http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-c...p&type=lgns

The Cubs would be wise to build a new stadium, maybe out in the suburbs. They would probably be able to draw in a lot more money with parking, and make the stadium overall less of a s*** hole. Plus, they won't have to worry about the stadium collapsing and killing thousands of people.

The Cubs would be wise to build a new stadium, maybe out in the suburbs. They would probably be able to draw in a lot more money with parking, and make the stadium overall less of a s*** hole. Plus, they won't have to worry about the stadium collapsing and killing thousands of people.

That will never happen... at least not anytime in the near future. The Cubs single greatest asset is the beer garden in the middle of beer town. It's a bar, not a stadium. A place where you can go, watch a game, get drunk, and check out hot scantily clad chicks. I ballpark out in Schaumburg or Arlington Heights turns the home field of the cubs into just another ballpark.

Ricketts may have purchased the Cubs, but John Danks still owns them.

The Cubs would be wise to build a new stadium, maybe out in the suburbs. They would probably be able to draw in a lot more money with parking, and make the stadium overall less of a s*** hole. Plus, they won't have to worry about the stadium collapsing and killing thousands of people.

That would't be wise, that would be business suicide. The Cubs are as successful as they are, in great part, because of Wrigley. The wise thing to do would be to rebuild Wrigley in the same place, and have it be much like the old one in overall appearance (but with improvements obviously to certain areas). Basically, what the Yankees did. They would have one rough season where they'd have to play at The Cell, but, that is a small price to pay for continued financial success.

 

If the Cubs moved to a ball mall in the suburbs, their fan draw would take a serious hit. No way they do that.

 

That would't be wise, that would be business suicide. The Cubs are as successful as they are, in great part, because of Wrigley. The wise thing to do would be to rebuild Wrigley in the same place, and have it be much like the old one in overall appearance (but with improvements obviously to certain areas). Basically, what the Yankees did. They would have one rough season where they'd have to play at The Cell, but, that is a small price to pay for continued financial success.

 

If the Cubs moved to a ball mall in the suburbs, their fan draw would take a serious hit. No way they do that.

This. They could even play at Soldier Field if playing at the Cell is too big a deal. That would probably sell really well given the neatness of it. Plus, you could REALLY pack em in for Cubs/Sox lol.

That would't be wise, that would be business suicide. The Cubs are as successful as they are, in great part, because of Wrigley. The wise thing to do would be to rebuild Wrigley in the same place, and have it be much like the old one in overall appearance (but with improvements obviously to certain areas). Basically, what the Yankees did. They would have one rough season where they'd have to play at The Cell, but, that is a small price to pay for continued financial success.

 

If the Cubs moved to a ball mall in the suburbs, their fan draw would take a serious hit. No way they do that.

I've been saying this for a while. The parking sucks at Wrigley, but deal with it. but the ballpark needs to be gutted. Leave the exterier as it is, but completely re-work the inside.

 

This is a link to a Google Sketch-up Model someone created and I think it is spot on as to what needs to be done.

 

 

They could even play at Soldier Field if playing at the Cell is too big a deal. That would probably sell really well given the neatness of it. Plus, you could REALLY pack em in for Cubs/Sox lol.

As for playing at soldier, it wont happen. That field cant hold a baseball diamond logistically. One of the foul lines will be around 180 ft unless they took out seats which I dont think they would be willing to do. Below is a very rough overlay I did of Wrigley on top of Soldier field....

Edited July 7, 200916 yr by Athomeboy_2000

As for playing at soldier, it wont happen. That field cant hold a baseball diamond logistically. One of the foul lines will be around 180 ft unless they took out seats which I dont think they would be willing to do. Below is a very rough overlay I did of Wrigley on top of Soldier field....

Well, that makes some sense there. Ha.

Ricketts may have purchased the Cubs, but John Danks still owns them.

I like how you think sir.

I've been saying this for a while. The parking sucks at Wrigley, but deal with it. but the ballpark needs to be gutted. Leave the exterier as it is, but completely re-work the inside.

 

This. They already have a little space where the donut shop was. Maybe do a little bridge over Clark and/or Addison for access a la Gate 5 at Comiskey. They definitely need to gut it and start over, though.

 

Talking about it on ESPN 1000 right now.

Edited July 7, 200916 yr by CanOfCorn

Talking about it on ESPN 1000 right now.

What are they saying? I just turned it on, but it'sa at commercial

Well, that makes some sense there. Ha.

For those who are interested, this is how the Dodgers used to play baseball at the LA Coliseum.

 

250' down the left field line with a 42' tall screen/"wall"

 

I believe last year, there was an exhibition game held there:

Edited July 7, 200916 yr by Athomeboy_2000

The Cubs would not be anywhere near the business entity they are today if they played at any stadium other than Wrigley Field and at any location other than Wrigleyville. I would be willing to guess your average crowd of a 40,000 person Wrigley Field sellout includes:

 

10,000 to 15,000 real baseball/Cubs fans

10,000 to 15,000 idiots on bus trips from Iowa/the tourist crowd in general.

15,000 drunken idiots looking for a good time at the world's largest bar.

 

Obviously, the real baseball/Cubs fans would show up at the new place, but the vast majority of the crowd is a bit of a toss up. They will have to rebuild Wrigley eventually, but if they don't just rebuild it in the same spot, they are very stupid.

