naperville vs soldier field... a new angle?

Discussion in 'Business and Media' started by CrazyF.C., Aug 3, 2002.

  1. CrazyF.C.

    CrazyF.C. New Member

    Jun 15, 2001
    Washington D.C.
    We've all heard that the atmosphere, the stadium, and the attendence are all inferior to that of soldier field. BUT, the bottom line is the bottom line. With the fire paying out the nose for rent for soldier field and getting no concessions and no merchandising money at soldier field, the REAL question is whether or not naperville is better money-wise. What kind of rent do they pay? Do they get a percentage of concessions?

    The reason I ask is not because I want to see the fire stayin naperville, god knows I hate watching games from there on tv. My reason for asking is will the fire organization be able to use staying at naperville as a gambling chip in negotiations for soldier field when they come back. Could they say, "listen we're losing a lot less money out there in soldier field, and we know you need our dates for your newly renovated place. Either you cut the rent and give us a cut of merchandise and concessions or we stay in naperville."

    what do you guys think?
     
  2. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    there is already a new lease for soldier field when the fire go back... it provides them a cut of concessions and parking... plus it lowers the rent


    at naperville the fire pay for quite a bit of extra things (police, stands being put up, planning for traffic, etc), but they get concessions and possibly parking...

    since they can't leave the stands up at ncc, the cost is going to be about the same every year... which would probably be too much for them to make a profit... and they should be making a profit at soldier field when they return... which will slow the process of them getting an sss
     
  3. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Naperville did include a cut IIRC, but there's no way the residents would extend that deal, I think.
     
  4. kebzach

    kebzach Member

    Dec 30, 2000
    Greenfield, WI
    old soldier field lease (rumored): $50K per game rent, no parking $$$, no concessions $$$, no merchandising

    current situation at NCC (rumored): $10-20K per game rent, Fire sell all the merchandise, Fire control parking revenues, but then you have to factor in:
    - security
    - costs of building stands that have to come down every year
    - and many, many other costs that you encounter when you have your own stadium. Problem is, this isn't the Fire's stadium.

    new soldier field lease for 2004 (not signed yet, but it is widely believed that this will be where the Fire go and once again, these figures are accepted rumors only): $20K rent, a percentage of parking, a percentage of concessions.

    If all this holds to be true, I would think that the Fire might actually do better in the new SF than at NCC.
     
  5. CrazyF.C.

    CrazyF.C. New Member

    Jun 15, 2001
    Washington D.C.
    thanks for the numbers. thats what I was looking for. So despite the lower attendence and the crap field and stadium, in the long term this looks like a pretty decent move on the fire's part if it helps them get the rumoured deal for Soldier Field.
     
  6. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The atmosphere is not crap at Cardinal Stadium. In fact, it's quite good.

    In fact, monster, the residents have voiced no concerns about the presence of the team in the downtown area. None. They have regular meetings with the people who live right around the stadium, and for all the doomsaying they did in january and february, they haven't experienced marauding hordes of visigoths trampling their neighborhoods. I went to the last public meeting ---no one had a bad word to say.

    Some businesses have said they've benefitted, others have said they haven't. The downtown doesn't seem overrun with people, even after games with 13-14k. The parking situation is far from ideal, but they've made it work.

    The biggest problems, then, have been:
    (1) The pitch (narrow, grasstroturf, gridlines);
    (2) Inaccessibility (for city folks, and the parking situation);
    (3) Some supporters being denied their God-given right to act juvenile.

    Other than that, as a stopgap measure, it's worked out pretty well.

    Financially, it may be a wash. It may be slightly better than the old Soldier Field deal and slightly worse than the new one. They won't have to buy the bleachers again next year, that's one cost they won't have, they'll just have to cart them back in and install them again. But considering it was this or nothing at all, I can't help but think there may not be a lot of second-guessing here.

    But in no way would the city of Chicago take Cardinal Stadium seriously as a bargaining chip against Soldier Field. Especially since, as has been pointed out, they already have a deal in principle for the Fire to return to SF in 2004 under much friendlier terms than before.
     
  7. Godot22

    Godot22 New Member

    Jul 20, 1999
    Waukegan
    Admittedly, I don't get a lot of chances to go to Fire games in person because 1) it's in effing Naperville and I don't have a car to get there from my present location in the far north suburbs and 2) I'm a dirt-poor Starving College Student (tm) who can't regularly afford tickets.

