tommyo@ihuxw.UUCP (Tom O`Connor) (12/21/84)
Well, Peter Ueberroth is really making enemies fast in Chicago, saying that the Cubs have to put in lights or be forced to play in another stadium for playoff games (and possibly regular season games). The `85 schedule is set already, so your regular season games aren`t in jeopardy. But now we`re in the courts. The Cubs, with basically no other option other than to ignore Mr. Ueberroth, filed suit to overturn Illinois law which, without getting technical, bans night baseball at Wrigley Field. The residents of the area, naturally, are in an uproar. They don`t want thousands of people wandering around their homes at 11, 12, 1 o`clock in the morning! I can`t say I dont blame them. You`ve got a very unique situation with the location of the stadium. And the Commissioner should recognize this. Will baseball really lose THAT much revenue if the Cubs play day post-season games? You`ve got the wants of the few vs. the desires of the many. There was never a really BIG fuss before, but then again, the Cubbies hadn`t made the playoffs since `45, and we haven`t had night post-season games since the early 70s. Of course, another option is to build a new stadium. Rumors have placed that stadium in many places in the Chicago area. But can the Tribune Co. really afford to construct it. And if somebody else does, the Cubs will have to pay rent, no doubt, to use the stadium. They probably won`t get a full share of the concession sales (and I bet a lot of $$ is made by the Old Style man). But you`ve also got the upkeep of a structure which is, I do believe, the oldest ballpark in the National league (Comiskey and Tiger Stadium are a bit older). That`s no small drop in the bucket. Rest assured, the Cubs will not be leaving Chicago. I could see the back page of the Tribune saying "Cubs Move to Tampa Bay" while the front page headline reads "Final Edition - Ever!" The theory that you can`t win by playing day ball 1/2 the time has basicaly be debunked. But the question of lights at the Friendly Confines will keep the ol` hot stove league going all the way till spring training, and then some. Tom O`Connor ihuxw!tommyo P.S. Cub season tickets are now on sale! Get `em while they`re hot!
rossiter@cornell.UUCP (David Rossiter) (12/22/84)
In article <1034@ihuxw.UUCP> tommyo@ihuxw.UUCP (Tom O`Connor) writes: >Well, Peter Ueberroth is really making enemies fast in Chicago, >saying that the Cubs have to put in lights or be forced >to play in another stadium for playoff games... Don't worry, the Cubs won't be in the playoffs until 2024. By then Ueberroth will have retired, the Olympics will be a nostalgic memory, Montreal players won't complain about tax laws, because Quebec will be the 51st state, and most importantly, a hurricane will have destroyed Shea Stadium -- which is the ONLY way the Cubbies will manage to finish ahead of the Mets!
citrin@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Citrin) (12/24/84)
The Commisioner may be making enemies in Chicago, but certainly none of those enemies are in the Cubs organization. From what I hear, Dallas Green and the Tribune Company would like nothing more than to be able to play night games in Chicago. Are the only people who don't want the Cubs to play night games the residents of the surrounding neighborhood? If so, then moving to a new Chicago stadium would certainly solve the problem. As for building a stadium, I would think that the Tribune Company could afford it, particularly if they were to build a 35,000 seat baseball-only stadium (like Wrigley) and sell that valuable Wrigley real estate. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
newman@bgsuvax.UUCP (Tim Newman) (12/28/84)
We need a grass-roots campaign to allow teams to play their games when they so choose. The Cubs don't and can't have lights, so Peter Victory Over Red had better wake up and shut up. Making a team play on foreign turf after fighting all year in their home stadium is grossly unfair. If Peter Ueberroth thinks he will endear himself to the fans by making this move, he is more foolish than Bowie Kuhn ever may have been. Take heed, Pete, the end is near.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/03/85)
Instead of railing against the unfairness of pressuring the Cubs to play night games, Cub fans ought to ponder the unfairness of the Cubs sharing the profits of a TV contract which demands night games during the week yet claiming exemption from its responsibilities. The Cubs COULD have raised the issue beforehand, and presumably could have negotiated with the league and the networks to be get such a waiver, presumably at the price of part of their cut of the contract being used to reimburse the networks should the Cubs win. They did not. Protestations against being pressured to play night games while cheerfully accepting the profits made possible by other clubs playing night games has more than a hint of hypocrisy. If Cub management (and fans) wish to impress me with their sincerity, let them refuse their share (or some portion thereof) of the profits they get from the networks for baseball holding weekday playoff/championship games being played at night. David Rubin
rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP (01/04/85)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: Cubs go to court >Instead of railing against the unfairness of pressuring the Cubs to >play night games, Cub fans ought to ponder the unfairness of the Cubs >sharing the profits of a TV contract which demands night games during >the week yet claiming exemption from its responsibilities. The Cubs >COULD have raised the issue beforehand, and presumably could have >negotiated with the league and the networks to be get such a waiver, >presumably at the price of part of their cut of the contract being >used to reimburse the networks should the Cubs win. They did not. > >Protestations against being pressured to play night games while >cheerfully accepting the profits made possible by other clubs playing >night games has more than a hint of hypocrisy. If Cub management (and >fans) wish to impress me with their sincerity, let them refuse their >share (or some portion thereof) of the profits they get from the >networks for baseball holding weekday playoff/championship games being >played at night. > > David Rubin May the Mets croak off in a plane crash. I can't believe anyone would dare write such an uninformed article. I knew New York wasn't exactly in touch with America's heartland, but I was shocked to realize they are actually in siberia. Listen carefully now while I explain reality. You forget that the Cubs are not playing day games by choice. The Cubs management has been trying to change local and state ordinances against night baseball for years now. Thats because they felt the Cubs were doing so poorly all those years by being worn down by all those day games. Apparently, only because the Cubs are suddenly in the limelight has siberia become aware of recent attempts to change the laws. Unfortunately the local inhabitants have so far prevented these cases from succeeding. So now, tell me why the cubs shouldn't receive their share of revenue? Is it because the cubs are a class organization and are in the business of providing entertainment and the league is Big Business and only cares about profits? By the way, the cubs have no power in negotiating their own tv contract as you infer they should have down before the fact. The league board controls such contracts. And they were caught with egg on their face for agreeing to a contract that allowed the networks to pay less for day games. It is the board's responsibility to be aware of the ramnifications. They are suppose to represent the best interests of the league. Obviously they must have been satisfied with the contract(or gambled that the cubs wouldn't make it to the playoffs). So now whatever revenue is brought in as a result of this contract should be fairly divided between all teams(which they represented). Otherwise next you'll be telling me teams with small ballparks should be given a smaller share because they bring in less revenue compared to a team which plays in a large ballpark. Or you'll be telling me teams with a small following(ie Minnesota) should receive a smaller share than teams with a large following(ie Dodgers) because their tv ratings won't be as high. Right. That cold up there in siberia must really be slowing your thinking process(note that the plural form was intentionally left off). You forget, the contract does not demand night games. It provides different revenue based on when the playoff games are held. This was agreed to by all. So why now are the Mets fans renigging on the deal they made? They should have done so before the fact. They did not. What right do they have to change the contract after the fact and dish out more or less revenue for various teams as they see fit? This apparent Mets attitude is a disgrace to baseball. Baseball should not be a big business charging for their product to maximize profits. Rather it should be providing a service. But I have no sympathy for Mets fans who cannot enjoy the game as it should be and as it is provided to Cubs fans. Robert PS. I did not mean to put down all Met followers. Just one in particular who is not a true baseball fan.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/07/85)
>>Instead of railing against the unfairness of pressuring the Cubs to >>play night games, Cub fans ought to ponder the unfairness of the Cubs >>sharing the profits of a TV contract which demands night games during >>the week yet claiming exemption from its responsibilities. The Cubs >>COULD have raised the issue beforehand, and presumably could have >>negotiated with the league and the networks to be get such a waiver, >>presumably at the price of part of their cut of the contract being >>used to reimburse the networks should the Cubs win. They did not. >> >>Protestations against being pressured to play night games while >>cheerfully accepting the profits made possible by other clubs playing >>night games has more than a hint of hypocrisy. If Cub management (and >>fans) wish to impress me with their sincerity, let them refuse their >>share (or some portion thereof) of the profits they get from the >>networks for baseball holding weekday playoff/championship games being >>played at night. >> >> David Rubin >May the Mets croak off in a plane crash. Happy New Year to you, too! >I can't believe anyone would dare write such an uninformed article. I >knew New York wasn't exactly in touch with America's heartland, but >I was shocked to realize