251 to left would be pitching suicide.

 

What about Toyota Park?

251 to left would be pitching suicide.

 

What about Toyota Park?

 

Soldier field would work better. Toyota Park only has a capacity of 20,000. They'd have to find a way to almost double the capacity. The left field line would be about 230', Left Center at 265', Dead Center -400', Right of Center ~420', Right Field Line 350'

 

Plus, here is the overlay...

 

What are they saying? I just turned it on, but it'sa at commercial

 

Bruce was basically saying that there is no way they do a full re-do of Wrigley. Won't have the money to do that. The best part was Bruce saying, "In some parts of Chicago, it would be condemned, but this is Wrigley Field."

Bruce was basically saying that there is no way they do a full re-do of Wrigley. Won't have the money to do that. The best part was Bruce saying, "In some parts of Chicago, it would be condemned, but this is Wrigley Field."

I think, when you look at what they payed for the franchise, there isn't much money left over to do major work. Ironically, what happened to the Trib. THe trib isnt loosing tons of money, but they aren't making enough to break even AND pay off the loan Zell made to buy Trib Co.

Bruce was basically saying that there is no way they do a full re-do of Wrigley. Won't have the money to do that. The best part was Bruce saying, "In some parts of Chicago, it would be condemned, but this is Wrigley Field."

 

So, they will rebuild Wrigley? You gotta go with the opposite of what Bruce says.

 

Also, lets say the Cubs do rebuild wrigley in the same spot and have to play a year in the cell... wouldn't we make a good profit off of that? Wouldn't the revenue drawn into the stadium when the Cubs play come to JR and the sox? Or at least a portion of it?

 

Or at the very least, you'd think we'd make the cubs at least pay to play there.

Edited July 7, 200916 yr by BearSox

So, they will rebuild Wrigley? You gotta go with the opposite of what Bruce says.

 

Also, lets say the Cubs do rebuild wrigley in the same spot and have to play a year in the cell... wouldn't we make a good profit off of that? Wouldn't the revenue drawn into the stadium when the Cubs play come to JR and the sox? Or at least a portion of it?

 

Or at the very least, you'd think we'd make the cubs at least pay to play there.

Good question. I'd imagine the ISA might get a good chunk of that.

So, they will rebuild Wrigley? You gotta go with the opposite of what Bruce says.

 

Also, lets say the Cubs do rebuild wrigley in the same spot and have to play a year in the cell... wouldn't we make a good profit off of that? Wouldn't the revenue drawn into the stadium when the Cubs play come to JR and the sox? Or at least a portion of it?

 

Or at the very least, you'd think we'd make the cubs at least pay to play there.

 

I think in this case, with the rough negotiations and the fact that the Ricketts almost couldn't buy them, I wouldn't imagine they make enough for a full rebuild. I think Levine said the Cubs made $45 mil last year. And that is probably true since the Trib is publicly owned, they would have to release that. Anyway, that's not even CLOSE to what they would need to rebuild it.

 

I don't think the Sox would make a dime off of the Cubs playing at Comiskey. The ISFA would.

 

I think in this case, with the rough negotiations and the fact that the Ricketts almost couldn't buy them, I wouldn't imagine they make enough for a full rebuild. I think Levine said the Cubs made $45 mil last year. And that is probably true since the Trib is publicly owned, they would have to release that. Anyway, that's not even CLOSE to what they would need to rebuild it.

 

I don't think the Sox would make a dime off of the Cubs playing at Comiskey. The ISFA would.

 

I'm not saying they're gonna do it any time soon, but maybe within the next 10 or so years, when hopefully the economy is better, they've made a lot of money, etc.

I'm curious what the monthly/yearly loan payments are for the Ricketts. That will tell you a lot as to the future of Wrigley. If it's $40 million a year, then a profit of $45 year year means you have $5 million left over. If it's $15-20 million a year, then you can put the balance in the bank and in 5-10 years, you have a nice stash to renovate with.

I'm curious what the monthly/yearly loan payments are for the Ricketts. That will tell you a lot as to the future of Wrigley. If it's $40 million a year, then a profit of $45 year year means you have $5 million left over. If it's $15-20 million a year, then you can put the balance in the bank and in 5-10 years, you have a nice stash to renovate with.

Just answered my own question:

The Ricketts family borrowed $450 million from three major banks: JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citicorp. The rate of the financing will be between 5 and 6 percent annually; that means that the Cubs' new owners must come up with $25-30 million per year just to pay financing on the loan. An impeccable major league source told me that the Cubs netted $45 million in 2008. New revenue sources, including personal seat licensing (PSLs) will be a part of the aggressive way the new owners will look for more cash.

 

Not much wiggle room.

Ricketts may have purchased the Cubs, but John Danks still owns them.

Well played

No way the Cubs play in Soldier, that is an utter fail. Park dimensions are not practical at all for it, stadium views would be bad in most seats, its way too big a ballpark to maintain and control 162 games at (the increased cost would be immense), not to mention the scheduling issues.

 

They would play The Cell (schedules alternate Sox and Cubs at home anyway with only a few exceptions, and The Cell doesn't have other events to cater to), probably also sprinkle in a few games at Milwaukee or maybe even some minor league parks for the novelty of it (Cubs marketing is all about novelty).