The Rosemont Cubs?

Absolutely correct. Wrigley Field as its own "draw" is a concept that's just one generation old. Who knows what Cubs fans in 25 years will think? Remember, 25 years ago, the Cubs and the city were still fighting about installing lights. How quaint does that seem now? Think they could compete in 2013 if they hadn't done that?

But judging how the new stadiums built 20 or even 15 years ago are holding up now, I would almost guarantee you that a new Cubs stadium (in Rosemont or anywhere else) won't be a draw in 25 years. In fact, they'll probably be talking about replacing it then.

If they renovate Wrigley properly, they could still be using it in 50 years.

 

Like all local government officials with stars in their eyes, you're seriously overestimating the economic impact of a new stadium on a market. Especially a suburban market, in this generation. (The real high-revenue facilities in the 21st century are being built in revitalized downtowns, not the suburbs.)

These promises are made in every city. They almost never pan out. And somehow, it usually ends up costing taxpayers millions or billions of dollars.

See: http://www.fieldofschemes.com

The Cubs' best hope is not to move to the suburbs. It's to revitalize their own historic downtown facility, and retain (or hopefully expand) its value for the next generation and beyond.

 

And they can't do that until Tunney backs off or Rahm backs him off. How best to go about accomplishing that?

 

Tell Daddy to throw some money to the other side to help flip the House in '14? 8)

 

Whatever it takes, I suppose.

 

Or, the better solution: The Ricketts should put up some of their own fortune to help make their own Wrigley renovation plan a reality. Privately built stadium like the Giants did in San Francisco? I bet Tunney and Rahm would stand down for that.

 

Ricketts wants to put up $500 million. Tunney is stonewalling. That's the problem here. It's not a money issue anymore. It's a Tunney issue.

 

Gotcha. I admit I haven't kept up much with the Tunney part of it.

So I guess Rahm needs to get on board and bring a gun to this knife fight. But I bet he's not exactly keen to help out a family whose patriarch just contributed $10M to support Mitt Romney's campaign last fall.

 

As Lyndon Baines Johnson once noted, Buck W, in politics yesterday's chicken shit can be today's chicken salad. If it suits the Mayor's own interests, a little thing like the last election won't get in the way. After all, Obama won. Emanuel can afford to play the gracious victor if he chooses.

 

To be specific, the Cubs want to pay for it themselves, but they want the city to ease up on some of the restrictions on the park in order to offset the costs. So more night games, more signage, etc.

 

Very true that Harry and all those camera shots of hot girls advertised Wrigley as the place to be. Then Sammy made it famous, and then success of 2003 built off that. For several years basically every ticket was sold before the season. The idea of Wrigley being a big party doesn't just cachet, it adds money. Why gamble losing that?

And all the stuff I've read about more money thru night games? Cubs will getting a monster cable deal soon enough. The real money comes from cable fees. And Rahm
has already agreed to push through more night games.

 

The new cable deal isn't coming until 2019.