Rumor: Final Stadium Decision Soon?

And neither will we when we have our new 80,000 seat stadium in 15 years. (no-one pinch me, this is a fun dream)

 

http://itv.stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/PR/attend.html

Take a look at this for a good idea how even English league clubs sell even in comparable size stadium to what we'd be looking at. This doesn't even take into account European matches which would actually LOWER most attendance averages further.

Or are you telling me they're packing them in for early-round Champions League or UEFA Cup games against the Latvian league champions?

 

No, it's Bridgeview. A convenient and popular destination is where Soldier Field is. Wrigley Field is the same thing.

I realize that a lot of the differences are people's perceptions and not necessarily the realities, but perceptions matter here. If people perceive Bridgeview to be too out of the way to go to, then Bridgeview is too out of the way to go to.

Now, Comiskey might not be the best area of the city to locate, the North side would likely be better, and the south loop would work too.

Both Baseball and Football had a passing fascination with suburban stadiums and both have since figured out that centrally locating a stadium in the densest population center possible is a winning formula.

I've been to Alsip, and if it wasn't for the fact that I had a friend living there, I'd see no reason to ever go back again. I have, however, found myself in downtown Chicago a lot for various purposes.

I think it's probably a mistake, personally. My guess is that being so close to the Dan Ryan, if the Fire erected a large grandiose Advertisement for somebody (ala the Coke Bottle at Pac Bell park) that could be seen from the Ryan, they could make a pretty serious piece of change.

Also, if the Fire is going to go for the money in Bridgeview, it would seriously reduce my tolerance for field destroying non-soccer events happening there.

I think it's a bad move.

 

Me too.

 

Except in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000.

I think that this is pure speculation. The Fire's history with moving to the burb's suggests otherwise.

 

well ok then.

Again, Bridgeview does not equal Naperville.

 

But then Bridgeview doesn't equal Chicago either.

That's my point is that this _does_ represent a significant compromise, and it's fair to question whether it will be worth it.

 

Bridgeview /= Naperville.

Bridgeview is still a poor solution. A 'cathedral' in Bridgeview isn't as good as a decent stadium in Bridgeport. This is a short sighted move.

Sorry folks, if it's true, it's the wrong solution. Bridgeview was the best of the suburban solutions, but 3rd out of the three remaining solutions. Bridgeview, even with an extension to the orange line, is far.

It's still a rumor, but we can feel free to discuss it.

I live in the 'burbs. I'm more than familiar with the city. Bridgeview will be a great location. It still isn't going to be as good as Bridgeport.

This is AEG acting quickly rather than rationally.

 

fact of the matter is a cathedral in naperville would have worked

a cathedral in bridgeview will work... if we go with that proposal



naperville would have been ideal... aside from the turf, non-permanent seating, track (goes with turf) and no beer

bridgeview will have grass, beer, permanent seating and beer

a home is what you make of it... any fire fan should gladly call this home if it is built

i know i will

 

I would agree with this. I'm sure that Bridgeview would be a sucess, but it would not be as much of a success as Bridgeport. Besides the current comparative lack of transportation, the fact that Bridgeport is, more or less, downtown Chicago would do more to enhance the visibility and cachet of the team.

 

This sums up my feelings exactly. Bridgeport would have been ideal, without a doubt, but a FIRE stadium within reasonable distance that has beer makes my pants happy. Very happy.

 

I still think the move to Bridgeview is a little strange.

As a couple of people on these boards have stated, a stadium will have serious troubles being useful to AEG's Concerts West division, so it's gotta be a cathedral to soccer and not much else (since there just aren't enough high school football games to fill dates). But the lower bowl of NSF is a pretty damn good cathedral as it is, and the Fire have a damn good lease there.

I think the lesson from Southlake is that you shouldn't move just because the numbers are slightly better. It upsets sponsors and kills media coverage. OK - a cathedral isn't a high school football stadium, granted, but I don't think it's an entirely spurious correlation/example. We just saw what the Trib (finally) did with respect to quality coverage, now that there's no other positive sports stories in the city to write about. Given that the Fire have a good lease and no debt service now, I just don't see how Bridgeview is more than slightly better economically, if we accept that a stadium's useless to Concerts West, or better from a PR/fanbase point of view. The toilets work well and there's beer at NSF, from what I've heard.

