Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts has finally revealed renderings of what Wrigley Field would look like after his planned $500 million renovation and expansion … sort of:
There’s your 6,000-foot scoreboard in left field, carefully finessed to be less obtrusive by assuming that all the ads flanking it would be in black and white on a pleasant ivy-green background. Also, where it says “Wrigley Field” in nice script over the scoreboard? That would actually be an ad. As would where it says “Wrigley Field” in large neon letters in right field. And the small strip panel below it hyping a series against the Cardinals? Ad. Plus, outside the ballpark, according to the Chicago Tribune:
Advertising would adorn a proposed seven-story hotel at the northwest corner of Clark and Addison streets and six-story retail-office building on the triangular parcel west of the stadium. They would be linked by a walkway over Clark with its own sign.
Nonvideo, or static, ads would top the 91-foot-tall hotel, as well as the clock tower on the office building. A three-panel video screen would be placed on the office building, inside the plaza, where seven obelisks would carry more static ads. Banners featuring team sponsors would hang from the hotel, facing Clark.
Cubs President Crane Kenney called this “a historic restoration” and “not trying to make Wrigley new [but] trying to make Wrigley old.” The Tribune did not record whether he kept a straight face while saying it.
Kenney also tried to downplay the significance of asking the city of Chicago to allow the Cubs to plaster ads over every surface of a city landmark, inside and outside, saying:
“We may only get some use of sidewalks and a lane of street. I’d take the several hundred million dollars [over that]. That’s a very good trade on the mayor’s part…compared to what happens elsewhere.”
I’m not sure exactly where this falls in the stadium playbook: “Sure, we’re asking for a ton of concessions, but we could be asking for even more!” Maybe it should be dubbed the “just be glad I’m not Jeffrey Loria” gambit.
And speaking of the stadium playbook, the Cubs management pulled out some other items from there, too. Kenney asserted that “we have to catch up to our large-market competitors on ballpark revenues” (which, um, right), while Ricketts went for the big guns, declaring this morning that:
“The fact is if we don’t have the ability to generate revenue in our own outfield, then we’ll have to take a look at moving.”
Asked if that’s a threat to move, Mr. Ricketts said, “No threat.”
Funny, if I’d been a reporter in the room, I don’t think my first question would have been whether this was a threat to move, given that 1) on what planet is saying “we’ll have to look at moving if you don’t give us this” not a threat to move? and 2) owners always say they’re not threatening to move even when they are, which is why Joanna Cagan and I coined the term non-threat threat for this way back in the 20th century. I’m thinking I would have gone for something more along the lines of, oh, I don’t know, maybe, “You’re making more money than God right now with a team that hasn’t won anything since the second Teddy Roosevelt administration, thanks to your insanely good location and a ballpark that people come from all over the world to see. And you’re going to move where, exactly?
Sacramento
That has got to be the most laughable threat to move ever. 99% of the Cubs’s cache is Wrigleyville. Everyone already knows that. I would call the shit out of that bluff 10 times out of 10.
If I was a reporter covering that, I would have laughed in Rickett’s face.
So one of my favorite things to do with visitors when they want to see a Cubs’ game is to get off at the Red Line stop at Belmont, then walk up Clark to the stadium, because you can’t even see Wrigley until you are pretty much right at Clark and Addison. You’re just walking up a street (granted one with lots of bars), then suddenly… Stadium. Save for Fenway, there really is little like it because for the most part stadiums in this country are islands in the middle of concrete oceans for parking.
In no way am I implying that my enjoyment of giving people that experience outweighs the Ricketts’ desire to plaster a neighborhood where people live with a half acre of advertising, but really, they want to make more money, but they are also making reasons to avoid Wrigley. I mean reasons beyond the Cubs sucking.
Ack… I should have been more explicit in saying that the hotel with all that outdoor advertising would kill that experience.
And not to sound like some incredibly parochial Costas-esque romantic… Sure put up the hotel, but, as others have pointed out, Wrigley and the area around it are the draw. It’s certainly not winning baseball.
Sasha: You and me both.
I’m surprised Ricketts didn’t invoke the word “Schaumburg”. Yeah, go ahead dipshit. Buy a team, historic building and part of a tv network for $900m. Then move the team out of the city/area with which it has been identified for nearly ten decades.
I double dog dare you.
And be sure and write to let us know how that works out for you…
The truth is (as I’ve said before in this forum), even as a long time Cub fan I actually do think the team has outgrown the area (although the increasing congestion in the area has moved the goal posts in on that a fair bit as well). There are really only two options… go upscale (even more!), take some seats out (again) and make more money off fewer even more well-heeled fans.
Or move away from Wrigleyville.
The first has a chance to improve ROI. The latter might be the better long term bet (once the costs to maintain the historic building have been somehow offloaded to the taxpayer, of course…), but it’s a short term disaster financially.
