Skip to content

The rooftop owners don’t sound too intent on fighting the Cubs

May 2, 2013, 2:37 PM EDT

Wrigley Rendering

There is worry that the people who own the buildings outside of Wrigley Field may sue to block the Cubs’ major renovation plans, but maybe that worry is to much.  Paul Sullivan of the Tribune reports that the Cubs met with the rooftop folks today to share their renovation plans, and at least some of them sound pretty optimistic and conciliatory about it all.

It’s all about dough. This is a business relationship, not a philosophical debate. I’d be shocked if it wasn’t resolved in fairly short order. Those rooftop folks have an awful lot to gain by a renovated Wrigley, even if a few of them lose some sightlines.

  1. Francisco (FC) - May 2, 2013 at 2:46 PM

    You know, back in the Old Country I used to live in a place that had a GREAT view of the local Winter Ball professional league team’s stadium. You could see the ENTIRE outfield. Now the infield… by the vagaries of architecture and geometry the stadium’s half roof was angled in a such a way that it almost completely BLOCKED the infield. You could see someone steal second but that’s about it.

  2. randygnyc - May 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    What is there for them to gain if they lose sight lines? People may have renewed interest to see the cubs play but they’ll want to be in the stadium.

    • larryboodry - May 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM

      A few lost sightlines is nothing compared to what they will lose if the Cubs abandon Wrigley in favor of Rosemont.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - May 2, 2013 at 10:36 PM

        It’s already a done deal. The Cubs will announce their move to Rockford any day now. Hey, the Peaches did pretty well there. And the Blackhawks will take over Wrigley as the NHL announces all outdoor games next season in order to make such events unique and special.

  3. redbirdfan81 - May 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM

    The rooftop owners have been making money for years at the expense of the Cubs. This is not right. If a person wants to watch the games, regardless of skill and lack of talent, buy a ticket & get inside like the other 29 teams.

    • mckludge - May 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

      The Cubs take a cut from the rooftop owners, so they don’t mind all that much.

  4. comeonnowguys - May 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    Contract or not, the rooftop owners are in the sidecar and the Cubs are riding the motorcycle. The Cubs can detach the sidecar and keep moving to their new destination. The rooftop owners would be stuck and left behind.

  5. billybawl - May 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

    I’m sure they’ll find a way to monetize the rooftops regardless. Even if it means sticking a bigscreen TV and bar on top.

  6. schlom - May 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM

    I think people are forgetting that the rooftop owners share their revenues with the Cubs. One article I read said the total is around $4m. So unless the Cubs think that the renovations will exceed that amount (which is totally possible) they’ll probably try to keep the relationship going. However obviously the Cubs don’t want to be held hostage on renovations for such a small amount of money.

    • comeonnowguys - May 2, 2013 at 5:37 PM

      Have you seen the signage they have planned? They’ll clear that with just the stuff outside the stadium.

      The only thing that’s not getting sponsored are the uniforms and the actual naming rights to Wrigley Field. You know, outside from it being named Wrigley. :)

      The agreement was signed back when Tribune had all the cards, and the only thing they had to worry about was ruining the “atmosphere,” hence the rooftop owners got a sweetheart of a deal, considering their business model is simply owning a building next to an open air stadium.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2679)
  2. C. Correa (2576)
  3. Y. Puig (2570)
  4. B. Crawford (2457)
  5. G. Springer (2422)
  1. H. Pence (2348)
  2. H. Ramirez (2269)
  3. M. Teixeira (2243)
  4. J. Hamilton (2230)
  5. J. Baez (2204)