The Chicago Tribune reported today that the Cubs are working on amending their plan to secure state aid for Wrigley Field renovations. Here is a link to this short article...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1228-around-town--20101227,0,6701863.column
The article mentions that the new plan would have the Cubs matching their 2009 tax payments to the city, 16 million, and keep any tax revenue above this figure for park improvements. While many Illinois residents have a hard time with the Cubs receiving state aid to improve the ballpark, I for one have no problem with it. I agree with the Ricketts family that Wrigley field, being one of the largest tourist attractions in the state, is a cash cow for the city. Renovations and park improvements, including the proposed triangle building, would create jobs and additional tax revenue. These are the types of projects that stimulate city and state economies. Here are a few more thoughts on Wrigley renovations and the Wrigley community:
I have no problem with the Cubs renovating the park, as long as they do not raise the level of the upper deck. In my opinion, the position of the upper deck, which hangs close to the field (only one row of suites) is what helps give Wrigley Field it's charm. I would not have a problem with the park adding additional rows to the upper deck, but adding another layer of skyboxes for corporate America is something I am not in favor of. If you have seen a game at US Cellular Field or the United Center, you know what I'm talking about.
I am in favor of new large and state of the art clubhouses underground, including better batting cage facilities for the players. I would agree that players do get coddled at the pro level, but in order to stay competitive, why not give Cubs player all the benefits other teams have. I'm OK with Wrigley bathrooms, in fact, I'm fine the way they are. Women may disagree with this, but I think the men's bathrooms are fine. I like the trough idea, as it gets more bodies into the bathrooms. The small amount of upgrading that was done last year is fine with me.
Advertising is a sticky subject with many people, but I have had no problem with anything the Cubs have done. This includes the Under Armour advertisements and the Toyota sign in left field. I think the Cubs have handled this with class and have kept the integrity of Wrigley Field in place. I'm in favor of creating ways to generate revenue even if it includes minor changes to the ballpark. As long as the Cubs act like a big market team with a payroll in the top 5 of baseball, I can live with these changes.
Many say that MLB owners are great at crying poor and actually earn a lot more in revenue than the general public is aware of. That may be the case, but as long as the payroll is in proportion with the market you play in, it's hard to argue with what teams like the Cubs are doing to generate revenue. Yes, when the Ricketts bought the Cubs they were aware they would have to renovate Wrigley Field, but believe me, it was never in the plan to pay for it out of their own pockets. They already have a huge payroll, so renovating the park is going to take some creativity, and some "thinking outside the box." Many state/city projects are busts from the get go, here is a project that includes a thriving fan base and community that will create jobs not just now but in the future. To me, it's a no brainer to ask for state aid, and I hope that politicians can work past their differences to do a good thing for the City of Chicago.
One final thought. For all the Wrigleyville residents who complain every time the Cubs want to add a night game, an advertisement or more seats, please don't forget what this team has done for your community. There was a time, not to long ago, when Wrigleyville was not such a pleasant place to live. Business in this neighborhood is booming and living there is safe, thanks in part to the Cubs. If you don't want to live in an area that is congested 81 times per year, then by all means move. There are many wonderful communities in Chicago that don't have this issue. I once lived in Wrigleyville, Kenmore and Belmont, and still don't understand much of the heartburn some residents have with the Cubs. I understand it's good to have a group of residents watching the Cubs and making sure they don't go overboard, but it is beyond me why they have to contest almost every proposal the Cubs make.
Maybe some of you disagree with some of my thoughts, or have a different view. If so, then by all means post a comment. I look forward to hearing from you.
For me, the primary argument is how the money is moved around. I'm no economic or financial expert, but if the Cubs are draining from a fund that is used in part to subsidize programs at my wife's non-profit workplace, then I will take issue if those programs experience a delay in receiving those funds. (For the record, some of those programs have been hanging on by a thread in the last couple of years thanks to the "wonderful" economic climate in this state.)
ReplyDeleteAs far as the bells and whistles of the ballpark and surrounding property, I'm to the point in my life (40 years of age) that I don't care if the Cubs win while at Wrigley Field. A championship supercedes everything else. If they had to play at the Cell for an entire year while renovations were completed at Wrigley, but they won the World Series, then it won't bother me a bit. (Honestly, I'll settle for a pennant. Beating the league in which you play is impressive enough. I'm old school like that.)
Now, I will say that I'm not a fan of Wrigley in the context that it's a rudimentary yard. There's nothing wrong with tradition, sentiment and romance, but those dynamics aren't resulting in any rings. And that's the bottom line.
I find it amusing that people that live in Wrigleyville complain. Just like employment, choice of residence is an at-will arrangement. Either embrace it or detach yourself from the situation. Griping is not the solution.
Here is how it was the tax funding was explained in an article:
ReplyDelete"The team's new ownership suggested using the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, the state agency that owns the ballpark the White Sox call home, to borrow about $250 million. Under the plan, the loan would be repaid by using growth in the 12 percent amusement tax levied on tickets at Wrigley for at least 35 years."
So, to put it my own way, the Cubs would take out a loan from the Ill Sports Facilities Authority for 200 million. Then, the ticket tax ON CUBS TICKETS would be used to pay that loan back. So basically, the tax payer would be paying himself back for the 200 million dollar loan. In essence, if it was just a tax on Cubs tickets, that would make it only Cubs fan tax payers paying the loan back? So you could say that Cubs fan tax payers -- season ticket holders like UDMike -- would be shouldering the burden? If that is the case, I think that makes sense. However, do I have this right? None of the media coverage makes this easily understandable to me...let me know if I have this right UD Mike.
I feel there is something to be said for the Rickets paying for this themselves, though. They are going to jack prices on tickets and they have the money to do it. They could take out their own loan and pay it back by getting creative with perhaps the advertising. I for one don't care if the enttire stadium was blanketed with ads. I look at oldtime pictures of stadiums and I love the massive ad look. See:
http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/old-green-monster.jpg
I LOVE THAT LOOK!
I do have to say it seems ridiculous that a family that bought the team can't put up the 200K for renovations and then have THEMSELVES paid back by the ticket sales tax. Why do they need the loan from the state? Couldn't they put up the money and have themselves paid back?
Honestly, I don't really understand the finances of this so please clarify if you can.
Thanks Rob Bolton-
ReplyDeleteI agree that existing non-profits and other social programs should not be cut. I am also no financial expert, but I'm hoping the Cubs can get some kind of aid without affecting programs that people need. I'm not sure if this is possible?? But if it is, I'm for it...
LD Norm -
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's realistic for any owner to put up 250 million. What the Cubs want is for the money to be given to them in some form or fashion e.g. taxes(the current idea of keeping everything over the 16 million they paid in 2009) or bonds (this was the first idea). The Cubs would "pay" this back by creating jobs and stimulating the economy in Lakeview. Make no mistake, the Ricketts are not going to put up the money or borrow the money for renovations. They ar looking for a way to work with the city to come up with money. Lets hope it does not come to threats of leaving town (like it did when the Tribune wanted lights).
The field, the neighborhood and the team are all part of the draw, the reason why so many people spend money year after year on a team that is so disappointing. Move the team and the Cubs draw half of what they do now and the Ricketts know that. I think there trying to be very diplomatic about this because when push comes to shove, the Cubs need Wrigleyville more than Chicago needs the Cubs.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think this deal is relatively fair even if I don’t like the idea of the state helping a very successful private enterprise. I think it’s a joke that professional sports teams won’t build or maintain their own facilities without going to the public for money and that’s ever sport all across the country. It’s would be foolish for the Cubs not to try.