You're kidding, right? Part Three
Nov. 16th, 2010 07:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_archfiendIf a recent Chicago Tribune editorial blasting Tom Ricketts' bond-floating proposal wasn't bad enough news for his endeavor (the Tribune Corporation, after all, sold Ricketts the Cubs and still holds a 5% stake in the team), here's another hint as to where this is ultimately going: if the bond proposal fails, Ricketts has no alternative financing scheme. Period.
As safe as milk, eh?
As the Trib helpfully pointed out in its editorial, the dissimilarities between the Ricketts plan and Jerry Reinsdorf's previous efforts on behalf of US Cellular Field are surprisingly wide:
But taxpayers wouldn't gain an ownership stake in Wrigley Field or the Cubs, both of which would be enhanced handsomely. Compare that to the arrangement at U.S. Cellular Field, which is owned by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which financed its construction. (Tribune Co., which owns this newspaper and sold the Cubs to the Ricketts' in 2009, retains a 5 percent stake in the team and related assets.)
In other words, if the proposed bond issue defaults, Illinois taxpayers are on the hook for a property that they have no ownership over, which is not the case at US Cellular.
Oh, and the funniest part of all this? The screamingly funny part? Ricketts is attempting to facilitate all this Big Gummint money going to his team and stadium while playing the part of a major Republican donor as well. As Dan Bernstein points out:
(It’s not lost on local Dems, either, that Ricketts’s father bankrolled one of the shadowy PACs that campaigned for Tea Party candidates on the platform of shutting down government spending for special projects)
...except for a certain one Ricketts wants funded, that is.
Ah, irony.
As safe as milk, eh?
As the Trib helpfully pointed out in its editorial, the dissimilarities between the Ricketts plan and Jerry Reinsdorf's previous efforts on behalf of US Cellular Field are surprisingly wide:
But taxpayers wouldn't gain an ownership stake in Wrigley Field or the Cubs, both of which would be enhanced handsomely. Compare that to the arrangement at U.S. Cellular Field, which is owned by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which financed its construction. (Tribune Co., which owns this newspaper and sold the Cubs to the Ricketts' in 2009, retains a 5 percent stake in the team and related assets.)
In other words, if the proposed bond issue defaults, Illinois taxpayers are on the hook for a property that they have no ownership over, which is not the case at US Cellular.
Oh, and the funniest part of all this? The screamingly funny part? Ricketts is attempting to facilitate all this Big Gummint money going to his team and stadium while playing the part of a major Republican donor as well. As Dan Bernstein points out:
(It’s not lost on local Dems, either, that Ricketts’s father bankrolled one of the shadowy PACs that campaigned for Tea Party candidates on the platform of shutting down government spending for special projects)
...except for a certain one Ricketts wants funded, that is.
Ah, irony.
