Wrigley rooftop owners seek restraining order to halt new Cubs scoreboard

[Jimbo]

Here are the websites of the two rooftop clubs suing the Cubs over the scoreboard blocking their view. This will give you an idea just how sophisticated those rooftop clubs are.
Skybox on Sheffield
http://www.skyboxonsheffield.com/

Lakeview Baseball Club
http://www.lakeviewbaseballclub.com/Menu

From the Skybox on Sheffield link.
The tab that says View ...
Is this from that building, or is it from inside the stadium, it looks like its inside the stadium to me, if not I can see why they want to keep it and fight it, its a great view and you CAN see the action.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

From the Skybox on Sheffield link.
The tab that says View ...
Is this from that building, or is it from inside the stadium, it looks like its inside the stadium to me, if not I can see why they want to keep it and fight it, its a great view and you CAN see the action.

That's from the roof top.

 

[Jimbo]

That's from the roof top.

Thats awesome.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

I'm confused. Isn't his goal of buying those rooftop properties to be able to do whatever renovations he wants, without worry of litigation? If he's successful, blocking the views will essentially shut down the rooftop businesses, but Cubs ownership won't care because they're not buying them to make any revenue from them.

From the paywall blocked article I posted earlier

One outcome that's almost guaranteed is that any rooftop businesses purchased by Ricketts will remain as Ricketts family assets, and thus won't be subject to baseball's revenue-sharing rules.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

It's physically impossible to play baseball in a 'football-only' stadium like Soldier Field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The same could have been said about the Dodgers playing at the L.A. Coliseum(which had very bad outfield dimensions. The left field wall/fence was so close that the 3rd baseman could play it in place of an actual outfielder) when they moved from Brooklyn to L.A.,until Dodger Stadium was built. That's why I prefaced the caveat "temporarily" when it came to the Cubs,until a baseball only stadium could be built. But,now that I know the Cubs owner's long term plans,it looks like he can just wait out the rooftop owners,& eventually add those rooftops that he buys out as additional seating for Wrigley Field. He could even convert the rooftop clubs into additional luxury suites.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

The same could have been said about the Dodgers playing at the L.A. Coliseum(which had very bad outfield dimensions. The left field wall/fence was so close that the 3rd baseman could play it in place of an actual outfielder) when they moved from Brooklyn to L.A.,until Dodger Stadium was built. That's why I prefaced the caveat "temporarily" when it came to the Cubs,until a baseball only stadium could be built. But,now that I know the Cubs owner's long term plans,it looks like he can just wait out the rooftop owners,& eventually add those rooftops that he buys out as additional seating for Wrigley Field. He could even convert the rooftop clubs into additional luxury suites.

You're missing the key point here: Soldier Field is a 'football-only' stadium

Do you really think a MLB game could be played here??

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

You're missing the key point here: Soldier Field is a 'football-only' stadium

Do you really think a MLB game could be played here??

Hopefully we'll never find out. They could try an exhibition game,although it would be a lot of work to temporarily lay down the infield for just one game. I know that the Dodgers have played a game at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum recently & the outfield dimensions were totally out of whack. It would be the same at Soldier Field. Either the right field or left field dimension of the field would be so ridiculously close to the infield that you'd have to put up some sort of netting,maybe higher than the Green Monster at Fenway,to prevent the obviously easy home runs. You'd also end up with 5 infielders & 2 outfielders because of the dimensions. I'm basing this(scenario of playing at Soldier Field) on that game that the Dodgers played recently(2008,when Andruw Jones was still playing for them),minus the netting in left field. Of course,baseball dimensions at Soldier Field(leaving stadium seating as is) could be more whacked out than it was at L.A. Memorial Coliseum. Being the eternal optimist,& being clueless about how fast things get built in Chicago due to bureaucracy & labor unions(& corruption),I'd hope that the Cubs wouldn't have to play at Soldier Field any longer than 3-4 seasons,at the most.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

Cubs Want To 'Transform' Wrigleyville In Addition To Wrigley Field
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015...orm-wrigleyville-in-addition-to-wrigley-field

Sunday's edition of the Tribune contains this long article which basically sums up the team's plans not only for Wrigley Field, but for the surrounding area, which has become known as "Wrigleyville" over the last few decades.

Since the article's behind a paywall and many of you don't have access, I thought I'd summarize the key points for you.

The comments section is worth reading too in this article.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

You're missing the key point here: Soldier Field is a 'football-only' stadium

Do you really think a MLB game could be played here??

Ok,I agree with you that playing baseball at Soldier field is a non-starter & unrealistic. What is intriguing me about this story is Cubs owner Thomas Ricketts' vision not just for the stadium,but for the neighborhood surrounding it. I wonder much he'll be able to accomplish his vision. I also imagine the current owners of businesses around Wrigley Field sees what he sees,& they want their hands in the cookie jar,& they don't want to sell to him their part of the fortune. If he can incorporate the roof top clubs as part of the seating for Wrigley Field(under his control),it would make Wrigley Field truly unique,& a money maker. It could even attract players to want to come to the Cubs & play for them. As crazy as it sounds,I can see this turning the team around eventually on the field & making them a winner. Thomas Ricketts is doing his part to make Wrigley Field relevant for the 21st century,just like the Red Sox have done with Fenway Park.

