I, for one, would like to see The World’s Largest Beer Garden put to rest. The urinals alone are enough to make me puke. The Bleacher Bums can have their homo-erotic “charm.” If for the very least, a move would quell traffic congestion and hopefully lower property values.
The only room in the city, from what I remember, would either be where the current stadium is now (it’s a dump, but it looks structurally sound, didn’t they do repairs off-season last yera?), or way up Lake Shore Drive or in the South Side (if one were to stay in the city); or possibly out in Schaumburg (it’s very highway accessible and it has different routes to the city, plus it’s pretty close). It can take the place of that eye sore Ikea. Then, we’ll see what true Cub fans remain.
[QUOTE=Diceman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You think that’s bad? I remember the Kingdome in Seattle having circular “trench” urinals. So taking a leak in a crowd meant a bunch of guys with their junk pointing right at you.
[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
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
[/QUOTE]
A winning Cubs team (defined as being in the postseason) brings about $4 million to the bottom line to the Tribune Company.
They are nowhere near close to being the most profitable unit of TTC, and their business segment, Broadcasting and Entertainment, is well overshadowed by their publishing segment ($1.5b in revenues against $4.1b in revenues, $436m in operating profit compared to $759m*).
Of these numbers, the Cubs count for, at most, $249m in revenue, $215m in expenses, and $34m in operating profits. For comparisons sake, the LA Times garnered $1.1b in revenues over the same period.
*Of course, profitability ratios are better with B&E.
The reason I say “at most” in the above post is because they lumped the Cubs in with their one radio station, WGN, to create a “Radio and Entertainment” group. And a breakdown of the group by operating units isn’t given. Sorry about that.
[QUOTE=JohnT]
A winning Cubs team (defined as being in the postseason) brings about $4 million to the bottom line to the Tribune Company. Cite.
[/QUOTE]
The question is, will that be enough of a return on investment for what it is going to cost the Cubs’ new owner to buy the club?
Only 30 years ago major league ballclubs were going for approx $10M, more or less. My poor mind boggles at what they go for today.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
The question is, will that be enough of a return on investment for what it is going to cost the Cubs’ new owner to buy the club?
Only 30 years ago major league ballclubs were going for approx $10M, more or less. My poor mind boggles at what they go for today.
[/QUOTE]
So 34 years ago, what is today the most valuable franchise in North America and generally considered #2 in the World was only $8.7 million. It staggers the mind.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
So 34 years ago, what is today the most valuable franchise in North America and generally considered #2 in the World was only $8.7 million. It staggers the mind.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not the most memorable part of that excerpt, though.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
The question is, will that be enough of a return on investment for what it is going to cost the Cubs’ new owner to buy the club?
Only 30 years ago major league ballclubs were going for approx $10M, more or less. My poor mind boggles at what they go for today.
[/QUOTE]
Depends. Many times, the “return on investment” in a sports club is the enjoyment received from owning a sports club which has nothing to do with the bottom line. To quote Orson Welles in Citizen Kane:
“I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in… 60 years.”
[QUOTE=silenus]
If I had a billion or so to spend redoing it, I’d triple the number of women’s restrooms, double the number of men’s, put in an extremely limited number of skyboxes (F*ck the rich. Make them sit with the rest of us plebes if they want to go to the ballgame!)
[/QUOTE]
If you had a billion to spend on a ballpark, you would be part of the rich.
[QUOTE=Omniscient]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t this a good thing for fans of the team? I think one of the big reasons that the Cubs are such losers is that there’s not enough financial incentive to win.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
If you had a billion to spend on a ballpark, you would be part of the rich.
Isn’t this a good thing for fans of the team? I think one of the big reasons that the Cubs are such losers is that there’s not enough financial incentive to win.
Do you really believe fans would really riot?
[/QUOTE]
Being rational and being a Cubs fan have never gone together.
[QUOTE=Omniscient]
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…
[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous. Of course there wouldn’t be rioting.
There would be no boycotts of any significance. New Wrigley would sell more tickets than Wrigley, and not just because it’d have more seats.
The simple truth is that the new stadium would be much nicer and more pleasant to attend a game in, and people would get used to it, just as they got used to night games there.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Just say, “Everybody knows the Cubs will be out of the playoffs by August.” No one will disagree with you, then.
[/QUOTE]
OMG, I have to EAT MY WORDS!!! <lol>
