildings must comply with the type of materials used to repair and maintain their buildings. Paints have to meet historical color standards. It costs more to to replace rotting siding with wood plank than with a modern vinyl product. So that is why tax break assistance is thought to be in the community's best interests to keep the aesthetic nature of an old downtown district.

AS I have mentioned previously in this blog, there is going to be a national jaw drop once the "improvements" at Wrigley Field have been completed. The memories of Wrigley Field that was televised throughout the nation on the WGN superstation will be jarred by the commercial overload of bleacher signage.

But when Ricketts talk about "restoring" Wrigley Field, they are really meaning that they are trying to make the most money as possible from their venue.

A BAD CLUE

The Cubs are in the midst of a massive outfield bleacher tear down.

But not letting the destruction go to waste, the Cubs are selling off pieces of the ball park as "authentic" Wrigley souvenirs. For a historical ball park, one would think you would try to preserve as much history as possible (even recent history). Instead, it screams of trying to squeeze another buck or two out of the tired fan base.

The Cubs announced that Cubs Authentics, their official provider of game-used and authenticated memorabilia, has introduced the Wrigley Field Collection for fans looking to collect unique items from the historic ballpark. The Wrigley Field Collection will feature authenticated items in limited quantities throughout the season, including bleacher seats, flags, scoreboard tiles, signage and celebrity-guest memorabilia, plus items related to Wrigley's restoration and expansion.

It also shows that ownership is not the preservationists that some believed when they bought the team from the Tribune. It is like saying to third parties "here are pieces of old Wrigley Field, you keep and preserve them yourself." And many people will gladly do that because it is a physical reminder of past memories at the ball park.

Past memories that will most likely be jolted on Opening Night with the wash of electronic scoreboard lights akin to Times Square.

There is precedence for grave robbing an old ball yard. Old Comiskey Park had an auction when it was determined that the Cell was going to replace it. Thousands of people showed up one weekend to bid on signs, seats, the old scoreboard pin wheels to even toilets. It was the south side garage sale of garage sales. Everything was going to go either to a new home or the land fill.

Why would the Cubs sell "scoreboard tiles?" The answer is simple: the iconic CF scoreboard is going to be retired as the new large Jumbotron will take its place. And, it cuts back on the payroll of the manual scoreboard operators. And who wants 7th inning singers autographs on a program or Pat Hughes napkin? It seems nothing cannot be monetized by the Cubs business managers.

SELLING OUT

There is more news than just the Joe Maddon hire.

In April, 2014, Sports Business Daily reported the Ricketts family is "exploring the idea of selling minority ownership shares" in the Cubs as a "way to help finance" the $500M Wrigley Field renovation. Patrick Mooney of CSNCHICAGO.com also reported a source said that those shares would be for a "non-controlling interest." The source added that the family "hasn’t made any final decisions yet."

On October 27, 2014 , Sports Business Daily reports the Cubs’ value, as speculated by business trade papers to be around $2 billion, calculates for the team’s "pending" sale of around 20 percent of the club to be around $400 million sources said, with that process expected to finish soon. Galatioto Sports Partners is managing the sale. GSP representatives declined to comment.

Citing an anonymous source, the Sports Business Journal reported that the franchise is worth $2 billion — more than double what the Ricketts family paid in 2009 — and that the sale of part of the team is "expected to finish soon."

Crain’s Chicago Business also wrote that  Chicago Cubs are close to selling a 20 percent stake in the team said to be valued at around $300 million, a Cubs spokesman said.

Ricketts family spokesman Dennis Culloton said nothing "officially" has changed since April, when reports surfaced that Cubs ownership was considering selling a noncontrolling share of the franchise to one or more minority investors to help finance the team's $575 million Wrigley Field renovation and redevelopment plan.

Mr. Culloton did not dispute any element of the SBJ report, which said that New York-based Galatioto Sports Partners is "managing" the minority share sale. The financial advisory company has been a Ricketts family consultant in the past, including for the original $845 million purchase of the team. At the time, Forbes estimated the Cubs to be worth only $700 million.

