Jump to content

2014 Cubs Catch-All Thread


cabiness42

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 25, 2014 -> 11:06 AM)
Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 4m

 

OMG. Manny Ramirez to be player-coach at Triple-A Iowa.

 

Dumbest thing I've ever seen. Although a good hitter, but hey, let's sign a former player who cheated through his whole career and have him teach our young players. Good job Theo. Theo is probably nervous about Baez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ May 27, 2014 -> 07:11 PM)
Who cares? Do people really feel sympathy for them, or is it just an anti-Cubs thing?

The Cubs do have a contract with them, and now want to basically change the terms. I don't know any rooftop owners personally, but do know they have spent a lot of money on those places and Ricketts and the Cubs want to basically take their revenue stream almost totally away. Who is going to spend a lot of money if you can only see a small part of the field? If the Cubs didn't have a contract with them, I would have no problem, but the Cubs hold others up to their end of contracts, why shouldn't they have to do the same?

 

And does anyone find it very weird that the Cubs seem to go out of their way trying to act as if Sammy Sosa never existed, yet they hire Manny Ramirez as a player/coach in the minors?

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 28, 2014 -> 12:49 PM)
The Cubs do have a contract with them, and now want to basically change the terms. I don't know any rooftop owners personally, but do know they have spent a lot of money on those places and Ricketts and the Cubs want to basically take their revenue stream almost totally away. Who is going to spend a lot of money if you can only see a small part of the field? If the Cubs didn't have a contract with them, I would have no problem, but the Cubs hold others up to their end of contracts, why shouldn't they have to do the same?

 

And does anyone find it very weird that the Cubs seem to go out of their way trying to act as if Sammy Sosa never existed, yet they hire Manny Ramirez as a player/coach in the minors?

I didn't realize they had that long of a deal ( (2023?). I think they are a tacky eyesore. I wonder what the net would be if they were sued. I.e., new revenue - settlement cost (or damages if not settled).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ May 28, 2014 -> 12:54 PM)
I didn't realize they had that long of a deal ( (2023?). I think they are a tacky eyesore. I wonder what the net would be if they were sued. I.e., new revenue - settlement cost (or damages if not settled).

 

I think the cubs have already determined how much they will lose in litigation and decided it doesn't matter anymore.

 

They do have a contract with the rooftop owners, but those owners made a mint off the cubs with no payback before that contract. Let's not pretend like they agreed on the contract and then decided to sink huge money into them, the investment was already made by the rooftop owners. They just legitimised the relationship before the Cubs upgraded so they could have a say in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 28, 2014 -> 01:21 PM)
I think the cubs have already determined how much they will lose in litigation and decided it doesn't matter anymore.

 

They do have a contract with the rooftop owners, but those owners made a mint off the cubs with no payback before that contract. Let's not pretend like they agreed on the contract and then decided to sink huge money into them, the investment was already made by the rooftop owners. They just legitimised the relationship before the Cubs upgraded so they could have a say in it.

I don't think what happened before the contract applies. The Cubs do have a contract with them now. And yes, they did sink a lot of money into them before they had the contract. But they have also sunk a lot of money into them afterwards. Their revenues are sharply lower than they were 5 or 10 years ago. People used to pay $200 or more per person to go on one of those. Now they have groupons for 1/3 of the price.

 

The contract to me makes all the difference in the world. What they are doing now is obnoxious. The last plans before they decided to go for an all out war only affected 4 or 5 rooftops. The Cubs could have bought them out for less than 2 years of Edwin Jackson, and seemingly all their problems would be gone. Now they just added $75 million to their construction costs. Considering what we are hearing about their lenders pressuring them, in some cases to sell their entire stake in the team, it has to be at least a partial bluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full contract has been released.

 

Lawyers disect portions of it.

 

This seems to be the key to the whole thing:

6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.

 

The Cubs seem to have a pretty solid case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:06 PM)
Well that screws the rooftoppers.

Expansion is not a defined term it appears, as the article mentions, probably leans towards the Cubs, but not a slam dunk.

 

Anyway, rooftop owners are used as a distraction, Cubs have lawsuit budgeted, it's the ridiculous way they financed the team and MLB approved that is going to haunt them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:36 PM)
Expansion is not a defined term it appears, as the article mentions, probably leans towards the Cubs, but not a slam dunk.

 

True, but they've been careful to always use that word when talking about the changes they want. Even in the approval they got from the city last year it uses the word expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:50 PM)
True, but they've been careful to always use that word when talking about the changes they want. Even in the approval they got from the city last year it uses the word expansion.

Well yeah, they have smart attorneys, doesn't mean an arbitrator or court of law have to agree with them (unless rooftop owners had to sign off on those plans, I'm not sure what has beend one, etc..). It's not a capital "E" in the contract, that's the sticking point. It can get bogged down in industry norms, etc. I think it should pass, but rooftop owners can make a legit case that a new jumbo-tron is not an expansion since it really doesn't exist now.

 

Also, a factor will likely be what side drafted the contract.

Edited by SoxFan562004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 29, 2014 -> 06:08 PM)
Well yeah, they have smart attorneys, doesn't mean an arbitrator or court of law have to agree with them (unless rooftop owners had to sign off on those plans, I'm not sure what has beend one, etc..). It's not a capital "E" in the contract, that's the sticking point. It can get bogged down in industry norms, etc. I think it should pass, but rooftop owners can make a legit case that a new jumbo-tron is not an expansion since it really doesn't exist now.

 

Also, a factor will likely be what side drafted the contract.

Isn't it completely fair to say that the only reason the Roofies have any say whatsoever is that the Cubs were previously willing to negotiate this contract? So if the Cubs wrote it in a way to benefit themselves and the Roofies weren't smart enough to have lawyers find loopholes in it, then I can't see why it should matter.

 

The industry norms and everything else would say "the people who do not own the franchise have no legal standing without authorization from the Cubs" as far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...