Noone has any idea if this is a credible source. Even that Tim Leiwienkiedinkie guy from AEG runs his mouth off about stuff that isn't set in stone. Bridgeview would be better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it's not as good as the Comiskey site. I'll wait it out.
Well, the Bridgeport location was just a rumor until everybody knew about it. The news papers where reporting on it so they kinda had to let it out. Secrets don't say secrets here for long. Though, looking back, It looks like they'e been preparing us for this let down since the begining.
Hey, I heard a rumor that the Fire will be getting a poke in the eye with a sharp stick in 2006. This was on the Internet, so it's a credible source. I think maybe this deserves it's own thread. Later, COZ
What he said. Besides, if the Fire actually announce that they plan to move to Bridgeview within days of playing in (and God willing) winning the MLS Cup -- thus bringing the first major professional sports Championship to the city since the Bulls last won anything -- I would think that Kim Jong Bill Daley would probably put a counter-offer on the table. It ain't over till I walk through the red brick gates of a new Firehouse and order a Goose Island from the tap in the Supporters Club.
If it's Bridgeview, I have an easy and fun suggestion for those who want to drive or take public transit ONLY to Chicago for Fire games. Step 1: Drive to the City of Chicago Step 2: Park within a block or two fo Ginger's ale House Step 3: Enter GAH and order a beer and a ticket on the Fire game day bus. Step 4: Get on the Fire game day bus where a tub of beer and ice awaits for your luxurious journey south where you will be dropped off at the best SSS in the country. Step 5: Go to game. Step 6: Get back on the bus. Rinse, repeat.
I have a quick question for anyone who says Bridgeview would be a bad idea: So it's better to stay in Soldier Field and deal with whatever security fracas and all the other crap than it would be to get to an actual, physical stadium where the Fire is in charge and the seating section layout starts with 8 and you can get a beer and is not a thrown together short-term solution on turf? I'm just trying to keep things in perspective, and if Daley decideds yet another stadium inside the city would be a bad idea, would Bridgeview be all that bad?
Yes - It's Bad The Bridgeview Fire = Minor League. The only reason the Fire are going to Bridgeview is because of AEG. Phil won't take his hands out of his pockets. That's my read on the situation. Flame me. That's fine.
Re: Re: Yes - It's Bad Touche'!!! Seriously, this will work just like Nappyville but even better once it's built and we all see our new home. Seeing how this is definitely happening, I suggest we all start making plans to make it a lovely home. I'm damn excited about it. Why??? We'll be taken care of and I just have to ask, will we have a statue of St. Pete -- the patron Saint of the Fire, in front of the stadium? It's not far from I55 and as Chris M, take the bus from Ginger's Alehouse. I sure as hell will.
Bridgeview is a long drive for me. It's not going to be easy to get there. But I am still excited about it. This thing is going to be built right. It's going to be beautiful. The town is going to be welcoming us with open arms. The Fire will have a say over everything. They, as always, will listen to the fans input. It is going to be a great, great thing. Any fans that are too superficial to stick with the team because it's not in the city will be replaced easily enough.
Re: Yes - It's Bad And you'd be wrong. If it's Bridgeview, it won't be for a reluctance to spend money on Phil's part. Not by a long shot. Would a stadium next to Comiskey be ideal? Sure. But if your choices are: 25-30 million dollar stadium next to Comiskey ala Columbus Crew Stadium (barebones) with no public funding assistance or 80 something million dollar palace in an ethnic urban collar suburb with a good deal of public assistance and a town that worships you ...what do you choose? And is that as a fan or as a businessman?
From the NW suburbs, it will be about the same drive-time for me as Naperville was and SF is, about 45 minutes. I hope there will be parking under 10 dollars, and I hope in time, there will be a few places around the stadium to go before and after games, as there were in Naperville. I could think of a lot of places I'd rather have it be, but the positives outlined in the previous post I hope will make it a good place to be.
Moving to Rosemont was the worst thing that ever happened to the Blue Demons basketball team. The issue isn't how many of the current fans will go,. The issue is the ability to attract additional fans, and how that changes from Chicago or Bridgeview. No "el" access is a problem. Away from the population center is a problem. Not being located in the city proper, is a problem. These are REAL problems. Enough to shift the scales from the funding proposals? Don't know, but let's not pretend the trade-off doesn't exist and isn't significant. There is the issue of thinking about not necessarily where the club and league _is_ at the moment, but will be in 10 or 15 years. Considering the attendances at the last two at SF, I personally would prefer a more aggressive stance. I also don't think this ends until ground gets broken somewhere. The Fire may just be trying to exert some pressure on the Chicago folks.
Article in the Daily Southtown makes it sound like a done deal. Bridgeview kicking in over $75 million to buy and prepare the land and to build whatever is needed. If AEG puts in, say, $25 million, we could have a palace with surrounding fields like Dallas and LA for youth and club games. I live in the NW suburbs, and on Saturdays and Sundays, Bridgeview will be closer than SF and about the same as Naperville. I love going into the city and would miss it, but to own a situation with the government helping this much is more than we should expect from his honor the Mayor of Chi.
