That’s the dirty little secret most touristas don’t get. Wrigley Field is a dump, with some of the most obstructed views of any major league ball park.
Maybe, but you can’t beat the photo op under the marquee. My one trip past Wrigley and the Cubs were on the road. I did get a picture tho.
Actually, since Detroit changed stadiums, Wrigley has the distinction of the most obstructed views. I have only been there twice, so as a tourist I appreciate all of its “charms” that a regular might be weary of.
Jim
I can’t find it anywhere online, but I remember hearing a story about how Jack Clark was asked what would improve Candlestick, and he said, “Dynamite.”
Agreed. Now that I’ve gone to a couple of games at Comerica Park, I can see what a total shithole Tiger Stadium was. For me, it was the trough urinals that made the place such a nightmare. For those of you who have never used these fixtures (lucky you), the urinals in question looked like really long sinks, set close to the ground. You stood rubbing elbows with strangers while peeing into what was literally a river of urine. Needless to say, the stench was almost unbearable. Good riddance to the place.
Fenway’s already gone, as far as I’m concerned. The changes in its profile have not only ruined the ambience, but also changed the game effects. Might as well build a new stadium now.
I think you underestimate things. “Probably Backfire” is about as large an understatement as can be made in the English language. We’re talking rioting and some of the most vigorous boycotts one can comprehend. It would be an unmitigated disaster if anyone so much as proposed a “new” Wrigley.
Any suggestion that a “modern” park could emulate the existing Wrigley is asinine and fans would never embrace it. I’m sure that they’d sell out for the first season or two, but by the time the shine had wore off they’d be in the same predicament that the White Sox are in. As it stands the stadium sells out for every game regardless of the record. A new facility would require a winning team to fill it. Parks in San Fransisco, Pittsburgh and Houston are nifty, but the stadiums they replaced had nothing resembling cache or nostalgia.
Suggestion that Wrigley is a dump is utterly and completely misinformed. The place, for a building pushing a century old, is incredibly well appointed for the modern crowds. Bathroom space is adequate, impressive when you consider that more beer is recycled there than anywhere in the world. Certainly it could use more bathrooms and some people might like some gimmicks and jumbotrons and games, we don’t want those people. The story about falling concrete was completely overblown 2 years ago. Small chips broke loose and repairs were made, it’s not an issue and there are no issues with the place’s structural integrity. The obstructed views are part of the charm, and amount to fewer than a 100 seats out of 41,000+. Guess what, those seats are sold EVERY game anyways to few complaints. The only people complaining about obstructed views tend to be tourist rubes who don’t look at their tickets when buying from a scalper.
As to building a stadium with parking and whatnot…um, where do you think they’d put that? Schaumburg maybe? Not happening in Wrigleyville that’s for sure, and moving the park would be opposed more vociferously than than a third Iraq war. Nothing is happening to that stadium in my lifetime.
BobLibDem, remind me to kick you in the berries next time I see you for corrupting this would-be joyous thread into academic speculation on the future of Wrigley. You can take the Sears Tower, The L, and St Patty’s Day before you start discussing Wrigley.
In reference to Wrigley Field,
I’m still upset they put up the lights.
August 9,1988, a day which will live in infamy, (with me anyway.)
Or 8/8/88, the first innings played under lights (only 3 1/2, rained out). I still remember that day, hurrying home from my cousin’s house on my bike (I was 13 at the time) to catch the first Cubs night game. I, too, was not happy about it, but what can you do?
I was referring to the fact that, given its tone, your post would’ve been appropriate for April 1st.
I always felt like that rainout was God voicing his displeasure.
Regarding the profitability of the Cubs? They are well known to be the most profitable division of the Tribune Co, and the source of much of ithe value of the parent company. They are considered to be among the most profitable clubs in MLB (although such things are difficult to determine) mostly due to the cachet of wrigley, and their cozy TV deal with Tribune subsidiary WGN.
If you are looking for a cite on a winning Cubs team being able to print money, it’s difficult for me to find one 
And lots of other people as well. That is also the day that Gretzky was traded to the LA Kings.
The Cubs account for about 4% of the value of the Tribune Company, which hardly qualifies as “much of the value”. The Tribune Company has a market capitalization of about $14.4 billion (debt plus equity) and the Cubs are expected to sell for about $600 million.
