So, they're saying that any prospective buyer can make up to $ 400 M by selling one of the most historic names in baseball.

It's a shame owners can't try to put the good of the game over the profit line. You don't have to drain every penny out of a place. Isn't there an owner who just wants to lounge in right field and not care as much about the money?

Serious question: What did poor Chicago ever do to deserve the likes of Sam Zell? Not to mention the Cubs themselves.

Isn't there an owner who just wants to lounge in right field and not care as much about the money?

No. That sort of person will never be wealthy enough to buy a team in the first place.

It's a shame owners can't try to put the good of the game over the profit line. You don't have to drain every penny out of a place. Isn't there an owner who just wants to lounge in right field and not care as much about the money?

Seriously, it's a name for the stadium that no one's going to use. I'm still amazed there are companies out there dumb enough to spend that kind of money on naming rights. What a waste.

I'm still amazed there are companies out there dumb enough to spend that kind of money on naming rights.

Shorting Citigroup when they announced the naming of the Mets park might have been a good move.

Pending his selection as Secretary of the Treasury, Sam Zell is renaming Wrigley Field as Hillary Rodham Clinton Place.

Shorting Citigroup when they announced the naming of the Mets park might have been a good move.

Hell, it may still be.

Seriously, it's a name for the stadium that no one's going to use.

It's a name for the stadium that is likely, for at least the first couple of years, to create great enmity for the corporation that buys the naming rights. Cub fans are going to hate calling it anything other than Wrigley Field, and they're going to hate anyone who tries to make them call it anything other than Wrigley Field.

Here's what's classic... Even if Zell were able to garner that fantastical figure of $20 million annually for 20 years (if some company is dumb enough to do this, what would it say about how they conduct business in general?), take this in...

From the article, Kurt used his Corollary metric for secondary naming rights and came up with the following:

When even a mathematical theory (that accepts Zell’s appraisal price of $20 million per year) suggests that the diminished value of Wrigley Field’s secondary naming-rights deal is a staggering 276 percent, Zell is dead-set on splitting the two core assets and believes someone will pay up hundreds of millions to him…before he turns over control (i.e. the headaches) to the state of Illinois.

Sam Zell has said that he should be able to selling the naming rights to Wrigley for as much as $400 million over $20 years, a deal that would match Citigroup’s deal with the Mets’ new stadium as the largest payout for a naming rights in US pro franchise history.

Even Maury is seeing dollar signs everywhere.

I agree with #4 and the follow-ups. I can see why Zell might want to try to sell naming rights but I just can't see why anybody would want to buy them.

I also don't understand how it would be more profitable to sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field separately, although I'm sure Zell has studied this particular issue more closely than I have. But it seems to me that the value of Wrigley Field is largely tied up in being the home of the Chicago Cubs and the value of the Chicago Cubs is largely tied up in being the baseball team that plays in Wrigley Field. Not that I'm anywhere near being in a position to make such a bid, but I can't see being interested in buying the Cubs without Wrigley Field and I'd be even less interested in buying Wrigley Field without the Cubs.

Oh, well, I guess it's true what they say: the rich aren't like the rest of us.

Even Maury is seeing dollar signs everywhere.

Will Lasik fix this?

But it seems to me that the value of Wrigley Field is largely tied up in being the home of the Chicago Cubs and the value of the Chicago Cubs is largely tied up in being the baseball team that plays in Wrigley Field.

If I were the winning bidder for the Cubs, I would offer to buy Wrigley Field for a little more than whoever bought it happened to pay for it. If that didn't work, I'd start working towards a new stadium.

I would hate to see Wrigley go, but it's in bad enough shape that tons of money would have to be poured into it to keep it viable for 30+ years. Now might very well be the time to build a new stadium.

I also don't understand how it would be more profitable to sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field separately

I think this is related to his cash flow problems. The MLB process is going to hold up a sale of the team but he can move the stadium more quickly.

I think this is related to his cash flow problems. The MLB process is going to hold up a sale of the team but he can move the stadium more quickly.

Also, Zell knows a thing or two about how to sell real estate.

I also don't understand how it would be more profitable to sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field separately, although I'm sure Zell has studied this particular issue more closely than I have. But it seems to me that the value of Wrigley Field is largely tied up in being the home of the Chicago Cubs and the value of the Chicago Cubs is largely tied up in being the baseball team that plays in Wrigley Field. Not that I'm anywhere near being in a position to make such a bid, but I can't see being interested in buying the Cubs without Wrigley Field and I'd be even less interested in buying Wrigley Field without the Cubs.

CONCUR.

If I were the winning bidder for the Cubs, I would offer to buy Wrigley Field for a little more than whoever bought it happened to pay for it. If that didn't work, I'd start working towards a new stadium.

Won't be able to happen. Zell would lock the team into a very tight lease; that would be part of the agreement in the sale of the stadium.

I think this is related to his cash flow problems. The MLB process is going to hold up a sale of the team but he can move the stadium more quickly.

Interesting. Never thought about that before. If so, it's pretty shortsighted. He has to be assuming he'll get more money selling them that way. Like Kiko said, he's done the math, it just doesn't seem right to us.

Interesting. Never thought about that before. If so, it's pretty shortsighted. He has to be assuming he'll get more money selling them that way. Like Kiko said, he's done the math, it just doesn't seem right to us.

It just has to be close...

Selling the park to the state would be ideal from his POV because the state can use other revenue sources (the sales tax proposal) to get more value out of the deal than a private owner who would be restricted to deriving revenues from a lease.

