Skip to content

Cubs still aren’t sure the rooftop owners won’t sue over Wrigley renovations

Sep 6, 2013, 12:31 PM EDT

There was much rejoicing back in April when the Cubs and the city of Chicago reached an agreement about the renovations to Wrigley Field. And there was anticipation that dirt would start to be turned as soon as the season ended at the end of the month. But not so fast:


Of course this uncertainty was also noted in April, as the owners had threatened to sue before the agreement and haven’t made a peep to the contrary since. Still, this is ultimately about money, not some forgone opportunity that is impossible to make right, so the Cubs could just start working and wait for the owners to actually prove they’ve been damaged by all of this somehow.

  1. DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

    I know the rooftop thing has moved way beyond what it was in the 70’s and all, and is now a more formalized agreement, but what exactly could the rooftop owners claim at all? How do they have a say in how Wrigley is configured? Granted, it only takes $24 in filing fees to sue, but presumably they would not with out some sort of case. How could they claim to have any standing in this?

    • Kevin S. - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:45 PM

      That was my thought too, but apparently there is some sort of contractual arrangement between the owners and the team.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM

        But unless the Cubs granted them something in perpetuity (and maybe they did), it seems no different then if the Cubs announced they are ditching Hatfield Hot Dogs to go with Dietz & Watson. Sucks for Hatfield, but oh well.

        I guess there must be something in the contracts

    • hansob - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM

      didn’t the Cubs put up some big sheet one year to blackm… I mean force the rooftop owners to pay them a percentage? So if that contract is in place between the Cubs and the rooftop owners, putting up an obstruction might violate it.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

        I get that – but was it granted forever? Surely they must have written in some sort of out clause…

    • ezthinking - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

      A suit would feel alot like suing your neighbors for closing their blinds while they’re watching pay-per-view

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

        Boy, am I glad you said “pay-per-view” at the end of that sentence.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM

        Well, if it was an adult pay-per-view, I would sue my neighbors for denying me that chance :)

  2. hojo20 - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

    “There was much rejoicing back in April when the Cubs and the city of Chicago reached an agreement ”

    Who was rejoicing? I like Wrigley the way it is.

  3. 1rdd - Sep 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Who cares about the roof top people? After their contract with the Cubs is over, the Cubs should do what’s best for the Cubs. If their view is block, so what? They are just taking something (the Cubs games) and making money out of it without doing anything to deserve it. Then they cry when their gold egg laying goose wants to go away. They are just stealing and trying cover it up.

  4. eatitfanboy - Sep 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

    I don’t know anything about what is in the original agreement between the owners of the rooftop seats and the team, but I am pretty sure it was originally reached to stop the Cubs from suing the rooftop owners for illegally profiting from their product. How that agreement could now prevent the Cubs from improving their stadium seems odd to me. Why would the Cubs agree to something like that?

  5. rcali - Sep 6, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    Very overrated experience.

  6. Carl Hancock - Sep 7, 2013 at 12:54 AM

    The building owners with rooftop views of Wrigley’s should consider themselves lucky they’ve been able to milk it as long as they have. This is like taking your neighbor to court over him canceling his cable TV that you had illegally tapped into. Now I know the Cubs and owners came to some sort of agreement but it couldn’t possibly have been something guaranteed that the organization couldn’t get out of. It wouldn’t have made sense for them to put themselves in that position. But then again, this is the same club that hasn’t won a World Series in how long?

  7. drone501 - Sep 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM

    the cubs should be glad that anyone would want to watch them, even people on rooftops.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2629)
  2. G. Stanton (2535)
  3. D. Span (2428)
  4. Y. Puig (2392)
  5. J. Fernandez (2317)
  1. B. Crawford (2310)
  2. G. Springer (2246)
  3. M. Teixeira (2167)
  4. J. Hamilton (2113)
  5. H. Pence (1985)