I just wish Emanuel had the stones to say “Ok, if you want to move out of the stadium you own and are required to maintain under the register, we won’t stop you. Bye”.
Har-dee-har-har, but the reality is that Wrigleyville needs the Cubs a hell of a lot more than the Cubs need Wrigleyville. I can’t fathom them moving even if the scoreboard and ads get quashed, but that are would die a pathetic death if the Cubs left.
That’s not reality, Ben. That’s myth. The people who actually live there don’t need the Cubs. Other than the half dozen building owners who earn $4-7k a day during homestands in summer, and a few (very few, these days) non-Cub controlled businesses in the area, what do you believe the Cubs bring?
Maybe some residents would be upset at losing the $200 they make for having people park on their lawns… but then again, they’d get their lawns back, and not have to put up with drunk fans pissing on their property as they stumble out of the stadium and wander off.
The major issue would be what Chicago decided to do with an empty but “protected” stadium. I’m not so sure they’d consider it historic for long, but that’s a discussion for another day.
If the Cubs moved you could play minor league/college baseball in Wrigley and have day baseball from April to September every day – with multiple teams. It would be bring similar revenue to the neighborhood and less social costs in terms of drinking and congestion. The Cubs don’t bring a lot to the table beyond the ballpark. Lovable loser just becomes loser if you play in a generic park out in the burbs. I hope the Cubs stupidly overplay their hand and move.
Have to give Ricketts a bit of credit for going with the leverage-free threat. Sadly, it’ll probably work. Enough idiots will get apoplectic about the (essentially non-existent) chance that the team might move that the city will give them much of what they want.
You don’t know anything about baseball history if you are crying about ads being “plastered” around a ballpark. Back in the “golden age” cigarette, alcohol, and other ads were plastered on the outfield walls around the league.
Ever see the not so “green monster” in the 40’s?
I’ve seen pictures of all the old ballparks in all eras, believe me. But there’s quite a difference between a three-foot-high “Hit Sign, Win Suit” ad and 6,000 square feet of video (and audio) screens.
Very true Neil. There’s a world of difference between static “permanent” ads and constantly gyrating images on video or ribbon boards. Perhaps it’s just persons of a certain age (ahem), but I have no interest in going to a ballpark to watch television and be dazzled by video boards. I have a great fondness for cheerleaders, but they aren’t, strictly speaking, necessary in baseball.
I can understand the desire for instant replays (particularly in football and hockey), but if the owner is trying to make his ballpark experience better by making it more like staying at home and watching on tv, then I believe he has already failed… and sooner or later his fanbase will realize that.
Sullivan also has stories in the Trib this week on what seems like the certain end of the Cubs on WGN. Doesn’t really surprise me… but unless he plans to shoot Ernie Banks during a pregame ceremony, I can’t think of anything else Ricketts could do to more thoroughly alienate the long term Cub fan.
This is a guy who clearly does not understand the asset he has purchased. He’s not alone in that in the sports world, of course. But that’s where he is.
” Back in the “golden age” cigarette, alcohol, and other ads were plastered on the outfield walls around the league.”
Wrigley never had those ads. Apples & oranges. And if they did, it’s not what the stadium known for in the modern era.
I’m wondering when ballplayers will be coated with advertising like auto and bicycle racers are (and politicians should be [so we can clearly understand their benefactors]).
“experience”, is the current buzz word for “come and spend” and the sports sheep do. When this word wears out, they’ll come up with another one that
will be swallowed hook line and sinker.
“…all that outdoor advertising would kill that experience…”, the sheep will will become conditioned to it as the lobster in the pot does.
“…team has outgrown the area…”, all mallparks in real neighborhoods have overtaken the surroundings. Tail wagging the dog.
“…make more money off fewer even more well-heeled fans…”, to pay the
well-heeled players (500k minimum) before the profit happens .
“…play minor league/college baseball in Wrigley and have day baseball from April to September every day…”, minor league baseball thrives at night, even in a top 5 market not enough would show up on Weekday afternoons. The NY-Penn franchises in NYC schedule almost all night games.
“…”golden age” cigarette, alcohol, and other ads were plastered on the outfield walls around the league…”, when franchises owned their buildings and could do what they wanted with them – not much of that (non-taxpayer payed for mallparks) now. Even in franchise owned mallparks, there is outside interference like those who “landmark” buildings that change is and will be
inevitable.
MLB customers want everything, reserve clause era ticket prices and atmosphere as well as the “modern experience” of watching the product at home at the site. These wants are not compatible.
Player costs will never level off or decrease, so owners will have continue to ramp up ‘da nose and ‘da funk to keep up with the cost of doing business and keep up the (Jerry) Jonses if they want a profit as well.
Ricketts will get what they want and you’ll keep going.