Won't be able to happen. Zell would lock the team into a very tight lease; that would be part of the agreement in the sale of the stadium.

Wouldn't that drive down the value of the Cubs?

Wouldn't that drive down the value of the Cubs?

Yes but if the stadium sale is a cash flow issue he will be happy to make that trade-off.

It's a name for the stadium that is likely, for at least the first couple of years, to create great enmity for the corporation that buys the naming rights. Cub fans are going to hate calling it anything other than Wrigley Field, and they're going to hate anyone who tries to make them call it anything other than Wrigley Field.

And, how is this different than what any other group of fans have gone through? Are Cub fans that special? Are they going to stop going to games? Much ado about nothing.

As long as the Cubs still continue to play in Wrigley, selling the field doesn't hurt the franchise value, while it frees up a ton of cash. It's what I would do and I'm not nearly as big a prick as Zell.

There are a couple of issues with selling to the state:

1) To pay off the construction bonds, rent payments by the new owners and the naming rights deal are supposed to cover the bond payment schedule. The naming rights deal suggested by Zell, as we have noted, is terribly overinflated. If it comes in under $20 million annually, it could impact the bond payment schedule, but that's conjuncture at this point.

2) By decoupling Wrigley from the Cubs, and having the state charge rent to ownership for capital improvements, you have ownership paying for upgrades to a facility that they don't own -- they're paying for increasing the value in an equity they don't own. That's certainly something that will be a negative for new ownership.

All that aside, Zell is certainly looking to garner more revenues by selling the two separately. And, he certainly has a cash flow situation on his hands. With payments due on Tribune, selling Wrigley now will give him some pocket change to address the $13 billion in debt that Tribune is saddled with.

Isn't there an owner who just wants to lounge in right field and not care as much about the money?

No. That sort of person will never be wealthy enough to buy a team in the first place.

Mark Cuban has said he would like to do just that.

Mark Cuban has said he would like to do just that.

Which is why he will never be approved by the Lords of Baseball.

Which is why he will never be approved by the Lords of Baseball.

Of course. I was just refuting the idea that those types of people won't be wealthy enough to buy a team in the first place. There are a few of them out there.

Which is why he will never be approved by the Lords of Baseball.


Maury, don't you think Zell is the kind of guy to pick a public fight with MLB should they reject Cuban in favor of a lower bid? Do you think that would give them pause?

And, how is this different than what any other group of fans have gone through?

How many other stadiums have been renamed after hosting the same team for 70-plus years?

Are they going to stop going to games?

Nobody said they would. It's not about the value of the team; it's about the value of the naming rights.

Maury, don't you think Zell is the kind of guy to pick a public fight with MLB should they reject Cuban in favor of a lower bid? Do you think that would give them pause?

Interesting. That might be where Zell's being a baseball ignoramus comes in handy--he's probably not going to give a rat's arse what Seligula thinks, and won't hesitate to rock the boat to his heart's content if it means increasing the likelihood of his getting the maximum possible profit.

Interesting. That might be where Zell's being a baseball ignoramus comes in handy--he's probably not going to give a rat's arse what Seligula thinks, and won't hesitate to rock the boat to his heart's content if it means increasing the likelihood of his getting the maximum possible profit.

Zell is (or was) a minority owner in the White Sox. That could mean he's friends with Reinsdorf, or at least friendly enough to be a business partner. Bud and Jerry are close, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that Zell's not aiming to piss Bud off. Now, the cash flow situation at the Trib can always become more dire and cause Zell to not care about anyone's feelings, but since Bud can hold up the sale it's another reason for Zell to not piss Bud off (since he'll want the moolah ASAP).

I thought Zell had to divest himself of his White Sox interests when he bought the Trib.

Nobody said they would. It's not about the value of the team; it's about the value of the naming rights.

Naming rights aren't worth much at all. I think every company that pays for them is dumb.

Naming rights aren't worth much at all. I think every company that pays for them is dumb.

I have to agree, but that's just opinion. The best ones, United Center, Delta Center, Arco Arena, are unobtrusive, almost pleasing to the ear, but I for one don't associate the name with the company. Which is the whole point. The ones which overtly advertise the name, like US Cellular Field or Citizens Bank Park or the RCA Dome, are terribly obnoxious, and to the extent they convey the company name to me, it's in a negative way.

Edit:

I guess there are a few exceptions, like Pac Bell Park, Comerica Park, and the Target Center. The company name is obvious, yet unobtrusive. Maybe it's just me, but it was years before i realized that the United Center was named for united Airlines. Same with the Great Western Arena. But American Airlines Arena, or the National Car Rental Center? Yeeech!!

I would hate to see Wrigley go, but it's in bad enough shape that tons of money would have to be poured into it to keep it viable for 30+ years. Now might very well be the time to build a new stadium.

Then put the money into it. An enormous part of the franchise's value is tied up in Wrigley - it's what keeps people coming back.

Staying in Wrigley and upgrading it will be cheaper than a new stadium. Arguably the smartest businessmen in the game are at the Red Sox, and they understood putting money into Fenway was a better investment than building a new park. They took 30 years off the place.

Saying he would sell the two separately is a bargaining ploy. It's "oh you want Wrigley too? Well, then you have to compete against all these other bidders" Chattanooga Choo-Choo all over again but hopefully the Cubs won't get stuck wearing lavendar uniforms.

Zell sells Cubs to Cuban. Wrigley yields to Yahoo! Yards.

Isn't there an owner who just wants to lounge in right field and not care as much about the money?


Sure. Right after there's a player who just wants to lounge in right field and not care as much about the money.