    But I must respectfully disagree with the wise Mr. Tomasch. The atmosphere is crap. Section 8 (and 9) is of a high standard, despite defections. But the rest of the stands are noticeably more sedate than they were at Soldier Field.

    If the Fire made a permanent home in Naperville or a town like it, a part of the fan culture which was built in the Chicago years would be lost forever. It's a debatable point as to whether that's a good thing or not, but it's hard to argume with the point itself.

    The inadequacy of the pitch and gridlines have been touched on ad nauseum. Fire management has been responsive and respectful of fan concerns.

    I will grudgingly admit that the town itself is quite decent, and nearby businesses seem happy for the extra business. If they could get some similar town out in Dupage or Kane counties to donate the land for a soccer-specific stadium, the team would probably be better off long-term, even if it would suck for me personally. NCC sure as hell is not a long-term option, however.
     
  8. jjayg

    jjayg New Member

    May 9, 2002
    Rolling Ghettos, IL
    Section 8 (and 9) have been great and gotten better each week. There is some new fan base building going on in Naperville. It takes time for new fans to realize that it's ok and encouraged to be vocal and supportive. It was like this in Soldier Field in the begining too and people outside of Section 8 learned by watching the section 8 example. It would be the same in Naperville.
    NCC really does suck as far as the stadium and field go so it is NOT an option for the future. This is very true. But a SSS anywhere in the Chicago area whether in the City (impossible) or someplace in the suburbs will become necessary for success. I am a bit tired of people who live in the city bitching (I know you weren't bitching, you provided a clear statement of your opinion) about how the original fanbase will dissappear if, when an SSS is build in the burbs. Any real fan will make their way to see the Fire or any other team regardless of where they are at. If not, they are not real fans. I live in the Northwest suburbs and driving to Soldier field is not the easiest thing to do, but I have and will do it as long as the Fire are there. I will travel to the West in Naperville and I will travel all the way to the South if we ever end up there. That's what real fans do and that is what real fan culture is all about. Anyone who would not support their team because it is slightly more inconvenient really isn't a true supporter of the team. They are just casual fans posing as supporters. There is a great bunch of long time city fans who make the trek to Naperville all the time. Any other true fans should bite the bullet and follow their example.
     
  9. mjtate

    mjtate Member

    Feb 3, 2000
    Westerville, OH
    I've only watched one game on TV that was played at NCC this year, and was pleasently suprised at the field and stadium. All I had read on the message boards was how horrible the stadium and field were. I don't like the football lines, but you get used to them while watching the game, and the stands looked 10 times better than any Metro, KC, or SJ game played infront of thousands of empty seats. The atmosphere seemed to be pretty good.

    I realize the situation isn't good, but to an outsider, seemed to be managable for a couple years.
     
  10. Stan Collins

    Stan Collins Member+

    Feb 26, 1999
    Silver Spring, MD
    Bravo. I'd have to call that the analogy of the week. (also applies to all the people who fight tooth and nail against mass transit appearing near their neighborhoods).
     
  11. Minnman

    Minnman Member+

    Feb 11, 2000
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One potential advantage the new SF will have over Naperville will be its ability to host the sort of big double header matches that have swelled attendance figures in places like RFK and Foxboro.

    I realize that a lot has been said on these boards about how the USSF has ignored Chicago as a site for national team matches. True. But what's past is past. If, as has been reported, the Fire do get a far better lease at the new SF, and that the political realities in Chicago and the economics realities of both MLS and Phil's checkbook * make it likely that the Fire have to spent at least a few season in the new SF, then why not make the best of it? To be honest, if what I've read is true, the new stadium should be a great venue for soccer; far better than the old stadium.

    The Fire will first play in the new SF in the spring of 2004. The USMNT will play it's first WC quals that summer. I think that a Fire/USMNT double-header that summer is makes perfect sense. The 60,000+ crowd should help ease the pain of two years of ugliness in Naperville.

    * Phil isn't/can't build stadiums for all his teams simultaneously. The Rapids seem to have alease they can live with for a while. Looks like the Fire will have something similar in the new Soldier Field. If the vote goes our way in the NJ legislature next month, the new Metros stadium - I can hardly believe I'm writing this - will probably begin construction next spring. A new stadium for DC United always seems to have a pulse, too.
     
  12. profiled

    profiled Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 7, 2000
    slightly north of a mile high
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    I have a question, how far away from downtown Chicago is Napperville? 20 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles?
     
