PDA

View Full Version : The Wrigley Wripoff


GaryMrMets
05-05-2003, 02:58 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05042003/sports/57333.htm

THE WRIGLEY WRIPOFF
http://www.nypost.com/photos/pmushnick.jpg

May 4, 2003 -- FROM the moment that Bud Selig disingenuously introduced interleague play as a post-strike "gift to fans," team owners, with Selig's approval, have made pigs of themselves.

And every year a new, more virulent strain of abuse rolls in. But the Cubs, of all teams, now have claim to first place.

The Cubs, owned by the Tribune Company, this year very apparently took an undisclosed number of tickets, but it must be a lot, for its most attractive interleague games - vs. the Yanks and White Sox - and assigned them to a Chicago ticket broker (scalper), an agency listed as Premium.

Oddly enough, Premium's title owner is the Cubs' VP of business operations, Mark McGuire, who, for all fans in Chicago can tell, is fronting for the Cubs and/or the Tribune Co. A lawsuit filed by fans, alleging fraud, may serve to determine exactly who owns Premium, along with why and how.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Sun-Times has reported that $45 box seats to Yanks-Cubs games are being sold by Premium for $1,500; $30 bleacher seats are being ransomed for $155.

A couple of months ago, when the Wrigley Field box office opened, those who had camped near the front of the line were told that tickets to Yankee games were sold out. In just a few minutes? How could that be?

Ah, but Premium had plenty, meaning that the Cubs provided tickets to a broker/scalper - before offering them for sale to its fans. The Cubs, it seems, didn't have the nerve to charge $1,500 for box seats and $155 for bleacher seats, so they found someone - a team VP who either owns or fronts a ticket agency - who did.

Hey, Bud, got any more gifts for the fans? Did you say "gift" or "grift"?

*

ESPN's Dan Patrick is a thoroughly modern sportscaster in that he wants to be two very different guys - at the same time.

Monday, on his radio show, he interviewed Trailblazers coach Maurice Cheeks, who the previous weekend had done a very decent thing on behalf of a kid. Cheeks, hearing that the 13-year-old girl who was singing the national anthem was struggling, moved alongside her and turned it into a duet.

Great stuff, great interview. Patrick told Cheeks that he would add one more assist to his career totals. Beautiful.

But if Patrick was so eager to champion Cheeks for his thoroughly decent act on behalf of a child, why would he appear in an ESPN promo bashing pro wrestling star "Stone Cold" Steve Austin with a folding chair? Austin's celebrity is based on entertaining and desensitizing young audiences through every conceivable act of indecency.

Thursday, on his radio show, Patrick interviewed Larry Eustachy, the estranged Iowa State basketball coach, his career suspended after photos surfaced of him, beer can in hand, partying with Iowa State students. Eustachy explained that he's an alcoholic and that alcohol has always impaired his judgment.

Again, Patrick's Q & A skills and his superior sense of moments and issues created a compelling listen.

However, while all beer-drinkers aren't alcoholics, Patrick might've mentioned that he served as a paid spokesperson for Coors beer - and that a person in his position could have made a far more prudent choice in selling his name to a product.

After all, beer, by design, makes people drunk; it impairs their judgment and even leaves lives in ruin. Just ask Larry Eustachy. Or the families of those killed by drunken drivers.

After Eustachy, Patrick chatted with Rick Fox, the injured Laker. Patrick asked him about two things: basketball and the new movie in which he appears - a new Disney movie. Disney owns ESPN.

Dan Patrick: two fellas, at once.

*

Based on their portrayals on the YES Network, these are the Top 10 Yankees, in order, of all time:

1) Babe Ruth 2) Paul O'Neill 3) Joe DiMaggio 4) Mickey Mantle 5) Bobby Murcer 6) Yogi Berra 7) Roger Clemens 8) Bucky Dent 9) Jorge Posada 10) Lou Gehrig.

*

Good faith sports commerce between sellers and buyers is dead. The Devils, last week, ran radio ads for Stanley Cup games: "A limited number of tickets remain." A limited number? Yeah, limited to the number that haven't been sold. In this case, "limited" means "plenty."

Phil Mushnick's "Prime Time" TV column debuts in today's NYP TV Week full-color insert.

http://www.nypost.com/photos/web05040383.jpg
WHO NEEDS TWO?
Cub fans hoping to attend "sold out" games vs. Yanks can contact ticket company owned by the team's VP of business operations.
Getty Images

PissedPrincess
05-05-2003, 03:13 PM
The Cubs aren't alone. That's done everywhere. Tic Agencies buy up a huge portion of Sox tix every year too.

PopTop
05-06-2003, 06:43 PM
First, I could've sworn that when the policy was first announced by the Cubs last fall I started a thread on the subject ... Perhaps it was over at the Fever site and not here, but what I recall were replies to the effect the Cubs had every right to do this ... If you stumble across the thread sometime, there's something about "Cubs Favorite Color Is Green" in the title.

Anyway Princess, what I think this writer, and myself, have a problem with isn't that ticket brokers are selling the tix for higher than face value, but that:

A) The ticket brokerage itself is owned, partially or wholly, by a member of the Cubs' front office, and;

B) The ticket broker(s) were offered "premium" tickets in advance of the general public/fans.

If the Cubs are party to the ticket brokerage, either in full or even by allowing a member of the front office to front the ticket brokerage, then it only serves to advance my claim that the Trib is really @ss deep in @ssholes ... I know that some clubs, the Rockies for one example, do charge more for what they consider "premium" dates or "premium" opponents ... They do this all over College Football (Aggies-Huskers tix are more than Aggies-SW Louisiana, for another example) ... Being the tightwad that I am, I don't like this policy, but at least the clubs or the schools are being up-front about it and not pawning off the greed on some third party that is, at least appears on the surface in the Cubs' case, really a part of the team.

Didn't the ChiSox a few years back, I believe the 1st or 2nd year of interleague play, tell fans if you wanted to buy 4 tickets to see the Pale Hose and Cubbies square off, you also had to buy 4 tix to see a ChiSox-Brewers game? ... Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that ... Now I can live with that type of "ransoming" as the NY Post scribe put it ... The clubs get the chance to basically charge double for a "premium" game and then, when the patrons show up at the "non-premium" match, they should realize more $$$ from parking, concessions, ATM charges, etc.

Like I said, I'm a fiscal conservative and often naive idealist, so what do I know :notme:

Trots
05-06-2003, 07:50 PM
I don't like this new ticket pricing structure, either. First, making any event more expensive isn't going to settle well with me. (Hey, the Tigers are in town, but you only have to pay the normal ticket price!) Second, I think at the professional level, it de-values your own product. It further implies the tier system of the Haves and Have Nots. It just doesn't send a positive message about what you are trying to sell, imo.

Frankly, I'd have more respect for the Cubs front office if they just charged the premium price for big home dates than trying to hide behind this sham.

I also have to add one comment to Mr. Mushnick comments on Dan Patrick. We are all two people, Phil. The person we are and the person we wish to be.