Before I knew much about the issue, I had felt that no rooftop owner near Wrigley Field deserves basically free seats to the games, tradition or not. But according to this article, there’s a revenue sharing agreement which I didn’t know about. To me, that changes things completely. If the deal in place allows such businesses to prosper, how can Cubs ownership erect signs and barriers to the rooftops (unless their agreement allows it, which I doubt)? And conversely, even if it may hurt their business, if there is no agreement like management is predicting after 2023, what grounds do the rooftop have to sue? I have heard bits of this story in the past on sports talk radio, but they don’t specify that, when rooftop owners have sued in the past, if there was any agreement in writing at the time.
The agreement between the rooftop owners and the Cubs was signed by the Cubs’ previous ownership group. I believe that is one of the reasons the Ricketts-owned Cubs don’t like the agreement.
I’ve never been to one of the rooftops, but I would be surprised if people can see much of the game (or pay attention to it at all). I like seeing old video of Cubs games, where the rooftops didn’t have massive seating structures on top of them, and it would be a handful of people standing around.
The seats really aren’t that bad. There are a few rooftops with pretty terrible lines of sight, but the one I went to was really nice (rightfield). Add in unlimited food and drink, and it was well worth the price.
Even if they don’t like it, it’s still there, and I don’t think they can just ignore it, can they? I would imagine that they’d have to work out a new agreement, otherwise, legally the rooftop are in the right.
Of course, IANAL, so I’m simply pulling this out of my ass.
It’s politics. It’s billionaires fighting millionaires. It doesn’t have to make sense.
There was a time when the rooftop owners (by extension the building owners and neighbors of the park) were just normal citizens who lived next door to the ballpark and were looking to make a few bucks off that fact. They dealt with a lot of shit because they were there, drunks pissing and littering in their yard, fights, difficulty getting home from work due to traffic, no parking ever, noise and a general sense of chaos all summer. They got into this knowingly since, you know, the park has been there for a fucking century, but they extra coin they made off the rooftops were generally considered a fair trade for the hassle.
The previous owners gradually got more pissed about this as 2 things evolved, 1) the business of sport evolved in a way where teams stopped making the lions share of their revenue off of tickets and beer, and 2) the owners of those properties gradually were bought out by huge investment groups who were exploiting this quaint agreement to make windfall profits while giving nothing back to the team or community.
So, an ugly battle ensued in which corrupt politicians, ignorant voters and a complicit media all got involved into a debate which really had nothing to do with them. The PR got bad and the two sides compromised with this contract they have today. It was a classic compromise that left both sides pissed but tolerating each other.
A side-effect was that the trend of the rooftop owners becoming big, heartless corporations became accelerated. It essentially formalized the “business” aspect of these rooftops and as a result it became far more expensive to do business. No longer could you afford to casually rent out your rooftop when it was convenient. The city inspectors and tax collectors got involved, they had to maintain security and full time staff and legal counsel, the team was getting a cut trimming the margins. This meant that the only way a rooftop could be beneficial was to sell out to a huge company that would essentially convert the structure into a purpose built, full-time bar and events company with massive super structures to squeeze in more people.
This wasn’t what the Cubs signed on for. They weren’t intending to create a full-on competitive marketplace, but that’s what they got. And the new owners had no skin in the game either. The “agreement” as it was was no longer good enough and the economics of big league baseball have changed further making that revenue more valuable than they previously realized. In short the agreement is outdated, hence the legal battle. And now those crooked politicians and sleazy media types are getting back involved.
The stakes have also been compounded by the growth of the neighborhood in general and the big plans of the new owners to expand their businesses and improve the venue for fans. The neighborhood has exploded into a total tourist and entertainment destination with big-time bars and restaurants, all of which goes year round. It’s not just Cubs money any more, its big city tourism money. Also, the owners own a bunch of land around the area and want to build a hotel, parking facilities, a shopping mall and retain center and new facilities for the teams offices and players. Long story short, the neighborhood is on the cusp of a boom. A boom the rooftop investors are on the knife edge of. They could become partners and profit greatly from this expansion, or they could become relics who are overshadowed by year-round activities.
The negotiation for the renovation of the park is the first salvo and it’s really the finger in the dam for the investment in the neighborhood. Once this is settled ground will break on the new facilities next door, probably a huge revenue stream for the team. A few years after that the ground will break on the hotel. The rooftop owners only leverage to make sure they get a spot at the table is to cling to that previous contract, get the public on their side (the voters and the city will have a say on the zoning and permits to build all that stuff) and fight in court. This will take time.
I haven’t been able to find a copy of the revenue sharing contract anywhere online. Without knowing what the Cubs’ legal obligations are in that contract, it’s really hard to tell what the legal ramifications of blocking views will be. Minus an agreement by the Cubs in the contract to not block their view or interfere with their revenue, I don’t see any legal reason the Cubs owe them anything.
And, to be honest, I don’t see any moral reason for them to do so. Fuck the rooftops. They’ve been glomming off the Cubs and the Cubs’ product for years and only recently started paying for it. And fuck the Cubs fans who go to the rooftops because 99% of them aren’t watching the game (like a majority of Cubs fans in Wrigley field itself) from the rooftops, they’re watching it inside next to one of the large screen TV’s. I have no sympathy for the rooftop owners and wouldn’t be bothered if the Cubs put up jumbo screens that blocked everyone’s view.