they are actually in siberia. Listen carefully >now while I explain reality. Goodness, I'd say we're at the beginning of an ad hominum attack. In net.baseball, too! Is courtesy dead even here? Besides, I am writing from New Jersey, and from closer to Veteran's Stadium than to Shea. >You forget that the Cubs are not playing day games by choice. >The Cubs management has been trying to change local and state >ordinances against night baseball for years now. Thats because they felt >the Cubs were doing so poorly all those years by being worn down by all >those day games. Apparently, only because the Cubs are suddenly in the >limelight has siberia become aware of recent attempts to change the laws. >Unfortunately the local inhabitants have so far prevented these cases from >succeeding. They certainly are playing day games by choice. They are not legally obligated to play their home games at Wrigley Field, and simply reminding the appropriate authorities that this is the case would probably suffice to have such restrictions lifted. Does Chicago really want the force the Cubs to move to the suburbs...or worse? I have as much sympathy with the neighborhood folks near Clark and Addison as I do for the folks who buy homes near an airport which later expands. Sure, it's a real pain and inconvenience, but they KNEW there was that risk when they moved there. >So now, tell me why the cubs shouldn't receive their share of revenue? >Is it because the cubs are a class organization and are in the business of >providing entertainment and the league is Big Business and only cares >about profits? If weekday night games bring more revenue to the major league clubs, and if the Cubs refuse to play weekday night games, why should the Cubs receive a reward for other teams more profitable policies? The Cubs are too "classy" to play night ball but are not too "classy" to accept money for other teams doing so, eh? >By the way, the cubs have no power in negotiating their own tv contract >as you infer they should have down before the fact. The league board controls >such contracts. And they were caught with egg on their face for agreeing to >a contract that allowed the networks to pay less for day games. It is the >board's responsibility to be aware of the ramnifications. They are suppose >to represent the best interests of the league. Obviously they must have >been satisfied with the contract(or gambled that the cubs wouldn't make it >to the playoffs). So now whatever revenue is brought in as a result of this >contract should be fairly divided between all teams(which they represented). >Otherwise next you'll be telling me teams with small ballparks should be given >a smaller share because they bring in less revenue compared to a team which >plays in a large ballpark. Or you'll be telling me teams with a small >following(ie Minnesota) should receive a smaller share than teams with a large >following(ie Dodgers) because their tv ratings won't be as high. Right. >That cold up there in siberia must really be slowing your thinking >process(note that the plural form was intentionally left off). I'm all for redistribution of baseball wealth to preserve some balance (even though the Mets have the third largest cable TV profit---behind the Braves (of course) and the Cubs), and do not wish to penalize a team for playing in a small market. But the Cubs play in a small park during the day in a large market by choice, and I see no reason why the Twins should support Chicago's lighting tastes. Had the Cubs clearly stated their opposition to any requirement for night games to the Commissioner's Office while the contract was being negotiated, they could have compelled Kuhn to negotiate a contract with a waiver provided for the Cubs, so long as the Cubs were willing to accept a wee bit less than more accomodating franchises. The league board does not negotiate against the interests of the franchises... >You forget, the contract does not demand night games. It provides different >revenue based on when the playoff games are held. This was agreed to by all. >So why now are the Mets fans renigging on the deal they made? They should >have done so before the fact. They did not. What right do they have to change >the contract after the fact and dish out more or less revenue for various >teams as they see fit? Hey, Bowie didn't let me in on the negotiations. Anyway, it seems to me if, say, the Twins are willing to help all teams increase their revenues, and the Cubs are not, they DESERVE a larger share of the procedes. It's hard to get worked up into an egalitarian frenzy when some bake the bread and some just demand to eat it. Besides, the Mets and everyone else are not reneging, as they would fulfill their financial obligation to other teams by playing weekday playoff games at night. >This apparent Mets attitude is a disgrace to baseball. Baseball should not >be a big business charging for their product to maximize profits. >Rather it should be providing a service. But I have no sympathy for Mets fans >who cannot enjoy the game as it should be and as it is provided to Cubs fans. (1) I speak for myself, not the Mets or other Mets fans (and your insulting response is, fortunately, atypical of Cubs fans). (2) Clubs playing night games during the week are maximizing their services. More people can