Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis


This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

September 26, 2011

Should Cubs sell Wrigley to fans in order to save it?

With not much left to focus on in the Chicago Cubs this year other than whether they'll be stuck with Carlos Zambrano for another season, Chicago Tribune columnist Phil Rosenthal tries to solve the lingering Wrigley Field crisis* by making a modest proposal: Sell shares in the beloved ballpark to baseball fans, thus raising money without tapping the public purse:

Separate the ballpark from the team, on paper at least. Set up a foundation. Something. Let the Ricketts family retain control of the subsidiary and sell shares in it to finance the rehab.

Okay, that's a bit hand-wavy. But could something like this actually work?

First, keep in mind that Wrigley Field is current privately owned, so pays property taxes. That would have to be dealt with in any sale — it's one thing to buy a certificate that says you own a brick of Wrigley Field, another to commit to sending checks to the city of Chicago every April 15. (I don't actually know how the tax law would work if the Ricketts family tried to transfer ownership to a foundation, let alone a "something.")

Second, what would the market be for these shares? Yes, the Green Bay Packers are owned by shareholders, but there you're actually getting a park of the team. The most recent example of a team trying to raise funds by selling bits of a stadium was Labatt Park in Montreal, and that wasn't exactly a rousing success.

Rosenthal proposes that buyers could "get to attend annual meetings at the ballpark, private tours, special events and other perks," calling this "free money" for the Cubs. But, of course, if those things have value, then the Cubs could sell them right now — call it a "Cubs Platinum Members Package" — and keep the cash for themselves. That's not something Ricketts is going to jump at, certainly not as long as the possibility of using other people's greenbacks is still on the table.

* Not actually a crisis.


I bought a brick for Labatt Park!

And I would have loved to have been able to buy a share of Yankee Stadium. Oh, well...

The Packers raised $24M by selling shares at $200 a pop, but like you mentioned, the share was for the team, not for the building.

I assume that taxes would be paid for by the team rent, so that's probably not an issue. But if the building were sold in a stock sale, would the fans be willing to pony up *again* the next time that the cubs management decided that they needed hundreds of millions for another stadium renovation. Or what happens if the cubs really do move in the future (perish the thought) and the fans are left with ownership of a building with no tenant?


Posted by D Train on September 26, 2011 10:31 AM

They should declare it a church and then they wouldn't have to pay property taxes.

Posted by Tom on September 26, 2011 11:54 AM

What if White Sox fans buy the majority of the stock and decide to knock it down?

Posted by Brian on September 26, 2011 02:56 PM

Latest News Items