Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cubs go to court (There's more than lights at issue)
Message-ID: <472@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 08:39:52 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.472
Posted: Tue Jan  8 08:39:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 04:00:35 EST
References: <1034@ihuxw.UUCP>, <182@bgsuvax.UUCP> <1030@druri.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 48

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