Comments on: Quote of the Day: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on the Wrigley Field renovation plans

By: tslaw007

tslaw007 — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:23:08 +0000

Is Reinsdorf not a Billionaire? Why was no one bitching about taxpayer dollars for an irrelevant ballpark? I’m definitely a glutton for punishment because I continue read and respond to idiotic comments. It’s not like Ricketts went into his bank and whipped out 800 million for the cubs. He had investors and numerous loans.

By: tslaw007

tslaw007 — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:16:09 +0000

Apparently you forgot that Rahm committed millions of tax payers dollars to cellular field. Wrigley is one of the top tourist attractions in the city and brings people from all over the US thus bringing in money to the area. The cell can’t even average 30,000 fans during a World Series year. I know a lot of you are sensitive and won’t admit this but the cubs were on there way to getting those tax dollars until Ricketts Sr. Pissed off a certain Obama worshiper…….

By: gloccamorra

gloccamorra — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:46:36 +0000

If you ask a cabbie to take you to Sears Tower, will he know where to go? There’s a reason nobody tried to rename the Chrysler Building or Rockefeller Center, and the Yankees and Red Sox never renamed their ballparks – and why Wrigley is still Wrigley.

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:37:33 +0000

I have a lot to say of course, but I’m going to take puff and pass instead.

By: stlouis1baseball

stlouis1baseball — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:02:56 +0000

Great point about “Non-Chicagoans” not knowing a thing about his tenure as mayor.
Most don’t. But living about (2 1/2 – 3) hours southeast of Chicago I happen to follow the goings on in Chicago far more than I want to. I know guns are “terrible.”
Subsequent bans were/are incredibly important to stop the senseless killings.
Yet…people are literaly dropping like the flies that hang around Rham and his cronies.
Speaking of Rahm specifically…all we have to base our opinons on is his track record.
Which happens to be horrible. That’s about all I know. All wrong I am sure. Way off base I am sure. Nothing to see here.
But I still love you Bravo. We are in their like swimwear.
Now…puff…puff…give.

By: tadthebad

tadthebad — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:17:47 +0000

OK, thank you. Given the value of stock I’m skeptical that the whole thing was a success despite the income tax revenue you reference. Not looking to further the argument, just not convinced it’s that simple.

By: paepae805

paepae805 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:13:42 +0000

Chicago is the arm pit of the midwest.

By: 18thstreet

18thstreet — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:13:17 +0000

given that the US still owns, like, 40 percent of the stock, we won’t know for years if we turned a profit on it.

Then again, the income tax revenues from all those people who didn’t lose their jobs — at GM and its suppliers — probably easily makes up whatever “loss” the government may have taken (or will take) over a shorter budget window.

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:10:14 +0000

The Sears Tower was renamed in 2009. Iconicly.

By: jarathen

jarathen — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:12:21 +0000

Thus displacing the Explorers. Cedar Falls & Waterloo only have a summer college thing going on; let the Cubs move there. Or maybe Dubuque.

By: skids003

skids003 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:26:36 +0000

He is saving all that big money the city has to give to his voters, since none of them are working right now.

By: tadthebad

tadthebad — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:53:48 +0000

Did GM pay everything back? Did the US profit or take a loss?

By: tjg25

tjg25 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:08:47 +0000

Don’t celebrate Rahm. I promise you he’ll end up finding a way to give them cash.

By: cur68

cur68 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:46:58 +0000

Barry’s Dad, this comment of yours is particularly incoherent. To whom is it being addressed and what does it have to do with tax dollars NOT going to subsidize baseball stadiums owned by really rich guys? Please stop smoking crack.

By: jason1214

jason1214 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:26:23 +0000

This is hilarious…Emanuel tells the Cubs to stuff it….other major cities get bent over a barrell. I’m a Cubs fan, but good for Emanuel and Chicago.

By: cubfan531

cubfan531 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:04:33 +0000

Which would be a valid point, if it weren’t for the fact that the Cubs have a totally privately funded stadium, yet are subject to an entertainment tax (as to play off things like the United Center and Chicago’s other MLB ballpark), and ridiculous restrictions. Since the Cubs have to have their fans pay said entertainment tax, I don’t really hold a problem with them asking for some of all those years of revenue back for the one place that is only passed by the Sears Tower as the icon of Chicago.

