I can understand why folks might get confused, since it hasn't been open all that often...twice in the first year due to mechanical problems?
Yes, it is like a car with a sunroof that you can't open because it causes leaks when you close it...being called a convertible.
And the one time they opened it people complained. I wonder how much they could have saved by skipping that feature. Reminds me of the old Igloo the Pittsburgh Penguins used to play in. I believe they only played one game with the open setup before permanently closing it.
I would also assume Mercedes Benz doesn't like it being open much. When opened you can no longer tell it has their logo on the roof. For some reason they still show aerial/blimp footage of domes/closed roofed stadiums. So with the roof closed their logo is shown on the roof several times each broadcast. They paid a lot of money for that. I have often wondered why retractable roof stadiums are sometimes designed so you can't see the naming rights company's logo when the roof is opened. AT&T stadium (Dallas Cowboys) is another one. When the roof is opened the AT&T logo is covered up. You can still see the name AT&T but the logo which is the money shot is not visible.
It's no more sealed than Wembley Stadium. Shall we call that place a dome too? Anyway, now that the mechanical issues are all sorted out, I wonder if they'll keep it open for the fall games? What do the Falcons do? EDIT: https://www.ajc.com/sports/football...ractable-roofs-closed/EIK1KLQG5JpZcGpxWWT0dM/ Sounds like the retractable roof era of stadiums is coming to an end.
Just stop. I never called MBS a dome. However, there is no question MBS roof is more "sealed." Surely you can see your statement about it not being anymore sealed is incorrect and Wembley stadium doesn't come close to closing completely. Only the sections over the goals can slide close. Wembley fully open vs MBS fully open Wembley full closed vs MBS fully closed
Never mind - article says 25.5 - 26K. I like my Audi but an extra 5 or 6 thousand seats would be nice.
When is something going to change in Chicago? Wasnt there murmurs of the Cubs owners building a riverfront stadium for USL? Always seemed like a stretch, but potentially a deal would be made with the Fire's owner.
Once our majority owner Andi the cancer of this team is gone. Hopefully Ricketts buys him out and we can start getting back to pre Hauptman's ownership.
I have heard (second hand) that the lease in Bridgeview is pretty air tight. I think they are stuck until it runs out or Precourt buys the team.
They need one. Whether they get one or not, I am still a bit more bearish on that. I decided to go with the four I feel bullish on. Cincy & Nashville are done. Miami & Columbus are close, even if the final details are a couple months out.
Any MLS team in Chicago has to play at Bridgeview according to the lease. An alternative would be to bail the village out of the $241.5 million hole the stadium development has forced it into. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/art...me-its-debt-ridden-soccer-stadium-toyota-park
(Too lazy to read) It can’t be in perpetuity right, until what year? What if there is a second MLS team in Chicago, surely they wouldn’t have to share the stadium? -Add a second Chicago team with a better stadium location -ChivasUSA the Fire -See if things can get so bad that Bridgeview agrees to terminate the contract
I believe the agreement runs until 2036. and https://socceresq.com/2018/05/09/st...be-the-best-worst-lease-in-the-united-states/
Any MLS team in the Chicagoland area has to play in Bridgeview until the lease is over. IIRC, the year is 2035. The problem with attendance has nothing to do with Bridgeview, it has to do with a crappy product for 8 years.