MLS Buying Out of Bridgeview Lease

Not going to quibble on "suddenly/magically", but why shouldn't the league expect 40,000 paying customers in Chicago? They are getting that many in Atlanta and Seattle.

Chicago historically faced two challenges... They were a crappy team playing in a crappy location. Who's to say that a decent team playing in a decent location can't draw more fans?

Granted, no one should expect an overnight miracle, but it shouldn't be a five year project either.

In a lot of ways, the league has imposed limitations on its growth in exchange for stability. The fact that we are talking about MLS today is a testament to those decisions. But, now, the league is different. It's no longer fighting daily battles to survive. Maybe it's time to start taking the training wheels off and take bigger risks.

 

I do suspect the Fire will pull out the stops to draw better in SF, in order to prove to prospective stadium-backers that they can. Wouldn't be real surprised to see some headline signings, maybe a new logo. The re-brand notion isn't a total shock in that context, though it's also not a shock if they don't do it.

 

I agree with Bill on this. I am very weary of this plan. Fire already tried Soldier field once. They moved and it still didn't work, so they are moving back with no announced solid plans of an end game. I know we are early in the process. If there is not a finalized plan to get a new stadium then I am pretty confident this will fail again. I am not talking about some possible plan that requires 500 votes and public approval and a bunch of junk...a solid plan that is signed and ready to go.
Outside of an ownership change I don't have much hope.

 

The Michael Reese location was destined for a training facility but it’s possible that vision has expanded to include a stadium. I do not believe that though. The plan for a new stadium is apparently 5-10 years.

I never believed the Lincoln Yards site would happen, but I’m starting to think it may and that’s where the Fire end up.

 

Didn't they just have an ownership change?

 

Just minority owner addition. Still 51% Hauptman.
I should have clarified and said Hauptman completely out instead of just ownership change.

 

It would not shock me at all if the deal is that the new guy buys Hauptman out, but does so only when the potentially increased franchise value is realized (ie a new deal is made). It's essentially what happened in DC.

 

If that happens my optimism level will raise a couple notches but I still have very big concerns for this whole situation of going back to Solider. I was very concerned with them staying in Bridgeview too. I personally think they should have stayed until they had a new stadium in Chicago under construction but these guys are waaaaaaaaaaaay more successful than me.
If they already had a new stadium under construction and wanted to move back to soldier for a year or two I could see the reasoning for that. The way it appears now is they think this alone will save the team/re-energize the fanbase. I am not buying it yet.

 

I suspect they foresaw a Chivas type of complete fan-base collapse as imminent, and had to do something, anything, to stave it off. Perhaps they bought themselves some time.

 

It's possible that any serious plans for a new stadium would be considered a violation of the Bridgeview lease, so they needed to get rid of the lease first.

 

For a training facility, Michael Reese wouldn't be a bad spot at all.

Seems like there'd be hell to pay politically if a stadium eventually got built in the Lincoln Yards after Hopkins originally killed the deal. Though honestly I kind of wonder how much of the NIMBY opposition to it actually live in the 2nd ward... and next election is a redistricting election IIRC, so we'll see what happens.

 

Given the attendance last night, the collapse isn't imminent, it's happened.

 

Possibly but as I have stated I don't think this will make a difference or save the fanbase. This doesn't change my thinking.

 

Paying cost with more cost.

Sounds like a brilliant business idea.

 

I think there is an awful lot more going on behind the scenes. $60.5 mln likely represents a significant portion of the value of the fire. Meaning that if Hauptman is not chipping in a prorated portion of the buyout, there, in all likelihood, will be a change in ownership because in any business, this buyout would, in effect, be a capitol call. If, for example, Mansueto made the entire $60 + million dollar payment, you would have to assume that such a payment would would only be made if there was a corresponding transfer of shares in the team from Hauptman to Mansueto. Further, you'd have to assume that that would result in Mansueto gaining a majority interest in the team.

Another possibility would be for the league itself to step in and cover a portion of the buyout cost. A possibility that several people have suggested. In that case, I would have to assume that the league would only do that if a portion of owner's ownership in the team reverted to the league. The league would then, presumably, be able to resell those shares to another investor. This too, would dilute Hauptman's ownership in the team.

The only way, I would see Hauptman maintaining majority ownership through this transactions would be if he agreed to cover 51% of the cost of breaking the lease. Now, some have assumed he doesn't have the pockets for it, but he and his wife's family certainly do and the guy did just "downsize" from a $100 mln + mansion to a $16 mln one, so perhaps he saw this coming? I don't know.

