Cubs Combat Casino

I think the issue is more that the Cubs get money from Budweiser, even if they didn't get money from that particular roof. Budweiser is still an established advertiser. Horseshoe hasn't given the Cubs anything. I'm fairly sure that if Horseshoe wanted to sponsor some between-innings thing or something, the Cubs would have been fine with the roof.

This makes me wish, though, that some random White Sox fan had bought that house and plastered it with Sox logos. Could have been fun.

That would be wonderful.

Part of what turns me off about American Sports is how "maintaining integrity" end of things has taken over any sense of goofy fun. The NFL (no fun league) fines players into bland Brett Favre drones. The MLB is focused on being the caretakers of American's National Pastime (TM) including changing the diapers and washing away the drool of the hoary old thing.

If the Sox did do something like that it would launch a million sports columns about "dirty pool" and how "low will they go".

Sports at this level is just a business, and business isn't all that fun.

If the Sox did what?

Take tax dollars under the threat of flight to build a stadium for a private enterprise? CHECK

Use eminent domain that is supposed to be for the public good to force working class African-Americans out of their homes? CHECK

Idiotically accept their architect's default blueprints (HOK) for an exurban mallpark at the same time HOK's other client, the Orioles, were challenging them to build a classic, New Urbanist park that ultimately transformed baseball architecture? CHECK

Build an exploding scoreboard next to a senior citizens home solely because anchoring the ballpark in a different direction would cause a slightly longer walk from the parking lots to the game? CHECK

Tear down the only longtime bar and semblance of neighborhood ambiance associated with the team (McCuddy's) with ultimately unfulfilled promises to replace it? CHECK

Get around paying rent tied to attendance with wildly successful half-price nights that actually reflect what the market will bear? CHECK

The Cubs are the only professional team in this town that does not play in a park that either took major subsidies from the state and/or city (Sox, Bears) or used eminent domain to attain land for parking lots (Bulls/Blackhawks). They are also one of the few professional sports teams in this country that has a truly viable trickle-down effect financially on its community in the form of associated businesses.

The back story is that a little old lady had been living in that house for years and renting the top of it to Budweiser for I think $100K a year. When she died a couple of years ago, the house sold for well over its market value, even in that neighborhood, to speculators who immediately covered up the ad and forced Budweiser out before increasing the cost of the ad space tenfold. What they didn't count on was that their end product is not entirely in their control and can be easily be obscured.

And somehow the Cubs are in the wrong here? As a Cub fan who would rather the Cubs squeeze more ad dollars out of sponsors instead of tickets so maybe a game or two a year is affordable, I don't see what the problem is.

Despite being a Cub fan, I was part of the group in the 80s that attempted to save Comiskey Park (long story). I know all the shitty things the Sox did back then intimately, and I find it amusing when people try to bash the Cubs. I'm not a bitter Cub fan-in fact, I always thought old Sox Park was a superior place to watch a game than Wrigley.

What annoys me is that from the perspective of both a fan and a taxpayer is that the Cubs are pretty much the model owner in terms of preserving a historic structure, benefiting their community and, unlike pretty much every other pro sports team, not feeding at the public trough, and yet, people still persist in nitpicking their attempts to protect their product and revenue streams because they don't like their fans. I don't like most of the fratboy dopes who go to Wrigley and live in the neighborhood either, but I grew up following the Cubs at a time when the park and the area was entirely different.

P.K. Wrigley was a recluse who knew nothing about baseball and ran the team as an afterthought. He was too lazy to put lights up even though every other park had them by 1948, and the Sox outdrew the Cubs for most of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I mean for chrissakes, they had a bleacher pass gate for team hangers-on and neighborhood guys until the Trib took over. His dad was a sharp baseball guy--he hired Bill Veeck's dad and later Bill Veeck and had both successful teams and good promotions (the first Ladies Day was at Wrigley). But he died in like 1931.
The Trib put a lot of money into both the team and the park but, while the money they put into the park and the brand paid off several times over, they grossly misspent what has been actually been a pretty generous budget for player salaries.

What I want out of the Ricketts is to see the Cubs catch up with the rest of baseball in terms of scouting, stats-based analysis and player development.
Business-wise the whole industry is about alternative revenue streams these days--hence the Chelsea FC racing team and upcoming efforts by the Red Sox in that direction. If the Cubs want to spell out Miracle-Gro in the ivy to enhance revenues I couldn't care less. And yes, I know ticket prices will likely continue to rise but balancing those revenues with other streams isn't really objectionable--it's a sign of smart, hands-on ownership.

Use Firefox with Ad Blocker Plus (both free).

I actually turned my AdBlockPlus OFF for this site, specifically so I could see the American Apparel ads. If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.