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/11-ds6.htm Note that Meisrow-Stein is the developer the Fire hired for their stadium plan.
Re: Re: Yes - It's Bad Greetings, Hala Madrid, and let's keep the Galacticos winning trophies all over... Your post made me remember a Washington trip with a stingy South Texas friend trying to hire an FCC lawyer to get a radio license. Dining at a plush restaurant the lawyer used to ask my friend how he would like to pay for the legal services. "We have three plans," he used to say. "Regular fee, reduced fee and for free... Which one would you like?" To which --even before the lawyer would finish his sentence-- the stingy friend was clamoring: "I WANT IT FOR FREE!... I WANT IT FOR FREE...!" So, all Fire fans in Chicago can cheer aloud: "WE WANT IT FOR FREE!!!..."
One field or two is one thing, but I sure as hell don't want an LA or Dallas type complex for us. There's a lot of fields and complexes in that SW region already...if we're talking training grounds for the Fire and Reserves and maybe a home for the CFJrs a few fields are ok, but not some endless expanse of fields that wouldn't be a great fit for an urban area like Bridgeview or Bridgeport with the development planned nearby. But I agree, if we're talking a 80-90 million dollar complex, our stadium will be the finest soccer stadium in the US, no question. Which is why I say concentrate on the stadium primarly rather than some massive youth complex. Have a couple nic efields for training, mabye a small granstand for Reserves games or local college games (St. Xavier is nearby) as wll as CFJrs matches. But I'm not sure the 'youth soccer mecca' dynamic is gonna work in a place like Bridgeview, much less the South Side of Chicago.
I prefer Bridgeview to NSF but not to the Comiskey site. I have four priorities -- central location, seats on top of the action, 20-30k seats, and control over dates. I don't need fancy facades and stadium clubs. Honestly, I would take a temporary stadium like they were about to build at Arlington Park at the Comiskey site vs a HomeDepot quality stadium in Bridgeview. 5-10 years down the road, I think the club would be better off by having tied up the ideal location.
So that 5-10 years...is that 5-10 years down after the club is struggling to make ends meet because it hasn't maximised its revenue streams yet in their new facility and with their head still below water? Just asking.
Obviously, I'm speculating because I don't know the numbers. But, I actually wasn't think they would be weaker in 5-10 years. In both locations they would capitalize on naming rights, parking, concessions, and better mix of ticket prices. I think attendace could be higher in Comiskey which would flow through every revenue stream (people who come also eat and park). Bridgeview would have skybox/club revenues. Overall ticket prices might need to be a smidge higher. Comiskey site MIGHT also might have a lower cost lease which could help offset lower revenues. I know Bridgeview has offered to come up with a grant and to float bonds, but they still would need to recoup the money to cover debt service on the bonds through their lease with the team.
If the stadium is nicer, rights would be more in Bridgeview. Just being honest. There's a reason why CCS hasn't been able to rake in the naming rights dollars. Possibly, but I doubt by much. Remember, it's going to be only between 20 and 25k either way. We're not going to get Naperville numbers anymore no matter what. True, but they will be doing that with development too, and the complex would include indoor fields and conference facilities and such...plus the term of the lease would likely be much longer than any we've had before to help offset that. It's just as much speculation on my part as yours, but I honestly don't believe there is such a massive difference between return on investment in Chicago and Bridgeview given the Bridgeview deal that a Chicago deal near Comiskey would be head and shoulders better with a lower-quality stadium. Because if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Phil would have already picked Chicago. Now if we were talking about Hoffman Estates v Chicago head to head, yeah, I'd be more tempted to agree. But while Bridgeview isn't the intersection of State and Madison it's hardly Naperville, either, despite what some suggest. And how 'accessible' it is remains to be seen if it is indeed chosen, but there's no way things will just be as they are or worse. It would certainly improve. This is a self-made multibillionaire we're talking about. He doesn't come to these decisions lightly.
I'm sure financially AEG has thought this through and must be getting a great deal from Bridgeview. A nicer stadium does mean more moneuy in naming rights I would assume but doesn't location also come into play. I know Anschutz has done well putting together deals to make money but the question remains is Bridgeview best for the Fire many, many years from now. If Anschutz gets a stadium for very little of his own money and sells the Fire for a profit because of it, is that what is best for the Fire long term. Will enough people go to Bridgeview for a soccer game besides us hardcore fans? Not just the first couple years to see the stadium but will people who are new fans or casual soccer fans want to make the effort to go to a place that is not a usual or convienent destination. Will we fill that stadium with 25,000 when we don't always draw that at SF.
But doesn't this kind of project with surrounding development MAKE it a usual and convenient destination? Just asking. Well if that is the capacity, I don't see why not. LA never drew 23K regularly before this year. Dallas will almost assuredly draw well better than they ever have before in Frisco. We may not sell out every game, but there will be increased ticket demand. Even the big European clubs don't sell out EVERY game.