CHICAGO - Wrigley Field (41,019)

[hkskyline]

Illinois Finance Authority: Can't do Wrigley Field deal without revenue numbers from Tribune
8 April 2009

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - A deal to renovate historic Wrigley Field with a state-assisted $300 million loan stalled even before Illinois' ex-governor was caught up in a corruption charge involving the plan, an official said Tuesday.

William Brandt, chairman of the Illinois Finance Authority, told The Associated Press that the deal was never seriously considered because representatives of the Tribune Co., which owns the ballpark, never disclosed revenue projections to back it.

The federal government claims it has secretly recorded conversations of then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich instructing aides to pressure Tribune to fire unfriendly editorial writers from its Chicago newspaper before he would OK a deal he believed would save Tribune owner Sam Zell $100 million in capital gains taxes.

In a Nov. 30 conversation overheard by the FBI, Blagojevich "discussed the importance of getting the IFA transaction approved at the IFA's December 2008 or January 2009 meeting" because Blagojevich was considering leaving office in January, according to a criminal complaint.

Brandt reiterated Tuesday that he was unaware of Blagojevich's alleged timetable or other wrongdoing; the fact that the IFA suggested Tribune make a presentation in December or January was coincidental.

Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested Dec. 9 and indicted last week on a wide range of federal allegations including trying to pressure Tribune to fire critical editorial writers in exchange for state assistance on Wrigley.

Brandt said the only time he talked about the baseball plan to the ex-governor, who was impeached and removed from office in January, was at a meeting last fall in which Blagojevich spoke to participants about the importance of a Wrigley deal.

The AP reported Monday that a Nov. 19 proposal Tribune floated called for IFA to sell $300 million in bonds, lend it to a newly created corporation and, through a complex venture, lease the stadium to a new owner for 30 years at $25 million a year.

The Tribune would get $45 million upfront and a 5 percent equity share in the lease. The IFA, through the new corporation, would maintain a 95 percent stake.

But the IFA grew frustrated about weekly meetings with rooms full of lawyers but no results, Brandt said. He said the authority needed to see several years' worth of revenue from ticket sales, vendors, parking, leases for other events, and perhaps television contracts.

The bid for the Cubs might have hamstrung Tribune. Brandt believes Major League Baseball would not allow Tribune to hand over the receipts until the team had a buyer.

Tribune's Dec. 8 bankruptcy filing also complicated matters, said Brandt, who still believes a deal for the century-old ballpark can be completed.

A Tribune Co. spokesman declined comment. No one associated with Tribune or the IFA is charged with wrongdoing.

[arlekin_m]

Looks so beatiful, even quaint from up-close... Classic Chicago. 10/10.

[carlspannoosh]

Great looking stadium. American Baseball stadiums make English Cricket stadiums/grounds look so crappy in comparison.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by carlspannoosh

Great looking stadium. American Baseball stadiums make English Cricket stadiums/grounds look so crappy in comparison.

I dunno, I really dig the member's pavilions at cricket grounds. I love Brit Oval and Lord's, too.

Only thing i hate (hate, hate, HATE) about Lord's is the media box -- it sticks out like a sore thumb.

[carlspannoosh]

Lords is quite nice and I do agree that the best part of cricket grounds in general is the pavillions.Its just that they only take up a small section of the ground.Other than that I think they are pretty underwhelming in comparison to the likes of Wrigley Field.

[RobH]

Different stadiums for different sports, you can't really compare.

[Luke80]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

I dunno, I really dig the member's pavilions at cricket grounds. I love Brit Oval and Lord's, too.

Only thing i hate (hate, hate, HATE) about Lord's is the media box -- it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I guess I've got used to the media box because I just see it as part of Lords now.

If you like the Oval now, wait until you see it in about 6/7 years. It will then be what I would call 'finished'. There will be a complete bowl of stands, they will all be joined and all the old stands (except the pavilion) replaced. Even a hotel.

[massp88]

Outside of Fenway Park, this is the finest stadium to see a game in all of baseball.

[Dexter Morgan]

Wasn't sure where to put this.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,1790453.story

In conjunction with the 100-year anniversary of Wrigley Field in 2014, the Cubs are planning "a complete renovation of the ballpark."

The project will be called "Wrigley 20-14" and include construction projects during the season so the Cubs can use it "for another 100 years," according to President Crane Kenney.

The focal point of the massive restructuring will be the long-talked-about "triangle building" to the west, a project that will include knocking down the outer wall on the third-base side to form a large open-air courtyard that would include concession areas and shops.

