Re: Re: King Reindsdorf is Not Amused A Firehouse would have to be more profitable to the real estate barons who control Daley than building condos on the same site would be and I don't see that happening.
Re: Re: Re: King Reindsdorf is Not Amused Agreed, which is why the Fire will have to build in a suburb if they want to have their own place. Naperville was relatively good for the second half of the season, but I still believe that moving their or Aurora (or any suburb on the edge of the Chicagoland area) permantly would be a poor decision for the future of the team. I think fans are willing to "take it for the team" the next couple years and deal with Naperville, but if it was permanent I'm not so sure. Just becuase Daley will probably block any move within the city of Chicago doesnt mean there arent plenty of suburbs that might work out and are closer to the city. If I was PW, I'd just wait and see how the return to SF goes. If it works financially and the Fire continue to improve at the gate then a move might not even be necessary.
I am going purely on my feeble memory--so take this with a grain of salt. I thought that the Soldier Field deal was that Chicago could get out of it anytime they wanted if they found a city location to build the firehouse. Otherwise, they would breach the contract with the Park District. I remember thinking at the time that this was not a good deal, because Daley would never approve of another spot in the city. I guess the question is, am I wrong? Can the Fire get out of the SF contract if they build in the suburbs?
Guess it depends on the wording in the contract lease that the Fire supposedly already signed. Then the big obstacle would be to find a location that is good for the Fire and in an area that can't/won't be bullied by Daley if/when he objects to the Fire moving. I'm hoping Daley just made a big deal about it cuase he didnt want the Fire leaving before SF had already been rebuilt. Possibly he doesnt care once it gets built and will put up less of fight or just let them go. I doubt that he's not going to care though, cause in the end SF will still be losing a tenant that pays rent and earns parking/concession.
Three Chicago pro soccer teams have gone bankrupt while I followed them and none of them encountered the cold shoulder that the Fire received. The Spurs and Mustangs played at Comiskey Park, the Sting at Wrigley Field, and both parks were privately owned at that time. Daley had no assurance that the Fire would even survive until 2004 or stay in the Chicago area. He would probably just as soon see them leave, but for the good of the city he tried to get King Reinsdorf to allow them the same permission the King gave to the Rolling Stones. The Fire would have paid their way, something Reinsdorf is able to avoid at Comiskey Park. I think if the Fire want to stay in the city they have to swallow whatever pill the Park District and King Reinsdorf want the team to swallow. Many suburbs will also be out of the question because they won't be able to get the zoning variance once Daley makes the phone call or if King Reinsdorf tells Daley to make the phone call, which is more likely. You spend a ton on money to even get the project before the zoning board and there is no point in doing this if you know Reinsdorf will stop you in your tracks. Is it any wonder Reinsdorf is the most despised man in Chicago? Just my opinions.
Peter wilt plans changes I don't follow where Reinsdorf fits in outside of Comiskey. Please explain. TIA
The deal is a series of multi year deals. The Fire can get out at any time if they build in the city. However, they can only get out after the end of one of the three year deals if they build outside the city. I believe that I heard the first of these deals will end in 2007. So we're in the city until then.
Peter wilt plans changes Jeremy: When I am driving 50+ miles to see the Fire in Naperville, a few more miles is not that big of a difference. There is a big difference in Aurora v. Naperville. Jaq
i think anyone who's been in section 8 since the beginning would agree that the peak in terms of support was the last season at SF. the atmosphere in naperville was pretty good, and being in a sold out stadium was great, but we simply didn't have the numbers, nor the passion we had in chicago. also, i don't know if this is related to our move to the suburbs, but both the columbus-away trips this year were smaller in numbers than in the past seasons. the atmosphere in naperville was better than i expected, but it doesn't compare to our last season in SF.
I couldn't agree more with you. Last season at SF was much better than Naperville. The Ultras are still around but not in great numbers and the barnburners are all but gone now. Once we return to SF I don't think we will have the numbers we had before.
Re: Re: Re: King Reindsdorf is Not Amused I think the housing bubble's gonna deflate real soon. The appreciation of housing prices has skyrocketed so much, that, even with low interest rates, first time buyers can't afford to buy, and therefore people can't afford to move up. I'm guessing supply is gonna far outweigh demand in a couple of years, and therefore, new condo construction is gonna slow down. Which means the real estate barons may not have quite the effect they've had lately.
Re: Re: Re: Re: King Reindsdorf is Not Amused I've been thinking this for a while now, but incredibly, the contractors still seem to be in business. Usually what happens is that they overbuild, and then many of the contractors go into bankruptcy. Then the bottom falls out.
I agree with you. Although we sold out Naperville toward the end of the season, kudos to the team. I feel the atmosphere was not as rabid as it was back when we were in SF. We shall see what happens. I personally feel that now that SF is getting built Arlington may still be a possibility.
This is more to the point I was trying to make. Many posts on here last winter were predicting that there would be NO support and that the Ultras and Barburners wouldn't bother with Naperville. The ones who are there create a great atmosphere.
To whichever sarcastic moderator changed the name of the post to justify their manhood...I think that after a year of Naperville, reopening the debate on where a Firehouse could and should be built is healthy. It's not like there's 46 threads on it, like the anti-ESPN threads. The climate and opinions are different than they were in February.
Many of our membership core never did. The ladies behind the Zach Attack banner being a fine example. They had Section 18 season tickets until moving to Naperville. Standing in Section 8 is not a requirment of membership. Supporting the Fire is.
Re: Re: Re: Peter wilt plans changes Sellouts at Cardinal Stadium are nothing to gloat about. The Fire topped 20,000 six times last year--and the last couple of home games were cancelled thanks to Muhammed Atta. That comment about "no need for an appropriate stadium" suggests that you haven't read what you are responding to. Meanwhile, as for the real estate thing, Chicago is clearly the first choice. The viability of MLS is a very important point. Lets assume it lasts--which should be determined by 2007 when this issue becomes important again. Let's say the condos that would fill up a firehouse site would have 50 units (I think that's a generous estimate, even including parking). At 5k per unit in property taxes each year, the municipl take would be $1/4 million. Parking alone has a tax of about $2, and from that the city would collect ten grand each game. So just the cars would generate 60% of that foregone revenue. What's the city's take on ticket prices, concessions, and other non soccer events?
To be fair, this isn't suburbs vs. city at all...it's just the possibility raised in an article briefly that Aurora is among interested parties for a stadium no sooner than 2007. Title changed.
Not sure you want to get into a crime debate between Aurora and Chicago as it's pointless and has little to do with where the fire will end up. Not that I want the Fire to end up in Aurora, as that will see me going to fewer games. It's just too far out IMO, and depending on the location, probably wont even be able to add the nice downtown Naperville area around the stadium, one of the few advantages to our 2 year stay in Naperville.
That's Aurora Colorado. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E830438,00.html However, 13 wouldn't be terribly high for Aurora, IL either. In 2000, there were 15. In 2001, there were 8. In Chicago there were over 650 in 2001. The rate was more than double on a per capita basis.
No, I heard on NewsRadio 780 that there have been 13 homicides in Aurora, IL this year. Per capital vs. Chicago who "wins"? Who cares! Aurora is too far out to be home to the CHICAGO Fire. We'd have to lobby MLS to get a Chicago expansion franchise again! Perhaps DeKalb or Rockford are talking about building a stadium? OK, Naperville is not bad for a quick fix, but this is the Chicago Fire and the games were far more fun at Soldier Field. (Period)