Bringing in minority investors may be one part of a combination of Ricketts family assets used to finance the stadium renovation, adding to other sources like ad revenue from expanded ballpark signage and federal tax breaks that could come from getting Wrigley Field listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

At the same time, there are reports that the Ricketts are close to buying two rooftop businesses (possibly the ones most affected by the new outfield signs).

What does all mean?

Sam Zell employed a very structured way to sell the Cubs to avoid the Tribune reporting more than $700 million in capital gains. To sell the Chicago Cubs to the Ricketts family,  but not trigger the Chicago Cubs built-in gain, the Tribune pulled a play from its tax play book that it had recently used to sell Newsday to Cablevision Systems, Inc: the  tax structure is referred to as a “leveraged partnership."

In executing the leveraged partnership structure, a new limited liability company – Newco -- taxed as a partnership was formed, to which the Tribune contributed the Chicago Cubs and its associated business for a five-percent interest and the Ricketts family contributed $150 million in cash for a 95 percent interest. The Ricketts family had certain call rights and the right of first refusal with respect to the membership interest owned by the Tribune and the Tribune has certain rights to put the membership interest to Ricketts family. In addition, Newco borrowed $698.75 million and the Tribune guaranteed the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. From the funds provided by the debt and the equity financing, a special distribution of $740 million was made to the Tribune.

Accountants said to avoid the triggering of the built in gain with respect to the Chicago Cubs assets, the planning employed by the Tribune depended upon avoiding the disguised rules. Under IRS Section 707(a)(2)(B), where there are related transfers of property or money to a partnership and transfers of property or money by the partnership to the partner and when viewed together these transfers are characterized as a sale or exchange, then such transfers will be treated as a sale or exchange. Under Reg. Section 1.707-3(c)(1), if within a two year period, a partner transfers property to a partnership and the partnership transfers money or other consideration to the partner, the transactions are presumed to be a sales of the property to the partnership unless the facts and circumstances clearly establish otherwise. Reg. section 1.707-5(b)(1) provides that, for purposes of Reg. Section 1.707-3(c), if a partner transfers property to a partnership and the partnership incurs a liability and all or portion of the proceeds of that liability are allocable under Reg. Section 1.163-8T to a transfer of money to the partner made within 90 days of incurring the liability, the transfer of money to the partner is taken into account only to the extent that the amount of money transferred exceeds the partner’s allocable share of the liability. Thus, if the partner’s allocable share of the liability equals or exceeds the amount of debt financed money conveyed to that partner within 90 days of incurring the debt, no amount of the money is treated as the proceeds of a disguised sale by the transferring partner. The guarantee of the debt from which the proceeds distributed to the Tribune came created a risk of loss in the Tribune so that the debt was allocated to the Tribune under Section 752. The guarantee of the liability by the Tribune provided it with an increased basis and allowed it to receive the special distribution of cash without any gain recognition.

The key to the success of the leveraged partnership technique is the guarantee of Newco’s debt. However, the I.R.S. could challenge the leveraged partnership technique on the grounds that:

1. The guarantee should not be respected;
2. The anti-abuse provisions of Reg. 1.701-2(a) should apply and
3. The transaction should be recast in accordance with its substance as a sale.

There were reports during the bankruptcy proceedings that there were inquiries in regard to many Tribune accounting techniques.

The Ricketts agreed to be hogtied by massive debt and ownership lock up rules in order for the bankrupt Tribune Company to avoid capital gains. Walking on egg shells is still the prospect that the "minority sale" of Ricketts interest in the Cubs could trigger an IRS audit. This may be why the ownership structure has had to be kept in the status quo; and why the Ricketts cannot make contributions to the partnership because the Tribune would have to put in its 5%.

