The Rosemont Cubs?

A very weird sort of "deal" whereby a lot of the details still need to be agreed on and several more approvals given.

 

This story isn't over yet. The details still need to be settled:

 

Sad thing is that if his dad supported Obama this deal would already be done.

 

Interesting question. How much does the value of the Cubs drop if they move out of Wrigley? It would be like moving the Yankees out of The Bronx or the Red Sox out of Fenway.

 

No, it wouldn't. Ricketts has botched this negotiation every step of the way. The city and it's politicians spotted a sucker at the table from day one. They've gotten him to make absurd concessions.

 

A metric shit-ton.

The problem is they don't have any credible alternatives.

Let's imagine for a moment that Wrigley Field wasn't a complete and total cash cow. (But it is. They like to cry poor and point to maintenance costs, but they still drew 2.6 million last year for a piss-poor team with the highest ticket prices in the NL and the highest average concession spending per fan. Not even including the tickets they scalp themselves and the cut they get from the rooftops).

They aren't leaving Chicago for some third-rate market, and MLB wouldn't let them anyway.

They aren't getting an alternative site in the city of Chicago. That'd have just as many hoops to jump through as renovating Wrigley, if not more.

So to have a credible alternative to Wrigley, they need the following:

1) A suburb with enough transportation access and population density to make a new ballpark viable.

2) An actual location for said ballpark.

3) A local government willing to pony up $1 billion in bond issues for the new stadium to be built, because Ricketts doesn't have the cash to build it himself.

They don't have that.

 

Found this interesting.
http://chicagoist.com/2011/07/25/cubs_numbers_confirm_37_percent_of.php

The weird thing is Ricketts needs additional revenue from the stadium in order to make his money back. But it isn't like the Cubs need additional revenue in order to compete. I just don't see tourists making it a point to go see a Cubs game if they aren't at Wrigley, and that's a third of their ticket base.

 

That article links to a 2010 story about Ricketts asking for government money because Wrigley is a tourist destination. Is that still a thing or have they given up on that part?

 

Or even stayed out the election.

 

They've given up. The government just kept saying no and Ricketts finally accepted it.

 

Actually, Rosemont fits all three categories. Well, they might have trouble with No. 3. This Moody's report from last year reported the village was highly leveraged. It's got $383 million in outstanding bonds, which sounds ridiculous for a town of 5,000 people, although its location by O'Hare doesn't make it just any town of 5,000.

http://www.moodys.com/research/MOODYS-ASSIGNS-Aa3-RATING-TO-THE-VILLAGE-OF-ROSEMONTS-IL--PR_240854

But by going this far, I think Ricketts has made it clear he's staying at Wrigley, whatever happens.

 

No. 3 is the hard one.

Not to mention the Rosemont location would be brutal for a ballpark. The plane noise alone would be disqualifying.