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:28:44 +0000

You mean the way people did not understand the appeal of Tiger Stadium, Comiskey Park, and original Yankee Stadium? No, we are not talking about a cookie cutter/cement donut out of the seventies. What we are talking about is a very historic, quaint, charming, iconic, hallowed impediment to the Cubs competing financially with all but 2 other teams. Only the A’s and Rays may have stadiums that are more of an albatross than Wrigley. Fenway has been renovated, but not Wrigley. This quote emphasizes that tax $ are not coming. So it all comes down to this offer of owner funded renovation, with strings. Strings that can be rejected in part or in whole. I do not think the Ricketts bought a historical trust, they bought an MLB franchise..with the idea that they might be able to increase the value of their investment.

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:17:04 +0000

Exactly what I am getting at. The last time I checked Baseball is a business.. unless you are naive enough to believe that Loria is the only profit grubbing owner there is. There are big $ on the line here. Not just the 300 million the owners are offering to put into a 100 year old stadium. Are you so certain the Ricketts care about the Wrigley faithful more than they care about increasing the value of their investment? The point is it is VERY possible that they have gauged the political climate knowing that neither tax payer funding option or self funding with strings might work. So now they can always say that they offered to renovate the cities land mark but shucks they said no. ‘Now if we want to be able to be competitive and give our fans a winning tradition we have to look elsewhere for a venue’. Voila, drawings for a modern stadium, capacity 45,000 with luxury boxes, a parking lot, still near to mass transit and with great player amenties magically appear. Not a certanty but not unforseeable.

By: jashton11

jashton11 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:01:06 +0000

That quote is totally unbelievable. There’s no way Rahm said “No” that many times without an F-bomb preceding at least one of them.

By: 18thstreet

18thstreet — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:54:43 +0000

Really? We’re going to litigate this? Here? Fine.

The bailout of GM worked exactly as intended. The company was saved, the jobs were saved, and GM paid us back. I was opposed to the bailout; I was sure it wouldn’t work. I was wrong. It did work. GM was saved and then they paid us back.

Go complain about Solydrea, or whatever the f@#! is on the cover of Breitbart.com now.

By: seitz26

seitz26 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:47:36 +0000

I’m not sure people realize just how much the appeal of the Cubs in Chicago is directly tied to Wrigley field. Sure there are plenty of die hards who will move with the team. But this isn’t a team moving out of a dump like Three Rivers, or Riverfront. Fans aren’t clamoring for a new ballpark. Wrigley may be a dump, but that’s what many people find charming about it. That and neighborhood it’s located in, which can’t simply be re-created in a new location.

By: kinggw

kinggw — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:45:46 +0000

Im not sure I understand what you’re getting at. I don’t see how the Ricketts could avoid dealing with Emanuel if they want to stay in the city of Chicago. Furthermore, I don’t think the threat of a new ballpark would go over well with the Wrigley faithful. Its one thing to propose renovations that update the park and keep it viable, its another to suggest leaving and getting a new one because you didn’t get the concessions you wanted. Kudos to Emanuel for making the Billionaires use their own coin.

By: tmohr

tmohr — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:25:03 +0000

Given our mayor’s usual colorful language, I assume all f-bombs were struck from the original quote?

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:23:24 +0000

Overall I think Rahm is just being used here. He is probably figuring that his “political capital” is best spent protecting the status quo in the Wrigleyville area. The Ricketts are probably counting on that. They probably already have been looking for places to put the new Cubs ball park. Once he goes on record as not being in favor of giving the Ricketts the concessions they have asked for, the dietarily challenged lady will finish her song, and Wrigley field will pass into history. You will notice he is not quoted on that just yet, just tax dollars being used,

By: schlom

schlom — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:20:50 +0000

Although it’s possible that Rahm is just holding out for more.

By: seitz26

seitz26 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:18 +0000

But in many cases, the city has an incentive to buy in to at least have some say over how things are done. Chicago doesn’t need to buy in for that purpose, so what the incentive for the city to give money to people who already have more than enough to make the changes they want to make? The City of Chicago already has all of the leverage it needs. And it can be reasonably certain that any threat to move out of Wrigley is a pretty empty one.

Not to mention that many of the things the Ricketts’ are planning would tend to kill a lot of what people (not necessarily myself) find charming about Wrigley. Full disclosure, I live about a 10 minute walk from Wrigley, but am not a Cubs (or Sox) fan, so as far as I’m concerned they can do whatever they want to the stadium. I’d just prefer not to see city money go towards it.

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:05:38 +0000

I love how non-Chicagoans have such strong opinions on the man yet know nothing about his tenure as Mayor here.

By: uwsptke

uwsptke — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:55:12 +0000

You can’t move a team to Iowa, then Minnesota will want one too.

By: stlouis1baseball

stlouis1baseball — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:50:42 +0000

Yes Bravo. We can believe everything ole’ Rahm says. Dude is 100% honest.

By: mungman69

mungman69 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:48:01 +0000

Just say no.