I think most of us would agree that, even if in Bridgeview, having out own stadium would be preferable to continuing at Soldier Field, right? However, I get the impression from some of these press releases that AEG and Mr. Wilt are giving a lot of support for staying at SF. I may be wrong about the general feeling regarding the issue, but if we are in agreement, I think we should make it known. I'm sure Peter Wilt will make the best decision for the team, but I'm also sure he considers fan preference important. Perhaps some sort of petition...
I agree that we should let the Fire know our preference to build a SSS. However, I'm not too concerned about the quotes regarding the 3rd option of staying at SF as PW would say that regardless of their intentions, simply because the status quo offers great leverage in negotiations. Maybe not as much with Chicago, but certainly with Bridgeview.
I think it's a political ploy. If the Fire have only played one game there and make their public stance that they're going to move, than SF will have less incentive to work with the Fire on things like grounds conditions, security, etc.
I completely disagree. First off, personally, I'd rather be in Soldier Field than in Bridgeview, because I can get there. Second, I think that's true of most of our fans. Although PW, the organized supporters groups, us unorganized fans, the players and everyone made the best of a bad situation, Naperville was a disaster. Our average attendance this year was about 25% lower than our average attendance at old SF in 2001. Bridgeview is no easier than Naperville to get to for 3/4 of the metro area. Downtown is the hub of the transportation system. You can't get around that point. Most important, regardless of my personal feelings and my sense of the transportation problem, I want PW and Anschutz to do what they think is in the best interest of the franchise, because they have a lot more data than we do. If 10 or 12 people in the forum convince each other that they somehow represent the thousands of people who are Fire fans, or that they somehow know the economics of the situation better than PW, and begin pressuring, it will only lead to your feeling ignored if the ultimate decision goes against you. At any rate, there's certainly no consensus here in the forum. I can't imagine the North Side Poles who wouldn't go to Naperville will find the thought of Bridgeview any more congenial.
I am still in favor of Bridgeview, but I would not mind 39th Street or Soldier Field. I can get to any one of those sites easily.
I was just saying that, and it certainly seemed to me, that most people wanted a SSS over SF, even if it was in Bridgeview. I also said I could have been mistaken. Maybe I was, but you don't represent the thousands of people who are Fire fans either, so maybe I'm right. One more: I said I was sure that PW and AEG would do what's best for the franchise. I never implied I knew the situation better than they did. I suggested that we should make our opinion(s) known because I know PW keeps our interests in mind as well.
Article with some interesting if not already-well-known details. http://www.dailyherald.com/cook/main_story.asp?intID=379107 Pretty sure 'near the new SF' was confused for 'staying at SF'.
They are not going to build their own stadium if its not ecomonicly (sp?) feasible. If it's more feasible to stay at Solider Field, they will elect to do that. Since I live by 290/294/88, any location, for the most part, works for me. If I'm not mistaken, they are getting a much better deal then they had the first time they were there. The city also wants them in Solider Field for many reasons. I don't think the city will be as coporative of building their own stadium. Then again, I don't know a whole lot about city politics, so I may be way off.
I think this is new. A whole stadium for 15 mil? Not bad. And they wouldn't have to share with high school football teams. I realize that Chicago is a much better location, and the financial plan for that will be very important, but you'd have to say that this is better than staying in SF, wouldn't you?
particularly if you get all of the parking/ancillary revenue and if you can book other things there (and take the profit)... rand
From the article: "The village put together a $65 million plan that includes a $15 million cash gift from Bridgeview, which would own the stadium." The missing piece here is who is going to manage the stadium. With Bridgeview putting up $50M of the $65M total, they might very well want to have a large say in what happens there - including HS football, etc. Likewise missing is any mention of how revenues might be split. But this: "The remaining $35 million would be paid through municipal bonds. The debt on those bonds would be repaid through revenues generated from the stadium." suggests that the village might want/need a fairly large piece of the revenue pie.
you've got some good points, but if HS Football would be a part of the equation, I think we would see a school district involved. Taking a look at the Frisco model, the city will own the stadium, but for $100,000 a year for twenty years(dirt cheap), Hunt gets to operate the stadium pretty much as he pleases, provided he allows the high schools to have their games there. As far as stadium revenues goes, I doubt that allrevenues would go to the Fire, but I'm sure they would get a great deal. Hopefully some of that revenue that they are talking about is tax revenue.
