March 20, 201313 yr If the cubs move to rosemont can't the city not allow them to use the name Chicago? I think they would be called the Chicago Cubs of Rosemont.
March 20, 201313 yr QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) Heck I wouldn't even be surprised if Rickets set this up to try to gain some leverage against Rahm and the City of Chicago. This was the very first thought I had on the matter as well.
March 21, 201313 yr Author QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 03:54 AM) Something I just thought about: Would this make some fans jump ship to the Sox? According to comments on facebook, yes. FWIW.
March 21, 201313 yr Something I just thought about: Would this make some fans jump ship to the Sox? On the flip side, it would actually make me respect the Cubs a bit. I might even not root against them in the playoffs (assuming they aren't playing the Sox).
March 21, 201313 yr QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 21, 2013 -> 05:27 AM) According to comments on facebook, yes. FWIW. I concur. Between the Urlacher news & the Wrigley scoreboard/Rosemont stuff, my Facebook feed was a mess yesterday.
March 26, 201313 yr QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) If they built a new stadium, would they still call it Wrigley Field? Wrigley II? I'd imagine there's no way on this green earth they're giving up naming rights for free.
March 26, 201313 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) I'd imagine there's no way on this green earth they're giving up naming rights for free. That's just it though. They are getting no compensation for the use of the Wrigley name. I'm sure the Wrigley Co. thinks its great. But how much money could they get some company to give them just for the chance to put their name on the outside of their new stadium?
March 26, 201313 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) I'd imagine there's no way on this green earth they're giving up naming rights for free. If they actually left Wrigley? Hell no. They'd probably get $50 million a year for naming rights to that stadium.
March 26, 201313 yr If I was Ricketts I would rebuild Wrigley(updated, of course) in Rosemont. I would even create Faux rooftops across behind the stadium as an extra FU. 25 acres, do whatever you want. Wrigley Field, do what we tell you. Not a hard choice for me. I would love to see Tunney squirm after getting his bluff called
March 26, 201313 yr QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:32 PM) That's just it though. They are getting no compensation for the use of the Wrigley name. I'm sure the Wrigley Co. thinks its great. But how much money could they get some company to give them just for the chance to put their name on the outside of their new stadium? The Cubs's stadium would be one of the most valuable properties in baseball. US Cellular spends >$3 million a year on the White Sox naming rights. For the Cubs, $5 million a year would not be unreasonable. The naming right alone could be worth $150 million over the lifetime of a stadium.
March 26, 201313 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) The Cubs's stadium would be one of the most valuable properties in baseball. US Cellular spends >$3 million a year on the White Sox naming rights. For the Cubs, $5 million a year would not be unreasonable. The naming right alone could be worth $150 million over the lifetime of a stadium. The Sox also got $3 million per over 10 years ago. I'll bet it is way, way higher, all things considered.
March 26, 201313 yr I'd imagine there's no way on this green earth they're giving up naming rights for free. I'm thinking something along the lines of New Wrigley Field at <Corporate Sponsor> Park.
March 29, 201313 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) The Cubs's stadium would be one of the most valuable properties in baseball. US Cellular spends >$3 million a year on the White Sox naming rights. For the Cubs, $5 million a year would not be unreasonable. The naming right alone could be worth $150 million over the lifetime of a stadium.the mets get 20 million a year for s***i field
March 29, 201313 yr QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) If I was Ricketts I would rebuild Wrigley(updated, of course) in Rosemont. I would even create Faux rooftops across behind the stadium as an extra FU. 25 acres, do whatever you want. Wrigley Field, do what we tell you. Not a hard choice for me. I would love to see Tunney squirm after getting his bluff called the new stadium in mesa has rooftops. it can be done.
March 30, 201313 yr Anyone who thinks the cubs wouldn't survive outside of wrigley is delusional. Their massive fan base would easily support them in a new stadium. They'd draw so much more people from the northern suburbs. I'd actually be afraid if they moved. New facilities would do a lot of things for that franchise. Then again the white sox would technically be the only team inside the city then.