Three-foot-high “Hit Sign, Win Suit”? Really? You’re a disingenuous hack.
Ignore the “ad monster” in Boston and static billboard advertising around the league back in the day. You don’t know baseball history if you are crying about advertising.
I’ve been accused of a lot of things in my life, but not knowing baseball history hasn’t been one of them.
David B., are you calling Neil a ‘hack’ ?? You must be new to the list.
In any event, yes, ballparks have always had advertising, but there is a huge difference between the ads in the Fenway of the 40s you mention, the Fenway of the 90s when the ballpark was under threat of demolition, the Fenway of today, and any arena I’ve ever been in (not counting the Colessum in Rome). Giant flashing or moving ads, be they ribbons around a deck or HD video boards are far more distracting than the ads you cite on the left field Wall at Fenway in any era. In any event, the issue is putting a decent team on the field. Mr. Ricketts could spend his own money to do that if he wished to. Obviously, he does not thus he is taking one out of the playbook re: threatening to move. If he really wanted to protect his most valuable asset, Wrigley Field, he would use his own money to get some players. He doesn’t need to rely on advertising, video or otherwise. The current owners of the Red Sox figured that out and thankfully we still have Fenway (oh, and two World Series championships this decade). And, we can thank Mr. deMause for his tireless research about stadium financing as we fought to save Fenway. We haven’t met, David B., but I would recommend that you not get into a sunflower seed spittin’ match with Neil.
Freakanomics podcast had an episode on advertising in football, particularly whether one day we’d see Premiere English League ad-styles on NFL jerseys one day. The argument against was that it ran the risk of cannibalizing the current ads and devaluing the NFL brand on a whole.
Right now it looks like the Cubs are going to cannibalize a good thing with their field by making it look and act a whole lot like US Cellular Field.
I wonder if the Cubs came up with something that was more in line with old school ads like Neil is talking about but still offers modern convenience whether it would make advertising at a new Wrigley Field even more enticing.
Imagine signs that pay homage to the retro baseball times.
Right now that thing looks like it’s been ripped right from Cowboys Stadium. It obviously doesn’t jive with the environment. Seattle Mariners putting something similar up in their outfield makes sense – it’s a new park with no history minus the 2001 season.
They were going to put ads on the bases at a MLB game for a Spiderman movie. The fans wanted none of it, and the ads did not happen. I will dump baseball in a hot flash if ads are placed on the field, or on players uniforms.
The Seattle Seahawks uniforms already have ads on them for Nike.
I would not go to see a baseball game in an area covered with ads. The commercialism is turning professional sports into a takeoff on the QVC channel, and makes the whole thing seem cheap. I was always happy with the bare bones municipal stadiums, and the only scoreboard I need is one that shows the score, and the information about the game. I don’t want some big television set distracting from the game.
Sports aren’t about the game anymore are they. It is about a bunch of yuppies feeling all special about themselves. Most don’t even watch the game.
It all truly is working out like in some Philip K Dick novel.
It is too bad that Chicago, or the Cubs fans, can not buy the Cubs. That is the only solution to the current destruction of professional sports, ownership by the Municipality, or a regions fans. The type of capitalists that own most sports teams destroy everything that they touch.
JHande: Well, they certainly alter the experience (IMO, in a negative way more often than not). Having said that, the welfare capitalists who purchase sports teams do tend to make vast sums of money, much of which is derived from taxpayer welfare (hence the name).
I think of this in terms of the people who complain that there is too much sex and violence on their television… the fact that something exists is not an inducement to consume it. If we fans were really fed up with the Jerry Jones, Ricketts and Steinbrenners/Wilpons of this world, we wouldn’t spend a dime on their product. We wouldn’t even watch it on tv (pay or FTA).
When the new publicly funded stadia are largely empty (as they are in Miami, Glendale and a few other places), I’ll believe that fans have had enough.
Til then, I guess we just keep eating what they feed us.
There is one problem with the “people get what they deserve” argument, John, which is that when there’s only one game in town (literally), the only choice is between accepting the crap that comes with the modern sports industry, and not watching at all. It’s not like I have the choice of going to see my local noncommercial sports team, like I do with, say, radio stations.
Or maybe a better analogy is politicians: Just because people continue to vote (some of them, anyway) isn’t a sign that they’re not fed up with their elected officials…
For the record, the Seattle Seahawks and all other NFL teams have the Nike Swoosh because Nike produces the uniforms for all NFL teams.
As for the advertising, the advertising you see in the 1930’s-1940’s is because the teams needed the revenue. Nowadays most teams don’t really need that revenue though they still advertise in stadiums today. Back then, the only real sources of revenue the teams had were Radio, tickets, and outdoor billboard space inside the ballpark. Today, there is radio, television, tickets, and merchandising revenue. Most of today’s revenue comes from television.