Look, the "trend" is to move back into city centers - the Lions, for Chrissakes, moved back to the worst urban center in America. Just because something works for Frisco and the Burn doesn't mean the same applies to Chicago. I mean, the Bulls don't have people drive four/five hours to come to games, but the Grizzlies do. Chicago's the only city to have teams in all four major sports (five, if you have to include MLS) that play in the city proper. There's a reason for that.

(And yeah, the same economic arguments apply to a new stadium by Sox Park, but that's probably a wash PR and media-wise with NSF.)

 

Good post sachinag!

 

Here's my take:

There are only 10 or 12 people who can know whether this is definite. If fanaddict 's source isn't one of them, then the whole thread is crap. So let's pretend he actually heard from a reliable source.

Somebody playing at that level doesn't tell fanaddict for fun. Since FA told us it wasn't the Fire, that leaves Bridgeview and the city. Bridgeview wouldn't confirm for fear of queering the deal. So that leaves the city people.

Why would the city plant a rumor that the Fire are going to Bridgeview? Easy -- it's a way of telling the Fire 'we're not changing our offer, so if you REALLY have a better offer from some god-forsaken suburb, you may as well take it.'

Of course, I doubt fanaddict's source is reliable.

 

I think Voros and Sachinag pretty much nailed what I was thinking. I just feel like we have been making great strides in the right direction lately, and I sincerely feel that moving away from the city is a serious move in the wrong direction.

 

Well, I guess the silver lining is that i'm probably gonna get season tickets next year. I wanna see as much of the Fire as I can while we are still a Chicago team.

 

This could be the team posturing as well.

I won't believe anything until they break ground.

Doesn't matter where they go, I'll be there.

 

I agree with the earlier post that perception means a lot. In reality, however, Bridgeview is about the same distance from downtown as the Loyola Campus (or slightly north of there), and far more accessible (with the exception of the L -- which is a big exception).

Some of the ideas being thrown around in here, however, are not reasonable. South Loop? North of the Loop? You could have secured land in these areas 20 years ago at a reasonable price, but not now. Not to mention Daley and the respective Aldermen control these areas with little desire for ANOTHER stadium.

Also, the whole NSF lease thing. We have all heard that it is better, but womewhere along the lines, people assume its a great lease, and that with debt service, a new stadium will only be slightly more profitable. None of us know what the numbers look like anywhere. I think AEG would not pull a Southlake type of move to SLIGHTLY increase the bottom line. I'm thinking they still feel this move is necessary for the survival of the club.

I am fairly comfortable with the reliability of the grape vine on this, so I think it is time to start thinking Bridgeview and what it can be.

This organization has been great at listening to concerns and doing the best to take care of us. Look at Naperville for a minute. Virtually no access of the modern stadium variety. But the Fire did everything it could to please the neighbors, the City, the college and us. I know that I never had any serious logistical problems getting in and out of there, and that is a testament to the Fire.

I think the same will hold true in Bridgeview. I am guessing that they will arrange for fairly easy access for those of us in the City that just want to jump on the L.

In the mean time, wait for the announcement, and give them a chance to show us the plan before jumping off the bandwagon. This coming from a guy who has been pro-city throughout the endless debates on here.

 

Orange Line

Id like to see cost analysis on extending it. I expect it would be more than the stadium itself

 

Here, here. It seems like such a simple concept that has caused so much angst for two years.

 

Re: Orange Line

Of course it would be. Of course, it wouldn't be extended just for the stadium.

 

This is probably very good advice. At this point arguing about City vs Bridgeview is just that, arguing. If people feel the need to dis AEG, the Fire or city of Bridgeview it's certainly their prerogative.
Fact is they are very close to announcing their decision. After they do, it makes a lot more sense to learn to deal with it rather then complain about what a mistake it is. Once the decision is announced they aren't going to change it. It's been a long and thorough process. Whatever decision they have made, they have done so taking all things into consideration. I think the combined braintrust of the Fire, AEG and MLS are at least as intelligent as our message board family. Let's give them a little credit and lets support our club.