  13. kebzach

    kebzach Member

    Dec 30, 2000
    Greenfield, WI
    Naperville is about 30 miles from Chicago, maybe closer to 40 or so from the true downtown.

    It took us about 45 minutes to an hour to get out of Chicago to Naperville when I came from the Lincoln Park area to the San Jose game in May.
     
  14. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
    To stirp the pot.

    Sportsman's Park in nearby Cicero has closed releasing all of its pony racing dates to neighboring Hawthorne Park. Never having been there, how feasible is it to take over the land and put an SSS there? Most of the infrastructure should be in place (may need some updating) and being in Cicero it might be met with open political arms (anything to stick it to the Daley).

    Just a thought.
     
  15. profiled

    profiled Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 7, 2000
    slightly north of a mile high
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    I drive 65 miles to all the Galaxy games, which depending on traffic (stupid horse racing track...) takes 50 minutes to an hour and a half. I guess I don't see the problem, we're not talking major distances here.
     
  16. kebzach

    kebzach Member

    Dec 30, 2000
    Greenfield, WI
    not for you and I, we have cars and are used to driving into a city to go to a game.

    but since you and I don't live in the city, and since we DO have cars, and since we haven't tried to get out to Naperville without one, we don't have the same perspective as Chicago fans would. I'd rather have our drive than a walk to a train station to ride a train out to another train station to walk to a shuttle bus. While bringing all my fan stuff with me. In the summer heat.

    For what it's worth, it's 177.3 miles from my back door to Cardinal Stadium in Naperville. Double that number for the round trip. This is down from the 195-200 miles it was to Soldier Field. But I've only been to Naperville 6 times this season, that's down for me (3/20, 4/14, 4/27, 5/26, 7/20, and 7/27).
     
  17. Brownswan

    Brownswan New Member

    Jun 30, 1999
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    Re: To stirp the pot.

    Is Cicero off the Garfield Park line or the Lake Street line? I forgot if it's between Oak Park and Chicago or Berwyn and Chicago.
     
  18. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
    Re: Re: To stirp the pot.

    3301 S. Laramie. Just No. of 55 and So. of Ogden--about a mile away from each. I don't know what kind of public trans. is available. Midway Airport is about 2 miles due south.
     
  19. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago
    All I can say is that no matter my desperate need to fill my football fix, I've opted for my once a week training sessions over shelling out $60 to ride two busses and two trains to sit on a bleacher and watch a cramped version of the game. Really, if you cant understand why it's a big thing to drive/ride 40 miles, remember that alot of the people who choose to live in the city of chicago do so for the convience of having everything easily and quickly accesable by taxi or pub.transit; a game at Soldier field means a day meandering down the city, a wide selection of pre and post knacker-aiding bars/pubs and a quick trip home.

    2/3 empty Soldier > Cardinal Stadium

    f,
    2/3 empty Soldier> SSS (unless some magical cheap land IN THE CITY pops up out of nowhere, even a SSS isnt worth the trouble of making it out to the burbs)


    Of course, this is all from the persepective of a non-driver, midincome level single football fan, who is obviously NOT the MLS target audience, so... if there's room for the astrovans in the parking lot, i guess the location doesnt matter.
     
  20. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm okay with that, and I see where you're coming from. There are two ways to define "atmosphere", I guess, and it seems like the folks who are defining it as you are are talking about the fact that there were more "hardcores" at Soldier Field and more "suburbanites who don't really get it" at Cardinal Stadium. We'll hear the anecdote about people who aren't paying attention to the game, or don't know a free kick from a penalty kick, and that's a valid point.

    When I speak of atmosphere, here's where I'm coming from: I've been to games at Soldier Field, and every time I said to myself "Well, this is cool, but this place is just far too big for what they're trying to accomplish," and one of those times I was like one section over from Section 8.

    Cardinal is a much more intimate setting, and on some nights, like the Morelia match, and even the most recent DC match, when it's very nice out and there's a good crowd (even the DC match was a decent crowd that would have been totally swallowed up in Soldier Field) and the people do get into it (granted, it's America, you're not going to get a World Cup atmosphere), I quite like it. So the experience, for me, is much better. The experience for someone like you, who is used to having a different type of fan around you, is worse. That's a valid point.

    But any time you move something to a different place, there's going to be an adjustment period. I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the people who don't know everything there is to know just yet, I'd just be happy that they're there and that you might be picking up a few folks each time out who enjoy the experience and want to come back---and perhaps even go down to Soldier Field in 2004.