All that said, if the league truly is involved, then I would expect that they would not be agreeing to outlay those kinds of funds without a pretty decent idea of the endgame. Then again, NYCFC is still playing in Yankee Stadium with no end in sight.

 

That's why I think there will be a new stadium in the plans when/if this goes through. Joe seams like a guy that knows what he's doing, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Yeah I think it went down a bit faster than expected.

 

The Fire are largely ignored in Chicago media. I have always felt part of that is that the Fire are the only "major league" sports franchise NOT playing in the City itself. Bears, Bulls, Hawks, White Sox and Cubs all are in the City. When the Fire were first at Soldier Field, they garnered way more media attention.

A move back to the City may help that.

The demographics of the City have changed more than we think in the past 15-20 years.

The Fire need to integrate back into the consciousness of MLS, the City and the fans.

A move back to the City should help that.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "extortion" and "bribes."
That is NOT what has happened and those are dangerous terms to throw around.

The league (not just the Fire) negotiated a build-plan and lease with the Village. The Village was in very strong bargaining position and put in very restrictive terms because they could. The primary terms include the Fire being required to play all of its games at Bridgeview (or pay the Village to play elsewhere) and that any MLS team within the "region" will play at Bridgeview. The league had to pay Bridgeview for the Fire/Manchester United game and the All Star Game in 2017. The Village wrote that to prevent the Fire from "shutting down" and just popping as a new team (see San Jose/Houston/San Jose, Chivas/LAFC).

Those terms are now being superseded by the one thing that could supersede them, large quantities of cash, intended to make the Village whole (almost) and letting the Fire (and MLS) leave economically viable. The Village is in a good bargaining position and could demand what they saw fit to allow the League/Fire to leave. That is not "extortion," it is good and proper negotiations.

The Village was in an unenviable position. They took a huge gamble on building a publicly-financed and owned stadium, betting that the league and the team would continue to grow and prosper.

They financed it so the "bills" would start coming due years into the project, as is normally the case in these projects. Those bills are due now.

The league has prospered, but for reasons we all know, the Chicago Fire have not. If the team had been amazing and not awful these past 11 years or so, the stadium would be full and the built-in expansion would take place, and this discussion would largely be moot.

That did not happen.

As a result, the team and the league feel that they have to do something. That "something" is to buy out the lease and move back to Soldier Field with, presumably, a plan in formation to build its own stadium.

I should mention that I FOIA'd the entire Agreement/lease (and the first few years of audits) about 8 years ago and have studied it pretty extensively. What I am stating is not speculation, but is what is stated in the Agreement/lease.

Again, there were no bribes (at least none that we know of and there would be no reason for bribes), but I agree that this does not get done without Mansueto's wealth and convincing the League to do it.

 

Well, Bridgeview certainly wasn't working for anyone. Not the League, not the fire and not the Village. As much as we talk about the Fire, this was a bad deal for Bridgeview too as the stadium had placed an anchor of debt around them that resulted in them being unable to fully fund debt service requirements and their bond rating being downgraded to junk status in 2018 (see the Chi Trib article attached). It's pretty difficult for a municipality to operate longterm under those conditions.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/spor...eview-lease-soldier-field-20190508-story.html

Then you consider that late in 2017 the Hauptmans downsized their home considerably. I know it sounds ridiculous, but they likely netted high 8 figures from the transaction.

https://www.yolandaslittleblackbook...len_bronfman_hauptman_brentwood_park_mansion/

Quickly following that, Hauptman sells 49% of the team to Mansueto, a deep pocketed local guy.

Maybe, I'm assuming a lot, but all that to me sounds like a group of people who recognized an untenable situation and were probably talking for an extended period of time about how to solve it. The more I look at it, the more it appears to me that a lot of preparation has gone into getting both sides out from under this stadium lease. Again, I'd be shocked if that didn't also include some pretty concrete plans on where the team would end up. However, I'd also guess that those plans could only progress so far until the lease termination was finalized.

 

Yes, all this is true and has been extensively discussed on the Fire BigSoccer Threads.

The "anchor of debt" was partially caused by the Fire not generating nearly as much revenue as was anticipated and largely caused by the stadium not be used to its capabilities for concerts (thanks, AEG).

 

I just saw what I think is the first Fire ad on TV that I've seen all year.

It was on UniMas during the Europa League halftime, and it was in English.

 

So, Andy not only has fvcked us, he has fvcked the Village of Bridgeview.

#HauptmanOut

 

Yes, that it is the absolute root of the problem.
Andrew Hauptman failed to hire a competent director of football to run the team.
He failed to support the team financially.
He ran through coaches like corn through your digestive tract.
He let us fans down.
He let the team down.
He let the league down.
He let the Village of Bridgeview down.