attend them, more people can watch them. (3) I can enjoy the product as presented at Wrigley; in fact when I was an undergraduate at U of Chicago, I often made the trip up to Wrigley. Of course, had I held a job at the time, it would have been physically impossible to do so during the week. Even as a student, my schedule often forced me to take in my baseball at Comiskey. (4) All owners treat baseball team ownership as a business, even the Chicago Tribune. Make no mistake: I prefer day games. When I go to Shea, it's almost always on a Sunday afternoon. But to maximimize services, a ball club ought to schedule its games so that the guy who's employed but not free to skip out can still come to the park. >Robert >PS. I did not mean to put down all Met followers. Just one in particular who >is not a true baseball fan. Well! I've been called all sorts of things in other newsgroups, but nothing more offensive than "not a true baseball fan" right here, in what was once the last refuge of good will. To disagree with Robert's world view on baseball evidently disqualifies me as a "true" baseball fan. Perhaps Robert is more out of touch with the "heartland" than I am; most of the Cub fans I've known have loved a good baseball argument, and could carry one on without denigrating their opponent. A "true" baseball fan is stimulated, not offended, by intelligent dissent. Of course, Robert may think I'm an idiot... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
jhs@druri.UUCP (ShoreJ) (01/08/85)
Hear, hear, Tim! I'm with you. Until the sad but inevitable day when the Cubs are moved to the modern-era plastic stadium in the name of the Holy Network, I'll rejoice in day games in sunshine on real grass and ball-eating vines (thanks, Bill Veeck!). A team should not have to be relocated just to satisfy the Madison Avenue fat cats and Peter Profit. (Yes, I hear the flames acomin', especially from myopic Mets--go on, make my day. :-( ) Football compromised itself irrevocably with the Superbowl warm weather site philosophy; watch the prostitution continue when *all* playoff or championship games are moved to "alternative" sites because the weather or the kickbacks aren't right!. Well, Tim, the forlorn truth is that someday day ball, real grass, and playing in your own park will someday be viewed as historical curiosities along with horse hide baseballs, wooden bats, and fallible but human umpires. --Jeff "It's a great day to play two" Shore, alive and well in the (temporarily) AAA city of Denver
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/08/85)
Let's clear up a misconception. I am NOT in favor of the Cubs abandoning Wrigley, as even a Scrooge (:-)...I hope) would be the first to proclaim it the most gorgeous park in the majors. However, I don't undrstand why it is that Cub fans think the Chicago Tribune Co. is a philanthropic organization. If Cubs fans really want day games during the week, that's fine. But so long as the Cubs profit from other teams playing at night during the playoffs etc., so long as the Cubs insist on undercutting the finances of, say, the Giants by refusing to play playoff games at night while at the same time earning about $9 million a year from cable (which they do not share), I'd wish that their customers would stop trying to beatify them. Undoubtedly, Cubs fans prefer weekday day games (at least the ones who are unemployed or have sufficient pull to skip on work or don't go to any games anyway). However, it is unfair of the Cubs management to insist upon other teams bearing the financial burden. The Cubs are one of baseball's highest revenue producing teams (pretty good for an organization run as a "service"). It seems unfair to me to have the financially strapped teams to help subsidize lightless Wrigley Field. Hear this, Cub fans: Wrigley's unlighted days are numbered. It won't be the Mets, though (they have far less financial interest in it than the poorer clubs), or any combination of NL teams which will cause the change. The Chicago Tribune Corporation will do so in order to enhance its cable TV revenue. Cubs management will complain of "arm-twisting" and the like from the Commissioner's Office and others, but don't be fooled. Such protestations are for the benefit of the fans, the City Council, and the State Legislature. The Tribune bought the Cubs because of their profit potential, and will not rue the coming of night games to the North Side. It is ironic that the same force (professionalism in management) which finally brought Wrigley a winner will eventually bring lights there, too. Well, cable TV is also a big factor... I do not mean this to be in anyway hostile to Cubs management or Cubs fans. I suspect that almost any management under similar circumstances would seek to have its cake and eat it, too, so to speak. Witness, for example, the combination of Braves, Cubs, and Mets stubbornly resisting any sharing of cable TV profits. However, it is simplistic to accept Chicago management's explanation of events at face value. It is not just a question lights or no lights in Wrigley; it is inextricably entwined with questions of the Tribune's profits and with financial equity among the major league teams. I will join Cub fans in mourning if the Tribune's quest for profits takes the Cubs to the northern suburbs. David Rubin