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