1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cubs win lawsuit against rooftop seating
Posted on 10/12/26 at 3:12 pm to Overbrook
Posted on 10/12/26 at 3:12 pm to Overbrook
quote:
Cubs are right if he's charging for the seats.
I would disagree; this is essentially extending a property right well past your property line. On the flip side, the rooftop owner is now limited in how he can use his property. I didn't read the decision, but apparently, the judge had to cite precedent from a case with the Pirates from the 30s. This should be an interesting one to watch on appeal.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 3:34 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:Yep. WGN in the early days was a hoot. Harry Carey and Steve Stone made me a Cubs fan because there was no team in NOLA and I couldnt like the Braves because of the Saints.
Some of us are old enough to remember in the late 1970s and early 1980s when WGN was first on cable tv the rooftop viewing was really a mom and pop operation.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 3:44 pm to BFANLC
If he stopped charging for the seats and just charged for booze and food, would they still have a case to shut it down?
Posted on 10/12/26 at 3:53 pm to CatfishJohn
Said he needed to halt ticket sales to the viewing area so not sure how specific the court order is.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 4:01 pm to BFANLC
Just advertise it as a cover charge for access to the roof top bar that happens to have spectacular views of the city without mentioning anything about the Cubs or baseball.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 4:24 pm to BFANLC
Nope just make it an all you can eat or drink ticket with a view of Wrigleyville.
This is the shite that pisses me off.
frick the cubs for being cheap fricks
This is the shite that pisses me off.
frick the cubs for being cheap fricks
Posted on 10/12/26 at 5:14 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
Are you saying the home owners are only allowed to look to the south during non-game times? And what about the flipside: are all the Cub fans in Wrigley allowed to look at their roof?
Do you not understand the difference?
Posted on 10/12/26 at 5:39 pm to slidingstop
quote:
ever heard of zoning laws, HOAs, covenants, etc?
Exactly.
It's an immature mind who thinks he can thumb his nose at the law and doesn't believe he can have everything struck down if he tries to get cute and skirt the law.
Same thing as throwing rocks and hiding your hands.
The law is ultimately never mocked.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 5:40 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Just advertise it as a cover charge for access to the roof top bar that happens to have spectacular views of the city without mentioning anything about the Cubs or baseball.
As if a judge has no clue what you would be up to if you did this. You people are really stupid.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 5:41 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
If he stopped charging for the seats and just charged for booze and food, would they still have a case to shut it down?
Yes, because they know exactly why you're doing it.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 8:45 pm to imjustafatkid
Cover charge, equipment rental (food trays), and catering fees are all mandatory.
Seats are free
Posted on 10/12/26 at 9:11 pm to MasterDigger
This seems like a very slippery slope. I was in NYC for the st paddy day parade and people watched it everywhere from all kinds of offices.
I get why the cubs want money, but I don’t see how you can charge someone to watch your open product from their own private property? If you build 5 stories high and I can build 10 stories high, how is that illegal?
Should people be charging the Sears tower (yeah yeah whatever it’s called) for viewing whatever you can see from there?
Is the golf tournament at pebble beach or anywhere on the water charging people somehow to view from public waterways?
I get why the cubs want money, but I don’t see how you can charge someone to watch your open product from their own private property? If you build 5 stories high and I can build 10 stories high, how is that illegal?
Should people be charging the Sears tower (yeah yeah whatever it’s called) for viewing whatever you can see from there?
Is the golf tournament at pebble beach or anywhere on the water charging people somehow to view from public waterways?
Posted on 10/12/26 at 9:59 pm to RemouladeSawce
So put some TV’s out there and pay for the streaming service.
No different than what a bar does, they just have a better view.
No different than what a bar does, they just have a better view.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 10:57 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
It was quaint when people just hung out on the roofs. Since it's just another business now he's no different than a sports bar hacking a livestream. The Cubs own the content and they can charge what they want. He can choose to pay it or not. Sucks for the roof guy but that's business.
Agreed.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 11:35 pm to baldona
quote:
I don’t see how you can charge someone to watch your open product from their own private property? If you build 5 stories high and I can build 10 stories high, how is that illegal?
If you read the verdict, my understanding is the line was crossed once the rooftop owners started charging folks to watch the game.
When I was a kid, watching WGN, they’d show people standing in the rooftops watching all of the time.
I think it became an issue when the seats were built and people were charged.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:17 am to Dizz
quote:He didn’t lose because he wasn’t entitled to use his own property. He lost because owning property doesn’t give you immunity from violating others’ commercial rights. Conduct that would otherwise be unlawful doesn’t become lawful simply because it takes place on your own property
the rooftop owner is now limited in how he can use his property
IL misappropriation test
1. Investment - the Cubs made significant investment to produce games at Wrigley
2. Competitive exploitation - the rooftops owner profited from those games without any contribution to production costs, directly competing with the authorized viewing options
3. Commercial harm - he diverted potential revenue away from the Cubs
I appreciate the colorful opinions in this thread about what can and can’t be done on one’s property but this is pretty straightforward
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:59 am to RemouladeSawce
quote:
without any contribution to production costs,
Arguable
The Cubs make the neighborhood more valuable to be in, making the guy’s property taxes more than they would be elsewhere. By paying them, he pays more of a share of the city infrastructure required to put on Cubs games than others
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:08 am to RemouladeSawce
Here’s the issue I have with this.
The organization had no issues with people not buying a ticket and watching games from rooftops for decades. Now, the Cubs have secured ownership of 11 out of the 15 rooftops. Any further takeover of rooftops sets up a monopoly. The Cubs shouldn’t get to ignore people “stealing” their product for decades and then suddenly cry foul when they see how profitable it can be.
The best solution is for the Cubs to erect a barrier or screen on stadium property to block the view. But they don’t really want to do that. They want to strong arm the rooftop owner out of business so they can then offer him peanuts to buy out the property then run it themselves.
The organization had no issues with people not buying a ticket and watching games from rooftops for decades. Now, the Cubs have secured ownership of 11 out of the 15 rooftops. Any further takeover of rooftops sets up a monopoly. The Cubs shouldn’t get to ignore people “stealing” their product for decades and then suddenly cry foul when they see how profitable it can be.
The best solution is for the Cubs to erect a barrier or screen on stadium property to block the view. But they don’t really want to do that. They want to strong arm the rooftop owner out of business so they can then offer him peanuts to buy out the property then run it themselves.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:43 am to chalmetteowl
quote:But those higher property taxes are derived from the higher property values you’re arguing the team is responsible for
Arguable The Cubs make the neighborhood more valuable to be in, making the guy’s property taxes more than they would be elsewhere. By paying them, he pays more of a share of the city infrastructure required to put on Cubs games than others
Freeloading recurring profit AND property appreciation? What a model
This post was edited on 10/13/26 at 4:47 am
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:54 am to bluestem75
quote:There’s nothing conflicting about the team’s position over time though
The organization had no issues with people not buying a ticket and watching games from rooftops for decades. The Cubs shouldn’t get to ignore people “stealing” their product for decades and then suddenly cry foul when they see how profitable it can be
People watching for free was and has been cool with the team. It’s also completely legal to do so and the Cubs have no claim. Of course they have no interest in that fight. It’s never even been a large population
People charging others $200/pop for that same view however is neither the same scenario nor legal on an unauthorized basis
This post was edited on 10/13/26 at 4:58 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News