Beyond the tax implications of a minority sale, there is a structural element most people do not realize. Most people assume that the Cubs own the team, Wrigley Field, and the surrounding parking lots. But that is not true. As stated in the building commission proposals, the Cubs only own the team. Wrigley Field is owned by another legal entity. The Cubs are merely a tenant at Wrigley Field. The parking lots are owned by a different legal entity. So what is Ricketts really going to sell to minority investors? Just part of the team? Or associated stakes in the various other companies surrounding but legally distinct, from the franchise?

And selling a minority stake in the Cubs is not giving the Cubs team the money. Any proceeds from Ricketts selling their shares goes to the Ricketts, personally. So reports that this money is going to be used as capital to rebuild the Cubs or sign free agents is incorrect. Such a sale does not change the Cubs finances one bit. The Ricketts could use this new found cash to help pay for their new hotel complex investment, or to acquire the rooftop buildings. But again, that real estate development has nothing to do with the business operations of the Cubs.

The Cubs continue to appear to be a cash flow poor franchise. The loan covenants and restrictions caused by the Zell deal still haunt the club. Attendance revenue is still the key barometer to team spending, and that continues to go down. The lack of a local TV deal will also squeeze the gross revenue number in 2015, and may cause the bank some concern. 

But it does start to give owners some return on their leveraged investment, or the very least, paying back Daddy Ricketts for his money put into the purchase.

BOTTOM OUT

The Cubs over-promoted Wrigley's 100th anniversary to ironically use the season as the platform to totally change the ball park. The result of the special giveaways was that the Cubs stated attendance grew 9,000 from last year's total. Without the extra promotions, the Cubs would not have had a rebound in the attendance slip from 2008.

As fans were leaving Wrigley after the last home game, some felt that the new improvements would be good for the team and their fan experience. However, there was an equal number who were concerned about Wrigley no longer being Wrigley Field of the past 100 years.

Proponents believe that fans will get used to the new electronic video screens like they did when the lights were put in 26 years ago. But adding night games did not alter the landmarked bleachers and views.

Fans left the last home game with another piece of the puzzle looking brighter: the Cubs finished with a 41-40 home record. One could assume that the team may have bottomed out.

But there is still a large disconnect between the team, the fans and how the roster is being created through this period of dramatic change.  All the new signage will have a dramatic effect on the wind conditions inside Wrigley Field. Swirling winds will make it more difficult for Cub outfielders, many who will be playing not their natural positions. In addition, the blueprints show that the bullpen areas will be removed for additional seating, which means that the foul ground will be smaller. The lack of foul territory will hurt pitchers as foul pop outs will turn into souvenirs.

The Cubs front office is building a club which will probably not work well in the New Wrigley Field configuration. The team has depth in young sluggers, but it the large video boards are going to block the winds from blowing out, home run power is going to diminish - - - and you have a line up of free swinging strike out kings. Also, the Cubs lack pitching depth, so the removal of foul territory is going to tax their pitchers over the long season.

And then there is the unknown fan reaction to the improvements. The team assumes that fans will return in droves. One fan interviewed after the game remarked that normally after major improvements, teams increase ticket prices. With the Cubs near the top of the cost-to-attend-games chart, there are many fans leery of spending more money just to see a video replay. The only thing that will bring the casual fan back would be a winning team, but the Cubs cannot guarantee that any of their young stars will actually become stars (or clones of Junior Lake, Corey Patterson, Felix Pie, etc.) The large construction costs will come from the Cubs payroll. The Cubs are not set up to play big market free agent buyers until they can get a new television deal in 2020.

No one wants to talk about it, but there is a good chance that despite all of the moves Ricketts, Kenney, Epstein and Hoyer have done, that both the construction of the New Wrigley and the future Cubs will fail. What if fans look at the New Wrigley as "not special" but just another commercialized ball yard. If so, then the team will have to cater to "fair weather fans" who won't come to games unless there is a winning product on the field. (This is the White Sox situation). So one cannot say that the Cubs have bottomed out and are now on the golden path to success.

LAST LOOKS

It took to the end of the season for many media types to realize
that on a cool, clear September Sunday afternoon, they were watching
the last Cubs day game at the old Wrigley Field.