 

[Jimbo]

Ok,I agree with you that playing baseball at Soldier field is a non-starter & unrealistic. What is intriguing me about this story is Cubs owner Thomas Ricketts' vision not just for the stadium,but for the neighborhood surrounding it. I wonder much he'll be able to accomplish his vision. I also imagine the current owners of businesses around Wrigley Field sees what he sees,& they want their hands in the cookie jar,& they don't want to sell to him their part of the fortune. If he can incorporate the roof top clubs as part of the seating for Wrigley Field(under his control),it would make Wrigley Field truly unique,& a money maker. It could even attract players to want to come to the Cubs & play for them. As crazy as it sounds,I can see this turning the team around eventually on the field & making them a winner. Thomas Ricketts is doing his part to make Wrigley Field relevant for the 21st century,just like the Red Sox have done with Fenway Park.

I don't think players are shying away from the Cubs like they use to anymore.
Once you get a few stars to come, the rest will start to follow, just like they did in Detroit when Pudgy came on board, them Magglio and now it not as difficult as it use to be.
I personally think they are going in the right direction.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

My current opinion about the rooftop owners is that they want the same thing that Ricketts' wants. They want both the stadium & neighborhood renovated,they just want to be part of it too,& not bought out. I figure that they'd totally volunteer to let any signage & scoreboard(Jumbotron) be placed on THEIR property,& let Ricketts get money from it,as long as they get a cut. I think that the one owner(not the two suing to keep the Cubs from putting up the scoreboard to block their view) fighting foreclosure & trying to renegotiate with the bank,is surely doing it because he knows that the Cubs' renovation plan will really rake in the bucks. The rooftop owners want to either be part of the renaissance,or to be very generously bought out,basing the price on how much the properties will be worth after the renovations are complete. The rooftop owners don't want to run the Cubs off,& I think that it would be far more expensive(prohibitive) for the Cubs to build up from scratch,what they are trying to do with Wrigley Field & Wrigleyville.

 

[Kraven]

Sorry, I'm calling bull. If they have a 20 year contract with the Cubs and they've built and invested in a business based on that contract, they have every right to enforce it and protect their livelihoods.

If such a contract does exist... whoever agreed to it on the Cubs side should fired

 

[cosmo_kramer]

A contract clearly does exist. The main sticking point seems to be: does the work planned on the ballpark qualify as 'expansion'...

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/exclusive-look-inside-cubs-rooftop-contract


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

If such a contract does exist... whoever agreed to it on the Cubs side should fired

That contract was signed before Ricketts assumed ownership of the Cubs,& whoever agreed to it is no doubt long gone. When the Chicago Tribune owned the Cubs,all of those buildings that the rooftop clubs are on,at one time were valued about $37,000 each(going by a comment from the comments section of one of the articles I posted on this). If the Tribune had the foresight about the rooftop clubs,they could have bought up ALL of those buildings a long time ago. As it stands,Ricketts has a plan for those rooftop clubs during the renovation he plans,he just wants to own all of those rooftop clubs & run them himself.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

This is a picture from the Lakeview Club

I remember when they played that college football game at Wrigley field & they said that the rooftop clubs(above is a view from the Lakeview Baseball Club,one of the plaintiffs suing the Cubs) couldn't see all of the playing field. Looking at this picture,I see why. They wouldn't be able to see if the right fielder makes a catch at the wall,their view of the field is already partially blocked.
Cubs call lawsuit by rooftop owners 'extraordinary, drastic'
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/02/17/chicago-cubs-wrigley-field-rooftop-lawsuit

“Plaintiffs admit they knew all about a claimed ‘obstruction’ for two years before construction began. They sat and waited, yet now claim emergency,” according to the motion.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

As usual,the best articles to read about this situation comes from the Chicago Tribune(maybe because they formerly owned the Cubs),too bad they are paywall blocked.

 

[Jimbo]

That contract was signed before Ricketts assumed ownership of the Cubs,& whoever agreed to it is no doubt long gone. When the Chicago Tribune owned the Cubs,all of those buildings that the rooftop clubs are on,at one time were valued about $37,000 each(going by a comment from the comments section of one of the articles I posted on this). If the Tribune had the foresight about the rooftop clubs,they could have bought up ALL of those buildings a long time ago. As it stands,Ricketts has a plan for those rooftop clubs during the renovation he plans,he just wants to own all of those rooftop clubs & run them himself.

Doesn't sound like he wants to run them, if he did, he wouldn't be putting Scoreboards up to block the view.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

Doesn't sound like he wants to run them, if he did, he wouldn't be putting Scoreboards up to block the view.

He doing that to block the view of the ones who won't sell out to him.

 

[Jimbo]

He doing that to block the view of the ones who won't sell out to him.

That's really bad ... so the number of scoreboards and placement is not a set thing....
He's deciding by who won't play ball with him ?
You would have hoped the Cubs as a whole would have had a set plan all along, we are going to place 2 scoreboards and that was the plan... not, let's see who we can buy out and place boards in front of those that wont.

IF, that's really the way they decided, that's childish and they deserve to have pissed off neighbors.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

That's really bad ... so the number of scoreboards and placement is not a set thing....
He's deciding by who won't play ball with him ?
You would have hoped the Cubs as a whole would have had a set plan all along, we are going to place 2 scoreboards and that was the plan... not, let's see who we can buy out and place boards in front of those that wont.

IF, that's really the way they decided, that's childish and they deserve to have pissed off neighbors.

I have to agree with you. Apparently,the Cubs owner originally approached the rooftop owners & by conference phone,told them he wanted to buy them out. Those who refused to sell,he threatened to block their view with signage & the scoreboard. Realistically,that stuff could end up on the roofs themselves(providing he gets control) as much as placed on Wrigley Field stadium itself. That's why it's a shame that that Chicago Tribune article that I posted is paywall blocked. It's a LONG read,but it brilliantly explains the whole politics of the Cubs versus the rooftop owners.