I have no doubt that the Cubs are profitable–if they weren’t, they wouldn’t fetch much of a sale price at all–but saying that something is “well known” hardly qualifies as a cite. Their exact profitability is impossible to determine from Tribune Company financial statements, because they don’t sell all of their TV and radio rights on the open market. Working backward from the anticipated sale price, I’d guess that they clear $20 to $40 million per year with a fair value assigned to the media rights.
There is little reason to think that this will improve much if the team wins a championship. The Cubs already sell out every game with one of the highest ticket price structures in baseball, and their park doesn’t allow them to wring out much more skybox revenue. MLB shares post-season TV and product licensing dollars, so there’s no upside there. At best a championship might goose their local TV ratings, but they’re already pretty high.
This is an excellent point. The Red Sox are a good example of how little performance on the field matters to the bottom line. In 2002, the club was sold by the Yawkee trust for essentially $700 million ($660 mil. plus assumption of $40 mil. in debt); that deal also included the park and NESN. In 2006, Forbes values the team at $617 million; you may say there’s a bit of wiggle room in that guess, but it doesn’t appear the Sox’ historic World-series win did much for their bottom line.
One thing Freddy the Pig does not mention is merchandising, and one could assume there are incredible opportunities for merchandising revenue (t-shirts, $200 commemorative plaques, limited edition photos) if the Cubs ever win it all. The problem is, merchandising is handled by MLB–not the clubs–and is distributed equally among all 30 teams. So I agree with Freddy; while I’d kill to see the Cubs finally, finally get it done, there’s not much financial incentive for the club…
Well said and I stand corrected. “Much of the value” is inaccurate. But from what I read the Cubs are one of the few currently profitable divisions of the Trib. I know “from what I read” is no better than “well known”. I am hunting for authoratative cites.
The reason for the inaccuracy is that MLB valuations and profit estimates are very loose. However, this is interesting: Forbes Operating Income list 2006. The Cubs earn a profit despite being among the highest in payroll, while the Red Sox and the two New York teams lose quite a bit on baseball operations alone. There is all kinds of shifting due to television contracts and revenue (especially with Trib/WGN), and I’d guess only a few people really know the income that a baseball team brings in counting all streams.
I see logically that this is the case. However, what drives teams to spend money on payroll if they do not do it to increase (or sustain) their profits and/or valuation? Better players mean better teams. The whole sabremetrics thing is based on spending less to achieve the same performance, to reach the playoffs with as little money spent as possible.
I have heard that this is all the egos of the owners, but I don’t know if I buy this. Clubs continue to sell for ever-increasing prices- and continue to spend more on talent in the hopes that they will win more. From a free-market perspective, they must at least believe that better players = better teams = better valuation for the club.
At the least, a better team can charge more for tickets and TV. I think your specific point about the Cubs is correct- they already get big TV ratings and sellout crowds as-is, unusual for a mediocre team. However, they continue to spend big bucks, so someone in the management office must think it’s good for the team to win more.
Also, interesting from that Forbes site- income stream seems to have only a tenuous connection to valuation.
I ask because I don’t know: Does The Tribune Company own Wrigley Field too, or does it lease it from some other company? I think the Cubs acquired it way back when the Federal League folded in 1915 or so, but does the team still own title to it?
Good question, and I’ve often wondered about it myself. Some teams do benefit from winning–the Chicago White Sox, for example. They were able to significantly increase their attendance and ticket prices after winning a championship. Only teams like the Red Sox and Cubs, which begin from such a high base, have little left to gain.
Also, while the Cubs don’t have to win to make money, they can’t be completely awful–if they suffered a run like the Milwaukee Brewers or Kansas City Royals, people would lose interest. (At least, I think they would.) So they have to spend at least enough to be mediocre, and then it doesn’t seem like that much more to sign that one extra player whom they always think (delusionally) will put them over the top.
Yes, the Tribune owns the park. There is some speculation that the new owners will sell the team and the park separately. I’m not sure I see the business logic of that, but I don’t have $600 million, so I guess it doesn’t matter.
Seems like no-brainer to not split the two items, can’t come up with a scenario where either would gain value that way. A more interesting question is what will happen with WGN. Seems like if it were bundled with the team and stadium the asking price could push upwards of $1 Billion. Not sure what value the station would have if they had the prospect of losing the Cubs broadcasts.