    And as for those folks who won't come out to the suburbs---well, a couple of weeks ago, I drove, walked, took a train, walked, took the el, and walked to get to Wrigley from the suburbs to pay a ridiculous amount of money to watch an incredibly bad baseball team blow another game. And there were a bunch of people who did the same thing on a Thursday afternoon from out my way. What does it say about people who won't go the other way to pay less money to watch a team that historically has been very, very good? ;)

    But thanks for disagreeing the way you did. It makes all the difference.
     
  21. Godot22

    Godot22 New Member

    Jul 20, 1999
    Waukegan
    In my specific case, I made certain sacrifices when I decided to return to being a full-time student, and among those sacrifices was being able to go to the vast majority of Fire games. Some may question whether I'm a true fan for having done so, but the day I ask myself "what will they think on BigSoccer?" before making a major life decision is the day I finally get that lobotomy I've had my eye on for a while now.

    I don't think the move to Naperville has had a huge effect on the number of "hardcore" fans, but it seems to me that there's been a precipitous drop in the proportion of--uh--"mediumcore" fans--that is to say, people who followed the game and the team, people who went to some games every year, people who were gradually trained over the course of four years at Soldier Field how to behave at a soccer match.

    It's quite possible that I'm looking at the Old Soldier Field years through rose-tinted glasses, and it's equally possible that I'm just bitter about the present circumstances because they're more difficult for me personally, but there is, at the very least, a significant qualitative difference between the experience in Naperville and what the experience of a Soldier Field crowd in a Cardinal-sized stadium would be, and, yeah, I find that a bit frustrating.
     
  22. Glenwood Lane United

    Apr 28, 2001
    Hanover Park, IL
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Re: Re: To stirp the pot.

    I know the Douglas Blue Line has a CIcero stop...I think it's like 12-15 blocks north of Sportsman's, and then you can hop a bus from there.

    NOt sure where the nearest Orange line stop is.
     
  23. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago
    A: "Historically very very good" in 5 years. That's an atypical example of american's concept of time. the cubs last WS is "historical".
    B: Wrigley Field is to Cardinal Stadium what, oh, damn i cant even think of anything remotley that night and day. I know, Finway to New Comisky?
    C: If you are "walking" from metra to El and from El to Wrigley, you have a low threashold for what constitues "a walk". A walk is Cardinal stadium to the Metra in downtown Naperville.
    D: Hold on, your first step of your journey is "i drove"? Why didnt you drive to the parking off of Irving and Western and take the shuttle? Much easier and kills your argument dead because i'm talking about us hardcore 100% CTA/PACE reliant mofos.

    also, new evidence for the anti-naperville debate: one damn metra train. ONE per game.
     
  24. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    (a) Pick another word then that meets your concept of "historically". "Over the last five years has been very, very good." There, does that work for you?

    (b) Yes, you're right, and that's part of the attraction.

    (c) Yes, it was about 7 blocks from Union Station to where I caught the el. I put one foot in front of the other, I call that a "walk". What do you call it? Did I call it a "hike"? No. I walked. It was nice. And the walk from the Metra to Cardinal Stadium is, they tell me, shorter than the walk from the back parking lot to the front door at Soldier Field. If that's your idea of a hardship, then perhaps it's you with the low threshold.

    (d) I live in Lisle, jerkweed, and there's never any parking at either the Lisle or Naperville stations (where I was meeting someone). And, since, unlike you, I don't live under a bridge by the train station, yes, I had to frigging drive to get there.
     
  25. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Sad but true, the Cubs have earned the right to suck and still draw huge crowds :) But, how many times are you willing to do this each summer?

    I definitely see your point, however, in some respects, it goes against the natural order of things. People make a choice -- city v. suburbs -- for a thousand different reasons. I am still city, and fighting the inevitable move to the suburbs for space, parking schools etc.

    When I finally make the move, I know that it comes with the consequence of making the trek into the city when you want to go to a Cubs game, a Bears game, the symphony, the art institute, blues fest etc.

    I am not averse to coming to Naperville, but since my life is ordered around the city, it becomes more difficult to make a Fire game work logistically. I have always done the 7-pack of tickets, and this year is no different, but I will only make it to 4 and possibly ony 3 games.

    It's not a question of wanting to go, and honestly, when I do make that gigantic leap into suburbia, I STILL want my Fire downtown.
     

Share This Page