Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Cubs make bold move -- to block rooftop casino ad
From Paul Sullivan
Link
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs have fired the opening salvo in a dispute against a local casino, erecting two signboards in the back of the left-field bleachers, which would obscure a prominent casino ad in most television shots during game telecasts.
The two large green wooden signboards were erected in the bleachers last week without fanfare. There currently is no advertising on them, but they're expected to be ready for the 2010 season.
"The signage is in place as we evaluate marketing opportunities," Cubs spokesman Peter Chase said. "Given our partnerships and agreements with the other rooftops, that particular location in the bleachers would work out."
A likely sponsor is Bud Light, which bought naming rights to the bleachers during the reconstruction project prior to the 2006 season. The only building directly affected by the sign is the one at the corner of Sheffield and Kenmore Avenues, commonly referred to as the "Budweiser building" after the beer company that advertised on its roof for years.
Rooftop owner Tom Gramatis bought the building for $8.4 million in June 2008 and placed a brown tarp over the Budweiser sign shortly before the 2008 playoffs, claiming Anheuser-Busch was late with its payment. A Cook County judge later ordered the removal of the tarp before the playoffs, but Gramatis eventually sold the rights to the Horseshoe Casino.
While the Cubs weren't happy with the Horseshoe ad, there was nothing they could do to prevent it from dominating the left-center-field vista of Wrigley Field. But new chairman Tom Ricketts decided it was time to take action, blocking out the building during Cubs telecasts and having their own sponsor in its place.
Upon taking over the Cubs, Ricketts pointed to Boston's revamping of Fenway Park, which included more ad signage in the ballpark.
"There are things that make Wrigley different from Fenway that we have to be respectful of," he told the Tribune. "And I think the key is, we definitely see what they've accomplished and we'd like to emulate some of that success."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posts: 718
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Are they doing this because they don't like Casinos or because they aren't getting a cut? Because they have ads for casinos on the scoreboard during the game.
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=69961:date=Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM:name=The Dude)-->QUOTE (The Dude @ Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Are they doing this because they don't like Casinos or because they aren't getting a cut? Because they have ads for casinos on the scoreboard during the game.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My guess is they aren't getting a cut of the advertising dollar. However, I really don't know.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I've hated that stupid building for a long time. I could live with the Bud advertising because it sort of fit into the environment, but the Casino ad looks corny, and belongs in a city like Detroit, not Chicago. Hate it. Good for them if they can block it and make a few dollars in the process.
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
With the building made worthless for it's current purpose, Ricketts can buy it, tear down the new billboards and put his new jumbotron on the Bud building.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=69983:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the building made worthless for it's current purpose, Ricketts can buy it, tear down the new billboards and put his new jumbotron on the Bud building.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just hope there isn't a lawsuit in the works, as I'm sure the owner will attempt to recover lost property value and revenues. Even if he doesn't have a case, it could drag on and cost the Ricketts some.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=69984:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69983:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the building made worthless for it's current purpose, Ricketts can buy it, tear down the new billboards and put his new jumbotron on the Bud building.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just hope there isn't a lawsuit in the works, as I'm sure the owner will attempt to recover lost property value and revenues. Even if he doesn't have a case, it could drag on and cost the Ricketts some.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What say, ye lawyers? Could the owner successfully sue for lost revenue he never had any right to in the first place?
"My building is worth a lot because you can see it from inside a ballpark." That's an interesting argument for someone to try and base a legal claim upon.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=69985:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:41 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69984:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69983:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the building made worthless for it's current purpose, Ricketts can buy it, tear down the new billboards and put his new jumbotron on the Bud building.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just hope there isn't a lawsuit in the works, as I'm sure the owner will attempt to recover lost property value and revenues. Even if he doesn't have a case, it could drag on and cost the Ricketts some.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What say, ye lawyers? Could the owner successfully sue for lost revenue he never had any right to in the first place?