If the fire builds a stadium and is forced to have football lines I rather have the fire stay at SF where the field will be football line free for most of the season.
As it would be anywhere else. If the MLS team is the primary tenant (as in Dallas) they'd hire the groundskeepers (as in Dallas) and could dictate terms about what method and secifications are suitable for said lines and make them a lot easier to remove. A lot of the reason lines aren't removed in stadiums now is the NFL/NCAA team makes the MLS team pay to remove and reapply them, a cost a lot can't stomach regularly. If they own or operate the stadium, it won't be any sort of issue. Example: They have high school football every year in Columbus. You ever see ridiculously obtrusive football lines in Columbus? Case closed. If having HS football or greco-roman chariot wrestling-skeetshooting or Britney Spears concerts is what it takes to justify having our own stadium, I'll take it.
Let's pretend the $15mm gift from Bridgeview and the $15mm from AEG never get paid back. Interest on a $35mm muni bond issue is roughly $2mm per year. Including principal amortization, we are talking a minimum of $3mm/year to support the bonds. This would eat up $150k per date if there were only 20 soccer games a year to pay this. Seems pretty obvious, they are going to need some other events at this facility.
I wouldn't get too whacked about football lines. Any stadium/field that is owned or operated by the Fire would most likely make the soccer markings the more permanent and promenent lines. Any football lines would be chalked in and be gone with one good pass of the sprinkler system.
There will be all sorts of advertizing opps - stadium naming rights, plus all the banners everywhere.
Don't forget that AEG is also in the concert business. One of the purposes of the stadium is to have a mid-size outdoor concert venue in this area. As one of the top 3 tour promotors in the country (that's what I remember reading 2 years ago) AEG has sorely missed having a venue that they manage here in Chicagoland. BTW, because of this dual purpose, I think it's even more important for the stadium to have a roof, both to keep the noise in, and to keep noise, such as from airplanes, out. In terms of the city owning the stadium, I think that it would likely work out like in Frisco, where HSG will manage the stadium while the city owns it.
Garber... By the way, during the USOC final, Don Garber was in the broadcast booth. He was commenting on stadiums and mentioned Chicago among Dallas and the Metros as teams getting new digs. I don't recall whether he mentioned the Rapids. Anyway, Chicago is an AEG team, and I think that organization has caught on to the importance of momentum in this whole Stadium process. A Firehouse serves more purposes than just providing revenue to the Fire. The Krafts will continue to have New England play in an NFL canyon, and the Wizards will probably be stuck at Arrowhead for a long while, but we could realistically see 6 of the 10 current teams in soccer homes within just a few years. That's a majority. If a majority of teams have their own homes, the league's psuedo requirement of an SSS will seem more serious, and expansion will occur along with new construction. Hence more revenue comes to MLS and AEG, and with it more capacity to hire top talent, and with higher quality play, more fan interest, and on and on. The Krafts own one team (right?), and thanks to SEM, they can afford to just sit back and share everyone else's profits. AEG owns too many to try this strategy, and it's quite possible that their business plan might involve bailing on an offer at NSF that looks attractive to one team in order to help establish a critical mass of soccer stadiums that positively impact the long run profitability of the league. Allowing Chicago to continue playing at Soldier Field--regardless of the parking fees the team can keep there--conflicts with the AEG's larger goals of growing the league and expanding profitability in other markets.
Good point. I wonder who would get the naming rights money. Also, I wonder if some of that is already assumed in the cost to build calculations.
I second that. BTW, where in Bridgeport would a stadium be built (specific location, not just near Sox Park)? I tried to connect to the story links but either the story was removed or I received a server error.