In the end, all of the concourse will be widened and include expanded restrooms, some of which will be completed for this season. It also means construction will be ongoing during the 2011 and 2012 seasons.

Although plans still are sketchy, there also could be a restaurant below the third-base terrace "suites."

The only parts of the park that will not be reconfigured are the bleachers, which already have been altered by more seats and a restaurant.

"A lot of spots in the ballpark haven't been touched in years," Kenney said. "We put millions (of dollars) in every offseason just to keep it moving forward without really changing much.

"We have to be re-thinking long term."

During a Cubs Convention panel discussion about the business of baseball, Kenney told the audience:

--"I can't imagine the ballpark not being called Wrigley Field," when asked about naming rights, even though former Tribune Co. ownership seemed amenable to it.

--The "L" flag will continue to fly for the time being, although there is internal debate about it. Kenney took a show-of-hands survey during the discussion that showed "4- or 5-to-1" against changing the tradition.

--No Friday night games and no Jumbotron screen will be added soon, if ever, and the Cubs don't envision going to personal seat licenses for ticket-holders.

A 2005 sketch of a proposed Wrigley Field expansion project under Tribune Co. The Ricketts family wants to complete something similar by 2014. (Tribune lab)

These are from the Cubs website on the "Improvement Illustrations" section:

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/expansion.jsp

[Kenny]

I'm all for a renovation and preservation of this historic park. Wrigley, Fenway and Dodger stadium are the remaining "cathedrals" of baseball.

[ryebreadraz]

I like the idea and extension of the stadium, but not the style. Far too much glass IMO for a place like Wrigley. It's still early though so it's very possible that we see changes.

[Dexter Morgan]

Originally Posted by Kenni

I'm all for a renovation and preservation of this historic park. Wrigley, Fenway and Dodger stadium are the remaining "cathedrals" of baseball.

Dodger Stadium is 4 years older than me, it's not exactly historic. It's no more historical than Angel Stadium or Shea Stadium before it was bulldozed.

[nomarandlee]

Good idea to add the info.

A bit hard to find but we do have a thread devoted to Wrigley for it to go.



http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=714406&page=3

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by ryebreadraz

I like the idea and extension of the stadium, but not the style. Far too much glass IMO for a place like Wrigley. It's still early though so it's very possible that we see changes.

I think it works because the new building is not attached. It won't be like Soldier Field, with a modern structure dropped onto an classic one.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan

Dodger Stadium is 4 years older than me, it's not exactly historic. It's no more historical than Angel Stadium or Shea Stadium before it was bulldozed.

Are stadiums only historic because of their age?

Shea or Angel Stadium of Anaheim have nothing on Dodger Stadium, really bad comparison.

[en1044]

Ive always noticed that a large portion of people who consider Dodger Stadium "historic" in mostly people from California, whereas almost everyone considers Fenway and Wrigley historic.

Dodger Stadium isnt close to being in the same league as Fenway or Wrigley.

[Dexter Morgan]

Originally Posted by Kenni

Are stadiums only historic because of their age?

Shea or Angel Stadium of Anaheim have nothing on Dodger Stadium, really bad comparison.

Yeah, pretty much. Dodger Stadium, Shea Stadium, and Angel Stadium were built around the same time, so they are a pretty good comparisons, not Wrigley or Fenway, which are 50 years older than Dodger Stadium.

[Tiago Dias]

How you can see in the image, I'm a Chicago city fan. I don't understand all about baseball but I know about the results of the Cubs. I like the team because the loyalty of the fans, which make me to remember my team, Vitória SC Guimarães. and of course, because this magnificient stadium that seems to contain all American bseball history in its structure and looking. Wonderful

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by en1044

Ive always noticed that a large portion of people who consider Dodger Stadium "historic" in mostly people from California, whereas almost everyone considers Fenway and Wrigley historic.

Dodger Stadium isnt close to being in the same league as Fenway or Wrigley.

Dodger Stadium is historic because of what has happened there in the context of baseball. Wrigley is just old and has done many things because its old.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

I dunno, I really dig the member's pavilions at cricket grounds. I love Brit Oval and Lord's, too.

Only thing i hate (hate, hate, HATE) about Lord's is the media box -- it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Cricket crowds are far lower, so it's not really surprising. Unlike baseball, the crowd is usually also spread fairly evenly around the field (which is much larger) so there's never really been that much need for any kind of substantial construction beyond the pavillion at most grounds.

Most are no more than 15-20 rows of open seats around the perimeter.