Doesn't sound like he wants to run them, if he did, he wouldn't be putting Scoreboards up to block the view.
Really? He's going to put up selective scoreboards to block the views from selective buildings?? Amazing, yet scary too that you think that.He doing that to block the view of the ones who won't sell out to him.
I got that impression from the Chicago Tribune article. They showed proposed positioning of the scoreboard according to the rooftop owners "not playing ball with him."Really? He's going to put up selective scoreboards to block the views from selective buildings?? Amazing, yet scary too that you think that.
Jimbo's right, he's clearly trying to buy up the properties so there will be no one left in the rooftop group to sue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cubs should move to a better area of Chicago and build an updated version of Wrigley .... unfortunately that would probably remove the lake being right there and change the way the game is played due to the air current change.
Here's wondering if there is land close available that could expand the Wrigley villa experience instead of moving elsewhere.
Some of these teams were able to build next door or across the street.
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.
Unless the area has turned for a drastic worse, which I have read no indication that it has, that is still the best location for the Cubs. Chicago when I lived there, was built out already when I lived there back in '97. The only locations now is the suburbs.
I don't know,I was just going by what (I assumed) a "Chicago resident" said. keep in mind,this was before the rooftop clubs came into existence. Before I saw how build up some of those rooftop clubs were,I had always assumed that those buildings were apartment buildings,that people actually lived in them,& that someone just put up bleachers on the roofs of a residential area.$37,000? In the 40s. You could not get rent in that area in the late 90s for less than a $1000 for a STUDIO. I HIGHLY doubt that was the worth of those buildings when the bleachers were being built there.
I don't know,I was just going by what (I assumed) a "Chicago resident" said. keep in mind,this was before the rooftop clubs came into existence. Before I saw how build up some of those rooftop clubs were,I had always assumed that those buildings were apartment buildings,that people actually lived in them,& that someone just put up bleachers on the roofs of a residential area.
Thats what I thought as well.I don't know,I was just going by what (I assumed) a "Chicago resident" said. keep in mind,this was before the rooftop clubs came into existence. Before I saw how build up some of those rooftop clubs were,I had always assumed that those buildings were apartment buildings,that people actually lived in them,& that someone just put up bleachers on the roofs of a residential area.