Cubs, rooftop owners in pivotal courtroom battle

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

CHICAGO -- The Cubs and the owners of two rooftop businesses faced off in federal court Monday, in a dispute over the renovation of Wrigley Field.

Skybox on Sheffield and Lakeview Baseball Club are trying to stop the Cubs from installing a new videoboard and signs above right field that could block their views.

The Cubs plan to have the new signage up by opening day on April 5.

Both sides made their opening arguments today.

They were in court last month as the rooftop owners requested a temporary restraining order to stop construction immediately.

But U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall failed to prove their businesses would destroyed if the signs go up.

In their lawsuit, the rooftop businesses say the new signs are prohibited by their contract with the Cubs.

But the Cubs say the signs are an expansion of the ballpark, which is allowed under the contract.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

4 comments

  • Darrellb

    Even if the signs are not an expansion by themselves, they are clearly a part of the expansion that is covered by the contract. The intent of the view blocking prohibition language is about building windscreens or barriers for the purpose of blocking the view. The purpose of the new video boards is to benefit the fans and to bring in new revenues. The fact that they also block the view is incidental, rather than being the purpose of the construction. The clear intent of the ballpark expansion language was for the rooftop owners to not be able to stop construction to improve Wrigley.

    • BRBM

      And to add to DarrellB, my understanding was that when the new owners purchased the Cubs and Wrigley organization the contracts with the roof top owners technically became void and have no legal standing. The new owners were just gracious enough to allow the contracts to exist for the time being.

  • biggjim76

    I don’t think this whole renovation project is worth it. Including the signage and this big screen. This ballpark doesn’t need the modern junk on it. It’s Wrigley Field f