By the time next season rolls around (injunctions not withstanding),
the press box, box seat, reserved terrace and upper deck views to the north-northeast
will be totally different.

I expect next year's opening day game stories to include "shocking" "surprised" "gaudy,"
and "overcommercialized" eye pollution when the Cubs put up the large Jumbotron and the
six (6) other outfield signs. Some will snicker that it is appropriate that the Cubs take a historic
landmark major league Field of Dreams and slap enough billboard signage to make even minor league ball yards blush.

It is not a "sky is falling" riff. The mayor and the city all said in bending over backwards for the Ricketts grand real estate development projects that Wrigley Field was one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city. But they never considered why Wrigley Field was the top tourist venue: it certainly could not be because of stellar baseball teams. It was a major draw because it was different, unique, and "old." The sight lines to the rooftops of the neighborhood, the large last of its kind manual center field scoreboard which mimics the lush green grass of the field. The iconic features will be buried by the flashing lights of electronic signage.

Purists still cringe at the small video board and the mini-Green Monster in the right field bleacher corner. By most accounts, the party deck has been a poop deck - - - an expensive gimmick that was not worth changing the character of the park. Purists will have cranial explosions when first viewing the final "modern" Wrigley lay out. The first 2015 promotion should be brain splatter ponchos.

So this week will have the sentimental columns by older writers who may slither nostalgic sentiment towards the company lines about the need for new revenue sources in order to build a championship team. That the old ways have to be part of the new way in order to get out of the old rut of not being a World Series champion for 107 years. Change is progress.  But people don't have to like it.

As with many major tourist attraction changes, there will be the curiosity seekers who want to see what is different. It will be interesting to determine a year later whether the new park has any lasting draw on the next generation of paying fan.

ROOFTOP LAWSUIT TWIST

The players in the Wrigley reconstruction saga all felt that the rooftop owners would sue the Cubs to stop the team from blocking their landmarked views. Yesterday, most of the rooftop owners sued, but not the Cubs but the city.

The rooftop owners sued the city for violating several constitutionally protected property rights.
In its six count complaint, the rooftop owners allege the landmark commission violated the administrative review act and case law in the conduct of its hearings; that the commission violated its own governing ordinance; that the commission violated due process and equal protection by acting beyond its legal authority; that the city is arbitrary in its landmark designations or application; that the city under the color of law violated the owners civil rights under §1983; and that city should be enjoined from allowing permits or construction to happen at Wrigley Field because the rooftops would be irreparably harmed.

As a result, the rooftop owners will probably win because the city's landmark commission
failed to follow basic legal requirements for a zoning/administrative hearing.

In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court made it clear in Klaeren v. Village of Lisle that
zoning hearings are administrative not legislative functions. As an administrative hearing,
the principles of due process must be followed to allow anyone with a property interest at
stake to participate, give evidence, cross examine witnesses, etc. As such, the government
body must make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support zoning decisions.

As alleged in the complaint, the city's landmark commission did not allow the rooftop owners
to participate at all in the course of the Wrigley landmark review process, i.e. present
witnesses, evidence or cross-examine the Cubs witnesses. If that is the case, the landmark commission did not follow clear Illinois law and its decision can be summarily reversed.

The lawsuit also claims that the commission violated its own governing ordinance in allowing the Wrigley reconstruction, by re-writing the ordinance with legislative powers it does not have.
If the commission acted beyond its own legal authority, then its decision would be null and void.

By suing the city for violations of due process and equal protection, the rooftop owners avoid a confrontation with the Cubs over the 2004 settlement agreement language which both sides claim a different interpretation on whether any expansion can block views. The lawsuit alleges that the Cubs have received $40 million during the revenue sharing agreement, or about $4 million per season. The irony of this is that many in the advertising community believe that the Cubs would not get much more in annual revenue from the new signage. So blocking the rooftop views will not significantly increase the gross revenues to the team since the rooftop revenue would dry up.

Two things can happen in this lawsuit.

