How can the rooftop owners use the cubs? (lawyers, home)

[jman07]

I don't understand how the rooftop owners can sue to stop the cubs from blocking their view of the field. The rooftops aren't entitled to get free baseball games and profit. It's the cubs property. Wasn't it like 15-20 years ago before the rooftops became official that the cubs intentionally blocked the rooftop views because they were profiting by selling tickets to watch the cubs from the rooftops? Is all this because they have contracts with the cubs or what?

And I prefer FACtS over opinions. Does anyone know any facts on here? Legal reasons etc...

[squirrels]

I've wondered this myself. I know in the past lawsuits have been used to stop development that would block peoples' nice window views due to the impact it would have on their home values. This could be a similar situation.

[Ace Rothstein]

The made an agreement with the Cubs after the whole fence thing to give the Cubs something like 17% of their revenue or profits, can't remember which. I believe that was a 20 year deal through 2022.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

They made an agreement with the Cubs after the whole fence thing to give the Cubs something like 17% of their revenue or profits, can't remember which. I believe that was a 20 year deal through 2022.

Exactly - it expires in 2024. Apparently the contract was pretty weak, but the Cubs acknowledged the rights of the rooftop owners, and have collected tens of millions out of the deal already.

Both sides have legitimate cases. On one side you can ask why rooftop owners why they should be allowed to charge people to watch Cubs games, on the other side you can ask the Cubs why they can tell other people what they can do with their properties. However feel about it, all that matters now is the contract. At this point it's all up to the lawyers and courts if they can't come to an agreement.

[williepotatoes]

And unfortunately for the Cubs at this point, there is specific language in that contract which prohibits any barriers being put up that impairs rooftop sightlines. It's all in the hands of the lawyers now.

[lenniel]

I agree with Willipotatoes. At the time of the contract, the rooftop owners had better lawyers than the Tribune, wrote a better contract and got it agreed to. A contract is a contract and if the current Cubs regime tries to break that contract, then it will again come down to which side has the better lawyers.
In my mind, it's not really a matter of what's fair, who's stealing, what, etc. I think it's a case of capitlalism where the rooftop owners took advantage of a great opportunity, secured it legally and now should get to ride out the contract or be compensated.

While I hope the Cubs win any legal battles, they're the ones who screwed up initially.