PEORIA, Ariz. -- Crane Kenney released a statement Thursday afternoon saying the Cubs are not opposed to the 8 percent ticket surcharge for Cactus League games, also known as the "Cubs tax."
"The Cubs support the efforts of the legislators to find a solution that will be satisfactory to everyone," Kenney said in the statement. "As far as the Cubs are concerned, all financing options are still on the table."
Earlier in the day, Kenney told reporters the surcharge was not needed by the Cubs to help fund the new complex.
"The plan for our facility can be managed through the Mesa property tax referendum, that will happen in November, and the (1 percent extra) car rental tax," Kenney said. "The ticket tax is not needed for what we're building."
All of the other 14
Cactus League teams and commissioner Bud Selig have opposed to ticket
surcharge, feeling their fans are subsidizing the Cubs in their new
venture.
Milwaukee Brewers general manager Doug Melvin said it put his team at a "competitive disadvantage" with their Central Division rivals 90 miles south.
The surcharge is not off the table. Despite Kenney's comment that the Cubs don't need the revenue from the surcharge to build their new stadium, they are still willing to draw from the funds if the surcharge is passed by the legislature.
Most of the Cactus League teams already have new stadiums. Kenney said Arizona state Rep. John McComish, the sponsor of the so-called "Cubs tax," was actually trying to benefit the Brewers and the Oakland A's, who have their stadium leases coming up in coming years.
"There are other Cactus League needs," Kenney said. "I think he was trying to address that with this ticket tax. I don't know ultimately how that will turn out, but they seem to have our needs reasonably well in hand."
Oakland and Milwaukee are both against the ticket surcharge, no matter what it's called.
The Cubs are seeking $84 million from Mesa and the state of Arizona to build a new complex. They plan to buy the real estate, give the ballpark complex to the city of Mesa and keep naming rights and ad revenues.
The Cubs also planned to build a "Wrigleyville West" development on the land, including restaurant and hotels.
"Obviously we couldn't look to the public to support that development," Kenney said. "That would be all the Ricketts family and probably a partner."
Kenney said a site would be named within the next two weeks.
A commemorative Tribune book full of stories and photos about the Blackhawks' amazing year available now at 
All Bears news delivered to your mailbox on Friday and Monday mornings. 
When sports news breaks, be the first to know. (To get alerts on a mobile device, text CHISPORTS to 31286.). 
Get our updates on 
The Cubs are not going to dial down their demands to something that's feasible in 2010 unless the folks in Naples publicly say they're not interested. Florida got into the game as a stalking horse, LOST, and now they don't have the common decency to bow out.
Little-Pig is right on the money- HHK holds 12k people and is only 13 years old! Why did you ask for the Ricketts Cactus tax if you didnt need it???
I'm 64 years old and don't have a lot of summers left- looks like I can write off the whole world series thing with this new crew....
Hey, U.S. Cellular Field, United Center, and the Renovation of Soldier Field all used tax money to finance the projects. However, they were built during GOOD economic times when the city, state, and county weren't broke.
If the economy was good now, the Cubs and Wrigley Field would see these funds. If Cubs management was decent from 1995 to 2005ish, they would have formulated a good, fast acting plan to renovate or rebuild Wrigley with state and city funds.
Shows you how good Tribune management was! lol
Joe: What's the name of that other ballpark? U.S. Cellular Field. All upgrades and improvements are from advertising revenue. That dump on the northside isn't squeezing money out of the tax payers. Agreed with that. If you criticize others, get your facts straight.
I realize that Kenney is a douchebag, but that headline is pretty misleading.
And to the previous posters, the Cubs didn't ask for anything, it was proposed to them. How many times does this need to be explained? Seriously.
And, moronic "hitman", when did the Cubs "squeeze money out of the people of Chicago, city of Chicago" as you put it? They don't have a publicly funded, 20 year old, obsolete ballpark that needs constant upgrades at the tax payers' expense. There is a stadium in Chicago that fits that description, but it ain't the Cubs'.
It may be of interest to note that HoHoKam Park was built in January 1997 and holds 12,632 people.
Whoa! So if the tax wasn't needed why were you trying to squeeze extra money out of the people of Mesa? Isn't it enough to squeeze money out of the people of Chicago, city of Chicago?
"The ticket tax is not needed for what we're building."
Then why did you ask for it?