March 30, 201313 yr QUOTE (kev211 @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 12:34 AM) Anyone who thinks the cubs wouldn't survive outside of wrigley is delusional. Their massive fan base would easily support them in a new stadium. They'd draw so much more people from the northern suburbs. I'd actually be afraid if they moved. New facilities would do a lot of things for that franchise. Then again the white sox would technically be the only team inside the city then. Agree, would be a short term problem and a huge long term gain. The Yankees aren't the perfect comp because people never got so pissed in the first place, but yeah they're fine.
March 30, 201313 yr QUOTE (kev211 @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 12:34 AM) Anyone who thinks the cubs wouldn't survive outside of wrigley is delusional. Their massive fan base would easily support them in a new stadium. They'd draw so much more people from the northern suburbs. I'd actually be afraid if they moved. New facilities would do a lot of things for that franchise. Then again the white sox would technically be the only team inside the city then. I couldn't disagree more. They may draw better from the northern suburbs, but they'd draw significantly less from the city. Wrigley is one of the biggest parts of the Cubs' allure to casual fans and moving out Wrigley would simply destroy a major portion of their brand. No one is saying the Cubs wouldn't survive, but they'd lose one of their biggest competitive advantages. There is a reason the neighborhood can strong-arm the Cubs, even if the Cubs have less to lose by moving out of Wrigley than the neighborhood does. That's proven by the fact Ricketts is now willing to pay for all the Wrigley renovations. He simply has no leverage, since staying will always be better for him and the Cubs than moving would be (within reason).
March 30, 201313 yr QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 12:42 AM) Agree, would be a short term problem and a huge long term gain. The Yankees aren't the perfect comp because people never got so pissed in the first place, but yeah they're fine. The Yankees are a franchise loved by its fanbase for winning throughout its history, the Cubs are the lovable losers with the cool, old-school stadium and party-like atmosphere. There really is no comparison. If they move away from Wrigley and the surrounding area, they'll need to win consistently to draw fans a high level, just the Sox have to. Sounds like a long-term loss to me.
March 30, 201313 yr QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 12:56 AM) I couldn't disagree more. They may draw better from the northern suburbs, but they'd draw significantly less from the city. Wrigley is one of the biggest parts of the Cubs' allure to casual fans and moving out Wrigley would simply destroy a major portion of their brand. No one is saying the Cubs wouldn't survive, but they'd lose one of their biggest competitive advantages. There is a reason the neighborhood can strong-arm the Cubs, even if the Cubs have less to lose by moving out of Wrigley than the neighborhood does. That's proven by the fact Ricketts is now willing to pay for all the Wrigley renovations. He simply has no leverage, since staying will always be better for him and the Cubs than moving would be (within reason). You're overating the stadium in all this. Even if half the fan base stopped caring after they moved (which they would not) their fan base would still be twice as large as us. The only people they'd lose from the city specifically wrigleyville is the young college crowd that loves to get drunk. Which a family of 5 from Schaumburg would replace nicely. Wrigley field isn't a competative advantage when it comes to the performing on the field. In fact it's a severe disadvantage.
March 30, 201313 yr QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 12:42 AM) Agree, would be a short term problem and a huge long term gain. The Yankees aren't the perfect comp because people never got so pissed in the first place, but yeah they're fine. And the Yankees identity isn't tied up in its stadium. Its tied up in winning. A lot. The Red Sox are a better comp for the Cubs.
March 30, 201313 yr People do overvalue the stadium for the Cubs, moving out or building a new stadium would have no affect on their fan base. I don't know any Cubs fan that has said he would stop going based on their park, most admit it is a dump now if anything.
March 30, 201313 yr QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 08:37 AM) And the Yankees identity isn't tied up in its stadium. Its tied up in winning. A lot. The Red Sox are a better comp for the Cubs. Great comparison, and there's a reason why the Red Sox didn't move out of that ballpark.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.