This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
November 22, 2010
Wrigley battle now about whether it's "tottering"
I don't know if it was intentional or not, but somehow Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts' pledge to keep the team at Wrigley Field has — by way of his demand for $200 million or so in public money for renovations to the place — turned into a raging debate over whether to tear the 96-year-old ballpark down. First you had Reason writer Steve Chapman's argument for razing Wrigley, which also appeared as a Chicago Tribune op-ed; that led to sports blog replies that Wrigley is hardly falling down, and that if you really can't go to a baseball game without super-wide concourses, then you hate baseball. (It's worth noting that, with the Cubs continually drawing high attendance figures despite lousy teams and sky-high ticket prices, most fans don't seem to mind the narrow concourses.)
James Warren of the Chicago News Cooperative, meanwhile — the New York Times-affiliated non-profit that's previously shown itself willing to parrot Ricketts' claims without checking his facts — wrote that Ricketts' problem is that he didn't "grease the political skids better" and credited him with being "too candid by half" in not overtly threatening to leave town if public funding isn't approved. Warren then added insult to injury by saying that he really wishes "cramped, tottering Wrigley should be replaced, just like Yankee Stadium."
Then there's Chicago Tribune sportswriter Paul Sullivan, who counters:
I spend a lot of time at Wrigley from April through September, with an occasional appearance in October, and have been in every nook and cranny of the ballpark.
Yes, it's cramped. Yes, it's antiquated. Yes, the visitors' clubhouse is probably smaller than Tom Ricketts' closet.
But "falling apart"? Hardly.
Again, there's no way of knowing whether Ricketts envisioned all this when he floated his demand for public funding for renovations. But he certainly can't be displeased that the conversation has turned so quickly from whether the Cubs are deserving of public subsidies to whether he'll be shackled to a rusty girder.
Neil;
Again, whether we are talking about Ricketts or Darryl Katz, these are business owners who have only just (2 yrs, in Katz' case) purchased their assets.
If they did not complete due diligence in researching the facilities they play in (and in Ricketts' case, I believe, own), how is that someone else's problem?
If only governments would treat sports franchise buyers the same way they treat consumer goods (or other business) buyers... Instead of providing subsidy, they should be demanding their cut of the transaction cost.
But hey! It's pro sports! War's (slightly) cheaper second cousin... let the (public) red ink flow...
Posted by John Bladen on November 22, 2010 01:53 PM
I can appreciate when a franchise like the Blue Jackets, Devil Rays, or Coyotes announce that without some form of subsidy they'll leave. There are places that just might be better than their current host city.
How could anyone be intimidated by the Cubs threatening to leave? Where is there a better baseball market than Chicago? Where could they go that they'd receive anything close to the support they currently enjoy?
They see the Marlins and their rabid fan base and look on with envy? I'd laugh these clowns out of city hall.
Posted by Andrew T on November 23, 2010 09:20 PM
Excellent point, Andrew.
I wonder what percentage of the Cubs's $850m sale price was for the franchise itself, and what for the market...
I would imagine he's talking about a move out of Wrigleyville, rather than out of Chicago. But still, the value of the Cubs absent their 'neighbourhood' and fanbase is significantly lower than it is in situ.
As the Cubs ramp up the project it will be interesting to see if the media simply allow themselves to be spoonfed the Cub line.
Here in Detroit I still hear people talk about how it was too bad Tiger Stadium had to go but gee, the place was just falling down. Of course, it wasn't but that was the Tigers' line and the press showed a remarkable lack of curiosity on that (and other) issues.
Repeat the "crumbling Wrigley" line often enough and it may become received wisdom.
Posted by Alex Bensky on November 24, 2010 08:50 PM
John,
Here in Edmonton the Oilers are pushing for their downtown arena on the platform that the arena sucks (it sort of does for various reasons) and the area it's in sucks (and that it does; albeit I've heard that it was a decent area BEFORE the arena went in 35 years ago). On those two talking points they have a lot of support from fans who want a better building in a better neighborhood.
What support could the Cubs possibly get for this project?
From everything I can deduce people go to Wrigley to enjoy Wrigley. The fact a bunch of lovable losers are attempting to play baseball is a bonus.
Posted by Andrew T on November 25, 2010 01:16 AM