Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
a nearby cemetery
Some owners of the famed rooftops across the street where fans watch games have threatened to sue if the renovation does anything to obstruct their view.
Tunney said if the bleachers are expanded within eight years, the agreement requires the Cubs to compensate rooftop owners whose views are obstructed
I moved to Chicago and found a place on West Addison street about a mile from Wrigley. No home games, yet, so it'll be interesting to see what it's like around here come Monday
They said the team would pick up the entire tab to renovate Wrigley
...team chairman Tom Ricketts has said he’d be willing to pay for the entire project if the city would agree to those two moves.
Supposedly the Cubs make about 23 million a year off the rooftop owners and that is 17% of the revenue the rooftop owners make each season.
Meaning the rooftop owners took in ~$135M? That seems like a lot, given that the rooftops don't offer a great view of the field, although I suppose some folks will pay extra to not pee in a trough.
Team to receive portion of rooftop revenue
ESPN.com news services | January 12, 2004
The cost of tradition just got more expensive, at least for the owners of the rooftop grandstands surrounding Wrigley Field.
The Chicago Cubs and owners of the famous building-top seats have come to a 20-year agreement that would require the owners to pay the team millions of dollars each year, the Chicago Tribune reported in Monday's editions.
The owners of 11 buildings will pay the Cubs 17 percent of their gross revenue, which, with approximately 1,700 rooftop seats, could cost owners more than $2 million a year, Alderman Thomas Tunney of the 44th Ward told The Tribune.
The settlement stems from a December 2002 lawsuit brought against the owners by the Cubs after the team's plans to expand the bleacher sections in Wrigley Field failed. The team accused the owners of stealing the team's product, copyright infringement and unjust enrichment at the Cubs' expense.
Owners of two of the buildings have not agreed to the settlement and plan to fight the agreement in court.
The owners and team officials have not yet signed the agreement, and the settlement must receive court approval before it can take effect. That could be as early as this season, The Tribune reported.
"This issue is really between two successful businesses and I'm glad they can reach an agreement out of court," said Tunney, whose ward includes the ballpark.
While the settlement does not affect the team's continuing wish to add about 2,000 bleacher seats at Wrigley, the rooftop owners argue that by taking a cut of the profits from each seat, the Cubs in effect get their expansion, a source familiar with the rooftop owners' side told The Tribune.
"This deal does not mean we are letting down our opposition to an expansion or that it paves the way for an expansion. Our view is, with this agreement, the Cubs have gotten their expansion," the source told the newspaper.
Another source close to negotiations said: "It's an amazing deal for the Cubs. They are just handed $2 million for doing nothing."
Tunney told The Tribune that if the Wrigley bleacher expansion is completed in the next eight years, according to the agreement, the Cubs would have to compensate those rooftop owners whose views were obstructed.
According to the report, lawyers for both sides reached the agreement after 12 hours of negotiations on Friday, which included settlement offers from both the Cubs and rooftop owners.
The owners' first offer was to collectively pay the Cubs $300,000 a year for 50 years, but the Cubs responded with a counteroffer in which the owners would owe the team 20 percent of the annual rooftop revenue over 10 years, the paper reported.
Wrigley rooftops offer to let Cubs sell ads on their buildings
January 25, 2013|By Ameet Sachdev and Hal Dardick | Tribune staff reporters [...]
The owners of the 16 rooftop clubs, who share a portion of their tickets sales with the team, contend the [Cubs' proposed] new signs will put them out of business. [...]
The rooftop owners have a lot to lose. In 2004, the rooftop owners and the Cubs settled a lawsuit by striking a 20-year deal that allowed the clubs to keep operating while paying the team 17 percent of their sales.
The rooftop owners used the security of the agreement to spend millions of dollars renovating their buildings and increasing capacity. Beth Murphy, owner of the Murphy's Bleachers bar and rooftop, said the royalty collectively amounts to $3.5 million to $4 million a year for the Cubs. Overall seasonal revenue for the rooftops appears to be about $23 million.
Huh. That link in 15 worked and is completely different from my recollection, which was that we were talking about a half dozen apartment buildings with some guy in a cubs cap taking cash as you climbed the stairs to your foldout seat too close to the parapet. There was probably a keg with a pump available, too.
What a goofy way to watch a game. Can you even see the ball?
How the heck can those rooftop owners make that kinda dough off a horrid view? Guess it lands under the 'sucker born every day' rule. Over $1.95 million per game paid out by nutbar fans. That is just crazy.
Just did some checking, and those figures are probably right. Three sources at http://www.wrigleyrooftops.com/ - 'Value Dates' are $75-95 per ticket, $160 to $210 per ticket on a Sunday vs the Giants (!!!!). Glurg.
I hate, hate, hate the parking lot.... The neighborhood streets are zoned, so the parking thing makes no sense to me - if no spots, it's a simple 311 call get a city tow out to open one up. It's traffic that blows and all adding a parking lot does is make that worse. The vicinity simply isn't built to get 10k cars in and out quickly.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.5142 seconds, 46 querie(s) executed