Beside, Wrigley Field is a dump. God knows it needs renovation.
Without knowing the exact language of the contracts in question it is difficult to say for certain, but very generally speaking when one company (let’s call them The Tribune Co) sells out to new owners (Ricketts), they usually sell the assets, not the shares of stock. There are significant tax benefits to Ricketts to structuring the deal that way. The sale of assets though is usually conditioned on the buyer (Ricketts) agreeing to honor The Tribune Co’s existing contracts, such as the ones they had for ballplayers and even the ones for troublesome neighbors like the rooftop owners (RTOs). Without such an agreement for Ricketts to honor Tribune Co’s contracts with the RTOs, Tribune Co is opening themselves up to breach of contract suits from the RTOs. Tribune Co wants to takes its money and get out, and not have to put up with such suits, so generally speaking the contracts with the RTOs and the ballplayers are the Rickett’s problem now.
Wow, good background, Omniscient. Sounds a lot more complicated than a few guys with bars on their roofs. I imagine no other ballpark has this situation?
My point was that there is nothing outside the contract itself, on which the RTO can sue for. If the contract specifies that the Cubs won’t do anything to improve Wrigley or completely obstruct the view of the RTO’s, then there could be a breach of contract (which the Cubs could drag out for years while the legal fees of the RTO’s get cost prohibited), but barring that, there’s no suit.
While I hear what you’re saying: (1) If Omniscient’s post is correct (and I’d bet it is) the RTOs have enough clout&money that they won’t lose a battle just due to legal costs (2) your statement that in your opinion “there’s no suit” is dubious because we don’t know the language of the RTO contracts and could very well be a successful lawsuit by the RTOs against the Cubs even if it doesn’t include that specific language that you think it needs. YMMV.
Again, until we know how the contract is worded, there’s not much point in speculating.
Outside of seeking enforcement of the Cubs’ contractual obligations, what do you think the RTO’s can sue for? I don’t know of any “you’re not letting us watch your product” or “hey, you can’t build that because it blocks my view of something you own” causes of action. I fully admit to not being well versed in this area of the law, but if you are aware of something outside the contract that the RTO could sue for, by all means, do share.
A bunch of the rooftop buildings have been utterly remodeled from apartment buildings with bleachers on the roof to buildings whose only purpose is to host parties on days coinciding with Cubs games. That’s what drove the original agreement…
Amazingly, there are people who have set up “party houses” in the vicinity of Lambeau Field in Green Bay…no view of the field, just a place to have a nice pre-game/post-game party other than a parking lot. That’s only 10 to 12 weekends of the year (8 regular season home games, usually 2 pre-season and recently a playoff game or two), but apparently the money they can make works out. But now the state wants to tax and treat the party house owners as if they were operating hotels.
Just off the top of my head, there could potentially be an action in promissory estoppel. The RTOs had to pay the Cubs for the right to view the games and sell admission tickets to generate income, the RTOs forseeably expended money for improvements in furtherance of that right, and so that means the Cubs cannot unilaterally cut off that right.
There’s more to it as well. The city holds a lot of cards here and the RTOs and Wrigley neighborhood association have deep pockets and deep ties to the local politicians. Not only can they take the Cubs to court, they can act as a well organized and funded thorn in the side of the team in their attempts to play night games, host concerts, build additional revenue generating facilities etc. All of which require city approval. Wrigley is also a landmark making every renovation a political battle.
The RTOs are by no means little mom and pop shops and I don’t particularly care if they get to view the field or not, but they certainly have leverage even beyond the contract. The Tribune Company was forced into signing that contract after all, they didn’t do it originally out of the goodness of their heart.
I love the Cubs and I love Wrigley. It’s still a comfortable and pleasant place to watch a game, even after 100 years. Some renovations would be nice, nicer bathrooms, better food, no more falling concrete, but it’s by no means a albatross for the team. The rooftops aren’t my cup of tea, they once were nice when they were a cheap alternative, but now they are super expensive and tickets and beer at the ballpark are both comparably priced and give a much better view of the game in a more comfortable seat. That said, I like that there’s so many options in the neighborhood in the summer. Great bars, rooftops, the park etc. Crushing the rooftops would eliminate one option and probably just make the bars more profitable, but it’d be harder to host corporate/big group events.
The way I see it, the Cubs should have just bought all the properties in the 80’s themselves and avoided this whole mess. I view the rooftops as favorable to giant jumbotrons and I want the Cubs to have first class clubhouses and more shopping/food options, but this is out of no sympathy to the RTOs. I just fucking hate jumbotrons and commercials in stadiums, let me enjoy the ivy, beer and organ on a sunny afternoon in relative peace. The RTOs give the Cubs extra revenue without spoiling the old school vibe of the place, I hope a compromise is found but I hope it doesn’t hamstring the Cubs ability to do the other things they have planned. On paper it shouldn’t.
So what happens if the Cubs announce that Wrigley will now be the “Museum of Chicago Baseball” and they’ll start playing their games elsewhere? Would the RTOs have a cause of action then? Is that even remotely a possibility for Cubs’ ownership?
They’ve threatened it, but it’s just a poor bluff. That would be a the new benchmark for cutting off your nose to spite your face. Wrigley is a cash cow, if it weren’t there’d be no one fighting over it.