"My building is worth a lot because you can see it from inside a ballpark." That's an interesting argument for someone to try and base a legal claim upon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only say this because the building has been there, unobstructed for so long. If there is no deal in place between the owner and the ballclub, then that's one thing, but even if there is no case, it could turn into a headache and waste of time and money for both parties.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=69986:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:56 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Nov 23 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69985:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:41 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69984:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69983:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the building made worthless for it's current purpose, Ricketts can buy it, tear down the new billboards and put his new jumbotron on the Bud building.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just hope there isn't a lawsuit in the works, as I'm sure the owner will attempt to recover lost property value and revenues. Even if he doesn't have a case, it could drag on and cost the Ricketts some.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What say, ye lawyers? Could the owner successfully sue for lost revenue he never had any right to in the first place?
"My building is worth a lot because you can see it from inside a ballpark." That's an interesting argument for someone to try and base a legal claim upon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only say this because the building has been there, unobstructed for so long. If there is no deal in place between the owner and the ballclub, then that's one thing, but even if there is no case, it could turn into a headache and waste of time and money for both parties.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hear you...two things that might work in favor of no protracted legal battle..
First, there's no issue regarding seeing INTO the ballpark from this building...as opposed to other buildings...and second...even if that was the issue...there is precedent for Wrigley blocking rooftop views.
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--QuoteBegin-"Ben Maller"+-->QUOTE ("Ben Maller")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cubs hire Olympic executive as director of marketing
Sports marketing and sponsorship guru Wally Hayward's schedule was more or less booked for the next 6 1/2 years until the International Olympic Committee decided Chicago wasn't its kind of town for the 2016 Games. "Maybe the only good thing about not getting the Olympics was Wally was available," said Chicago Cubs President Crane Kenney, whose hiring of Hayward as the team's executive vice president and chief sales and marketing officer is expected to be announced Monday. The appointment of Hayward, who founded and was chairman and chief executive of the Relay Worldwide agency before serving as a senior adviser to the Chicago 2016 effort, is the franchise's first big move since the Ricketts family completed last month's $845 million acquisition of the team from Chicago Tribune parent Tribune Co. -- Chicago Tribune<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/col...,6824010.column
Posts: 11,808
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
The Ricketts are certainly committed to squeezing a lot of ad revenue out of the team (I don't have a problem with this, by the way). I just hope they reinvest some of it.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=70069:date=Nov 24 2009, 03:46 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 24 2009, 03:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Ricketts are certainly committed to squeezing a lot of ad revenue out of the team (I don't have a problem with this, by the way). I just hope they reinvest some of it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ricketts said he'd reinvest all of it, if I heard him correctly.
Posts: 3,710
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Sorry I have an issue with the title of the thread and basically why they hell anyone cares about this BS.
My understanding is that the new owner of the building across from Wrigley decides that he wants to get more money for his building roof's advertisement so he cooks up an excuse - the payment didn't arrive in time - kicks out the old sponsor - Budweiser - and signs on a new sponsor - Horseshow Casino.
The Cubs don't like the change so they changed camera angles during the season and recently put up plywood to block the advertisement from being seen by a majority of fans during games.
Sorry that is not New Advertising at Wrigley. The plywood may turn into advertising space one day but right now it's just planks of plywood painted green. Most of the structure doesn't look permanent.
My guess is that Rickett's wants a cut of the advertising from the building or just wants the old sponsor back in place.
The problem is the title of the thread gets people thinking that Rickets has decided to pimp out Wrigley Field more than it already is. Sorry that's not the case at least yet. My guess is that the structure is torn down before the first pitch of the 2010 season.
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
The following statement makes me think they have plans to place advertising on them. And really, I don't care if they do pimp out the whole place if they put that money back into the team and stadium improvements.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->"The signage is in place as we evaluate marketing opportunities," Cubs spokesman Peter Chase said. "Given our partnerships and agreements with the other rooftops, that particular location in the bleachers would work out."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
|
