1/22 Wrigley Field and the rooftops

The Cubs are taking steps to install an advertising sign in right field at Wrigley Field this year despite opposition from rooftop owners. According to a story Wednesday, the Cubs will apply for a city permit to install a 650-square foot see-through sign in right field at the 100-year-old ballpark. The Chicago City Council had authorized such a sign last year. The Cubs made the decision to seek the permit after a negotiating session with rooftop owners on Tuesday ended without a resolution, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

“We have worked hard to reach a resolution with our rooftop partners which would have helped preserve their views, including reducing the number, size and location of signs,” said Julian Green, vice president, communications and community affairs, in a statement on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, they opted [Tuesday] to reject the proposal and file this lawsuit.

“Since our approvals last year, we have been anxious to get the Wrigley Field renovation started,” Green said. “[Tuesday’s] action will certainly force additional delays to our project.”

The rooftop owners have filed a defamation lawsuit against stadium financing consultant Marc Ganis, who once advised the Cubs’ prior owner, the Tribune Co. In the suit, rooftop owners accused Ganis of making false and defamatory statements, including urging Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to remove the rooftop roadblock and side with the Cubs.

The Cubs were named in the lawsuit as “respondents in discovery.” According to the Sun-Times, Cubs officials felt the suit signaled the rooftop owners’ intention to take further legal action to block two outfield signs proposed for the ballpark. The Cubs’ $500 million renovation plans also included a video scoreboard in left field. The team has not filed a permit for that signage.

The City Council authorized the renovation plan last summer but last weekend at the Cubs Convention, president of business operations Crane Kenney said the team would not begin the project until rooftop owners agreed not to sue to block the signage.

The rooftop owners share 17 percent of their revenues with the Cubs, who are trying to increase their revenues by installing the signs. The Cubs met with the rooftop owners last week, and reportedly explored the option of reducing the team’s share of the rooftop revenues or buying them out.

— Carrie Muskat


While it may be a unique situation for rooftop owners to have come to an agreement with Cub owners to place viewing stands on their rooftops and receive a percentage of profits for maintaining this homey but ridiculous way to watch a ballgame, let me be the first to warn them,(roof toppers)that a continued obstruction to the Rickett’s family attempts to modernize and update a stadium that needs it for the health and safety of stadium attendees, you will lose. I’m no legal expert, but I can see a situation where any owner confronted with this situation; that he cannot control his own investment for the betterment of the fans, then the “roof-topper’s” might force a condition that benefits only ownership and leaves the city without a NL team. If you don’t think it can happen, think O’Malley & Stoneham. And if you’re too young to know the names, I suggest you look them up. I wouldn’t want to be a rooftop owner that started the fuse that could make that happen. Think about it.

One thing is for sure those roof top seats won’t be worth the amount of money that it will take to haul them away, once this contract is up. Have they not heard of not biting the hand that feeds you? You roof toppers are not very bright!!

One more thing, FRONT OFFICE, think out side the box, put a smaller version of the video board to the outside of the ball park, in left and right field, and work with the not so bright roof toppers. This will enhance their product, and the surround areas. More ways to advertise, replays for the stands across the street…..
You get the idea.

Time to let Clark go after the Roof Top trouble makers and break their knee caps with a Louisville Slugger to make them change their minds.

Now what is wrong with that?.

Pingback: MLB.com PRO Blogs of the Day « MLB.com Blogs Central

seriously its time to sit down with some of the surrounding areas and talk out a deal….. this is ridiculous … I am all for moving if the RTO continue to slow the renovation and rebuilding of a franchise. WRigleyville is fine and dandy but it could be more profitable and better in a different location… with access to better transportation… what if the club rebuilt somehwer else and built the bars, hotel, parking, etc… then the Cubs could get a cut of the profits…. its all about the revenue!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: