The Rosemont Cubs?

The Cubs don't get all the revenue that tourists generate. That goes to the hotels, restaurants, and the City of Chicago, which charges a 16.4% hotel tax, and the sales tax for a restaurant meal is 9.75%.

You're right that the Rosemont Cubs won't draw the same fans they draw now. But, they could (potentially) draw just as many, and their revenue per fan would undoubtedly be higher.

And, this is part of the draw for Rosemont too. They have a lot of hotel rooms, and restaurants.

 

My mom and sister live down the street from Rosemont. Stay in the city, losers!

 

You can build upward at Wrigley; in fact, they already have. The grandstand is only about 50 years old, you know. It was replaced completely between 1950 and 1971: "every seat, every slab of cement, and much of its supporting steel structure."

Here's a great history of Wrigley's changes in this article (written in spring of 2011, but still relevant here): http://sabr.org/research/wrigley-field-century-survival

And while the Green Monster seats get most of the attention, the most significant and positive changes the Red Sox have made to Fenway Park are unseen by most fans. It's the renovated "working" areas of Fenway Park that make it so viable and profitable for the 21st century. Previous Cubs ownership has refused to make those changes (and the city has refused to pay for them), which is why Fenway is a modernized gem and Wrigley is still a dump.

If the Cubs could figure out a feasible way to rebuild their grandstand again — just blow it up and build a new one, top to bottom, with the same "look" as the current one but with more suites, more amenities (for players, employees and fans) and no more obstructed views — and leave the outfield the same, they'd have a modernized ballpark-slash-revenue source just like most other MLB clubs do. And they'd still get to take advantage of playing in Wrigley Field, with all the positive PR and fans that brings.

 

No one said Cubs get tourist revenue. That wouldn't make any sense.

A couple of years ago, Cubs did some fan research and estimated 37 percent of crowds were from out of state. As a friend who did some of this legwork said, "Everyone I talk to is from Texas." These people come to see Wrigley Field. They weren't there to watch Geovany Soto. They want to tell their friends they went to the Hancock building and a game at Wrigley. A lot of these fans are also in Chicago to see friends, family or for work.

Last year, the Cubs set a MLB record for most fans during a 100-loss season. They also have a very large season ticket base, one of the best in baseball (and most of these STH keep plans because they sell to tourists, casual fans). If they went to Rosemont, it's fair to say they would lose a decent amount of these people, right?

Also, Ricketts just bought the McDonald's property for $20 million, along with investment in a rooftop and a building for their staff. Seems like that would get devalued with a move, right?

Cubs also sell the most beer in baseball. Think young fans are taking a trip to get blasted in Rosemont?

How many MLB teams would move from a stadium where you draw 3 million (That's more than $150 million in ticket revenue, most in team's possession by February) by opening your doors because you can't settle a fairly minor deal about OF signs?

 

On a related note, I've recommended this before, but for anyone interested in the preservation of the old ballparks, you should run (not walk) and pick up Glenn Stout's amazing "Fenway 1912," which won the 2012 SABR Seymour Medal for the best book on baseball history. It's mostly about the construction of Fenway Park, with engineering details no one else had ever discovered before, plus an account of the Red Sox's first season there.

Glenn makes the case that the only reason Fenway Park is still standing today is because the Red Sox have not shared the Cubs' mentality of not making any significant changes to their ballpark. In fact, beginning with Tom Yawkey in 1933, the Red Sox have blown up their ballpark a half-dozen times even though we all think we're seeing the same ballpark that Babe Ruth and Ted Williams and Yaz played in. It's a philosophy the Red Sox have stumbled into, but it's also brilliant. The Cubs haven't been able to do that yet.

 

Also, for people who don't grasp how close this "free land" is to the airport, a Chicago website made a map. http://chicagosidesports.com/quick-hits/why-the-cubs-wont-fly-in-rosemont/

 

I understand the Cubs draw folks from out of state. That percentage of fans will likely go down if they move to Rosemont, but it won't drop to 0%.

If they build a beautiful new stadium, people will want to see it too. Baseball fans love new stadiums.

And, would the Cubs really miss the young fans getting blasted if they replaced them with corporate fans, doing deals, leasing suites and club seats, and spending big bucks on food?

You're also really underestimating the revenue that naming rights, stadium signage, sponsorships, etc. can bring in.

A highway visible marquee alone is worth a fortune. The Tampa Bay Rays sign is one of their most valuable assets.

 

Ever been to Shea Stadium or CitiField?

 

You and your friend make that sound like a bad thing ...

 

The airport thing will only be a factor if the Cubs end up with a losing team after a few years, just as a joke. There used to be chuckles about the planes at Shea, too.

If anything, the Mets should serve as an example where a new stadium isn't always a guarantee of attendance success. Granted, they've had their multiple problems with the Wilpons the last few years. But their attendance already has gone back down to the Shea levels in 03-04, when they weren't very good, and they're only starting their fourth season at the new park. The attendance only went back up the last few years at Shea because they were winning (albeit with sucky finishes in 07-08), and the final season at the old hulk.

Ricketts cannot pull a Loria and promise to build a winning team with the profits. He'll actually have to do it. Otherwise, Rosemont Wrigley may well become a mausoleum.

 

Went to Wrigley late April/early May last year. Froze my patookus off while I pondered: 1) just how dumpy Wrigley really is; and 2) just how annoying the great bulk of the Cubs' 20-something fandom is.

 

Do you think someone would do that again, in modern times not when Shea was planned, on purpose? Isn't Citi/Shea 2 1/2 miles away, not a foul ball from a runway? Isn't that area a little different than a collection of hotels, restaurants and convention centers?