Tribune Picks Ricketts Bid
The Sun-Times yet again scoops the Tribune on their own business affairs. Although heavily rumored for some time, there's now the infamous "person familiar with the process" going forward with Thomas Ricketts - diehard Cub fan - as being the Tribune's bid of choice. The bid is rumored to be in the $900 million range and supposedly not the top overall offer, but would provide more money up front to the struggling Tribune corporation along with a more conservative financing approach.
But there's always a twist...
Tribune is not locked in to negotiate only with one bidder. Others remain free to enrich their offers.
It's probably doubtful that anyone else will come in with a late bid at this stage of the game, and with local ties to Chicago, Ricketts would certainly appease the major league owners. But this sale has dragged on for this long, there are no guarantees that it won't drag out longer.
Twitter RSS for TCR
#1 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
Congrats to Mr. Ricketts.
Now, win.
#92 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
I can't wait until the insults start flying. Mr. Rickles is notorious for his sharp wit.
#93 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
shut it, you hockey puck
#2 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
Well, he's where my mild interest was leaning. Hurry up and by the damn thing then trade for Peavy.
#3 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
Just sell it already, Sam, you fuck!
#4 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
he used to live above sports corner, right?
#5 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
YES! Yes, bigz. He met his wife in the Bleachers. Bruce LEvine last week opined that the family is mostly interested in long-term, family ownership. Ala Wrigley's, yet not on the cheap!
I have ALWAYS wanted an owner that would wear the wins and losses on their sleeves, and suffered when we did. Also, one that during the press conference will say, "We will not tolerate losing under our stewardship..."
#38 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
The thing is that ownnership, just like Cubsfanship is destined to live on hope. Any owner who thinks that his team's payroll is big enough to win, is not going to throw extra money at it just for the hell of it. $145 million payroll, most in the NL - should give the Cubs a great chance, but we know that even if we had a $200 million payroll it won't guarantee a title, so maybe we can get by with $140 million... or maybe $120 million.
The sad truths are, that we as long suffering Cubs fans don't want to admit is that, an unlimited payroll won't guarantee a title, and no owner is going to sign off on an unlimited payroll. The 21st century Cubs have already moved away from the 'Let Maddux walk' days... a new owner is not going to make us more likely to win.
#57 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
I think it will be a big benefit going forward, that a GM will KNOW he has 145-150 in payroll EVERY YEAR.
This current club does have a 140ish payroll. However it arrived because of a spike from the 90 Million level of 2006.
This club was constructed with backloaded deals, and robbing peter to pay paul planning.
A committed owner whom you know will "pay the cost to be the boss" will do nothing but help the team/GM plan and map the future.
#6 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
ROB G: Did you ever cut "Dexter"? I was wondering if Showtime is giving it one more season...
#7 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
no and no idea
#8 Cubs sue Under Armour
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/13929...
said they backed out of a 5-yr, $10.8M sponsorship deal...
#11 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
It was karma. No good can come from selling the hallowed walls, er doors, of Wrigley Field.
And I see the Under Armor weasels are still sponsoring the Senior Bowl. Be sure to tune in Cubs fans.
#49 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
The Cubs don't care when they cheat the public (with those officially scalped tickets) but they don't seem to like being the ones cheated.
#65 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
Selling tickets at market price isn't cheating the public.
Rather, selling tickets at face value and watching other businesses sell them at market price is cheating the Cubs.
#78 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
The Judge's ruling on this was a sham. Wrigley Field Premium and the Cubs ownership are one in the same. At the end of the day the money ends up in the same pocket; it's all to the cubs advantage. To say the cubs aren't cheating the public on this is rather disingenuous IMHO.
#90 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
I don't suggest the Cubs are not one in the same with their ticket "scalping" arm.
What I suggest is that the Cubs have a right to sell their tickets at market prices. If a scalper can legally buy their tickets and sell them at market prices, I think the Cubs should be able to do so as well. The scalper has made no investment in the on-field product; so in my view, the Cubs have much more right to sell the tickets at market prices than the scalper does.
I don't see how the Cubs "scalping" their own tickets is cheating the public. Especially when the team efforts at maximizing their revenue turn into one of the top payrolls in the National League.
As to whether the money is spent well, your mileage may vary. But that the budget is there, I approve.
#15 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
Finally, the rightful sponsor of the doors can come forward
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7wSWd9qO3Q
#16 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
I thought Jack Daniels was the sponsor of The Doors.
#17 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
Mo-The Joe- rising!
#91 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
He is the Keeper King! He can do anything!
#31 Re: Cubs sue Under Armour
That's awesome!
#9 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
"The Sun-Times yet again scoops the Tribune on their own business affairs"
To be fair, it would be beyond tacky for the Trib to go with this story. The Ricketts family hasn't been told that they're the winning bidder yet.
#10 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
Of course, they'll have to call The Cell and ask Uncle Jerry if Ricketts is OK.
Does anyone know......if the Cubs accept an offer and present it to MLB for approval, that's going to take some time. While that process is ongoing, and it looks as if the accepted offer will pass MLB's vote, would or could the baseball people (like Hendry) contact the prospective ownership to see about making deals or spending money on players? I just don't remember if there is a precedent, if it's ever happened in the past when franchises have changed hands.
#14 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
I don't think there's any tampering rules to worry about, the current Trib owners would just have to sign off as well in case a deal doesn't go through.
I can't recall the last ownership group rejected by the owners...or if it's ever happened. The Red Sox were sort of ushered to John Henry and his group, but that was well well before any votes were being cast.
#45 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
The DeBartolos wanted to purchase the White Sox in the early '80s I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), and I recall they bid on the SF Giants as well, and were rebuffed because of their horse racing connections. Not that that stopped Steinbrenner......and of course Bill Veeck was shot down on a few purchases such as the Phillies in the late '30s (the other owners found out he wanted to staff the roster with several Negro League stars; imagine how that would have changed baseball history).
In Bruce Miles' blog on the Herald today in as much as said that if it came to it, Hendry could go to the potential owners before they were approved to see what he was working with regarding payroll and such.
#12 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
Man, Bleed Cubbie Blue is fucking retarded.
#51 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
took you this long to figure it out, Joe?
#70 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
No I was just reminded and wanted to vent. I figure, I'll have one chance to register, call Al a douche, save the webpage for posterity, then get the post deleted and me banned. I've been saving it for the right time...but it's always the right time!
#115 Re: Tribune Picks Rickett's Bid
Your banning will put you in good company.
Return to Homepage