First, the judge can rule that the city violated its own ordinance and Illinois law. The approval of Wrigley construction would be declared null and void and the Cubs would be back to square one.

Second, the judge could rule that the city, through its approval process and final city council vote, met the spirit of the law and uphold the administrative ruling. Then the Cubs could go forward with the approved plans. 

However, in either case, there probably will be an appeal. And appeals take years to work their way through the system. As a result, Ricketts four year time table to do all his real estate development work will be stretched out another two or three years.

Which leads to the following possible reactions by the Cubs ownership:

One, reaffirm their position that no work will be done if there is a lawsuit pending against the reconstruction. That means the Cubs will not be spending any money for improvements to the ball park (which some believe may be cover for the declining revenue and bank loan covenants that may restrict the reconstruction expenses to begin with). 

Two, the Cubs move forward at their own risk with the reconstruction projects (including the non-landmarked issues like the new clubhouse or hotel-commercial projects).

Three, a move some fans come to consider now as a real possibility, that the Ricketts throw up their hands and say the situation is unworkable, and begin the search to find a new home for the team in the suburbs or out of state. If the Ricketts truly have $500 million of their own money to spend on a baseball facility, they can go and build a state-of-the-art entertainment complex with ample parking in the suburbs.

Fourth, throw up their hands and sell their interest in the team to a third party. But since the team is in a mess financially and politically, it would be doubtful that the Ricketts could recoup their entire investment in the team and surrounding real estate holdings.

One can never guarantee how a court will rule in any litigated case. But what is certain that this lawsuit will again divert attention away from the baseball team issues.

TINKER TO SECOND CHANCE

It seems that Tom Ricketts spends all day in his office tinkering with the Wrigley Field architectural legos. The rehabilitation plans for the park are constantly in flux. It took a FOIA request by the Tribune to find out what is actually in the "final" plans. From the fragmented reports, this is what I think is the current plan:

The first phase of the plan is to get the 7 outfield signs in as soon as possible. To do so, the back bleacher walls are to be moved 6 feet into the street; and the bleacher extended 12 feet over the streets. The new outfield signs will be anchored on this new structural support. The bleachers themselves are going to be mostly torn down in order to a) construct the under-the-bleachers bullpens and b) rebuild the outfield brick walls and ivy. Two light poles will be installed in the outfield corners. The new bleacher configuration may also support another bar/restaurant hidden under the bleachers near the gates.

The strangest part of the new plan are three "bunker" suites. We think that they are going to be constructed underground where the box seats abut the old LF bullpen area. The underground suites will have no view to the field, but will have a concourse to new box seats apparently in the area of the old Cubs bullpen. It would seem that the existing box seat sections will have to be torn up in order to construct these new bunkers, possibly in conjunction with the new clubhouse plans. Likewise, the RF box seats will be added extending from the visitors dugout the the bullpen to the foul pole.  The likely result of these changes is that there will be little to no foul territory. 

If you are puzzled why there is so much underground building, it seems to be the only way to monetize every single inch of Wrigley Field space. I really don't recall the public outcry for new luxury suites that have no view of Wrigley Field. I don't see stuffing a bullpen staff into a hot livestock pen under the bleachers on hot summer days is going to make them any better pitchers. And for all those Cub fans who still blame Bartman for alleged interference, without any foul territory there will be more fan "plays" in the future.

But what is really amazing is that the city approved a plan and the final submissions have substantial changes. The Tribune reported that the outside facades now will have large electronic ribbon advertising signs (like Times Square). But at the same time, Ricketts wants Wrigley Field to be put on the National Historic Register, so he can get a 20% tax break on the reconstruction costs. But clearly, Ricketts is not "preserving" the old park in its original state; he is totally transforming it into a Disney entertainment complex.

And now, the time line for the reconstruction will span four off seasons. So the work will not be completed until Opening Day 2018. And there were reports that the baseball operations will not have the freedom to spend until the business side maxes out on the revenue side. So the Cubs as a baseball operation may be handcuffed until 2018. Unless of course, the construction plans change - - - again.