WhiteSox2023 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 2 minutes ago, fathom said: Nbb has mentioned they’ve lost a ton I’m not disagreeing. Just curious. My point is that “substantial losses in revenue” doesn’t mean no revenue at all. And that you aren’t in the green overall. That sounds like your team just didn’t earn as much revenue as was anticipated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 15 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said: I’m not disagreeing. Just curious. My point is that “substantial losses in revenue” doesn’t mean no revenue at all. And that you aren’t in the green overall. That sounds like your team just didn’t earn as much revenue as was anticipated. They’ve made a ton of decisions on and off the field the last 4 years that has destroyed the finances of the franchise. You couldn’t run a franchise worse if you were trying to tank the team towards another city. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 5 minutes ago, fathom said: They’ve made a ton of decisions on and off the field the last 4 years that has destroyed the finances of the franchise. You couldn’t run a franchise worse if you were trying to tank the team towards another city. I’m not disagreeing, but I would be curious to see proof that Jerry has actually not had revenue each season, even if it wasn’t the revenue that was anticipated. I really don’t think Jerry has actually “lost” money in any season due to all of the additional kickbacks for everything else outside of attendance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 16 hours ago, Dick Allen said: Funny thing is, the current park is much better in every way than it was when it was built to JRs specifications. Looking back, it's absolutely stunning how bad the stadium was when it first opened, as you said built to Jerry's specs. It's not just the 29 row upper deck stacked above 3 rows of luxury seating, but also lots of exposed concrete, the "moat" between the outfield wall and the seats, etc., etc. This website does a very good and thorough review of all the MLB parks. A lot of his review of Rate Field is comparing the current park to the pre-renovation stadium and how much the renovations improved it. https://ballparkratings.com/ballparks/u-s-cellular-field/ Edited October 3 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 17 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: We are already there. This location does not hold the fanbases interest if this franchise is not consistently winning. Attendance hasn't been this low since the 1900s. This is also a franchise that has almost moved multiple times. I know this is supposed to scare everyone, but we haven't been away from 35/Shields since 1909, yet this franchise is already in imment danger. The fan base is gone. It's at modern lows. This stadium has been a complete failure. 16 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said: Agreed. If they move, their attendance will likely automatically improve short-term because fans will want to see the new stadium. However, attendance will only improve long-term if the Sox can actually field a good team that can make the playoffs somewhat often, which is a much bigger problem than the location of the new stadium, IMHO. Agreed on both points. Aside from the bump for the first few years when the park opened and then a bump for a few years when they won the World Series, they've been plagued by attendance issues and criticisms of the ballpark and location. To make matters worse, over the last decade or so, the economics of drawing people to ballparks seems to have accelerated even more so toward a stadium integrated with other adjacent entertainment options. But they can't just build a new stadium and keep running this team in the same old Reinsdorfian way. Under Ricketts, the Cubs have become frequent participants in the postseason. They've advanced in the playoffs now - something the Sox have only done ONCE in the last CENTURY. Things were different when the North Siders truly were "losers". They might not make the playoffs every year, but I think they'll be frequent contenders going forward. The Sox can't bring fans back and rebuild this fanbase by fielding mediocre, underwhelming teams going forward. Edited October 3 by 77 Hitmen 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksnort Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: We are already there. This location does not hold the fanbases interest if this franchise is not consistently winning. Attendance hasn't been this low since the 1900s. This is also a franchise that has almost moved multiple times. I know this is supposed to scare everyone, but we haven't been away from 35/Shields since 1909, yet this franchise is already in imment danger. The fan base is gone. It's at modern lows. This stadium has been a complete failure. Idk, I could be wrong but I don't think the franchise is in "imminent danger. " I also don't think the fanbase is gone, I do think it's dormant and fed up. It is a fact that in order to get fans to show up the product on the field needs to be competitive. Chicago is big enough to have 2 baseball teams. The Cubs/Ricketts have been proactive about preserving the historical significance of Wrigley, while at the same time spending/ investing in it for renovating without losing that historical feel, and have also put a consistently winning product on the field. All of that leads to success. Jerry has done some good things to the ballpark to make it a better GameDay experience, but nothing has been done to preserve the historical significance of the franchise (of which there is plenty but it's not as publicly known due to no efforts to highlight it), and as we all know, there is clear incompetence when it comes to actually running a baseball team. I genuinely believe Jerry wants to win, I also genuinely believe his ego has gotten the best of him when it comes to decision making. Anyway, I believe the city is big enough to where the Sox and Cubs could have similar high attendance numbers. The problem is only one team knows how to attract and keep it's fans interested. Really the key thing is fielding a competitive team year after year. The Sox have never been able to do that. It's just perpetual rebuilding. The Cubs have figured out how to stay competitive. Historical data will show that the Sox draw big crowds when they play well. Also, look at St Louis this year. Top 10 ballpark, one of the best baseball cities in the country, took a huge hit in attendance with now multiple years in a row with subpar teams. Edited October 3 by Ducksnort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 8 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said: Is this really true, when you factor in all the additional profits they make from the MLB? My guess is that they are still in the green, just not at the amount they would want to be. “Substantial losses in revenue” compared to prior years does not equal “no positive revenue”. https://www.marcnormandin.com/2024/09/16/white-sox-to-cut-payroll-in-2025-after-substantial-losses/ The Sox brought in an emergency buyer to cover operations debt. Period. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 6 hours ago, Ducksnort said: Idk, I could be wrong but I don't think the franchise is in "imminent danger. " I also don't think the fanbase is gone, I do think it's dormant and fed up. It is a fact that in order to get fans to show up the product on the field needs to be competitive. Chicago is big enough to have 2 baseball teams. The Cubs/Ricketts have been proactive about preserving the historical significance of Wrigley, while at the same time spending/ investing in it for renovating without losing that historical feel, and have also put a consistently winning product on the field. All of that leads to success. Jerry has done some good things to the ballpark to make it a better GameDay experience, but nothing has been done to preserve the historical significance of the franchise (of which there is plenty but it's not as publicly known due to no efforts to highlight it), and as we all know, there is clear incompetence when it comes to actually running a baseball team. I genuinely believe Jerry wants to win, I also genuinely believe his ego has gotten the best of him when it comes to decision making. Anyway, I believe the city is big enough to where the Sox and Cubs could have similar high attendance numbers. The problem is only one team knows how to attract and keep it's fans interested. Really the key thing is fielding a competitive team year after year. The Sox have never been able to do that. It's just perpetual rebuilding. The Cubs have figured out how to stay competitive. Historical data will show that the Sox draw big crowds when they play well. Also, look at St Louis this year. Top 10 ballpark, one of the best baseball cities in the country, took a huge hit in attendance with now multiple years in a row with subpar teams. I assume you mean specifically under JR because from 1951-1967 they had 17 straight winning seasons and outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: I assume you mean specifically under JR because from 1951-1967 they had 17 straight winning seasons and outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 years. 1951 - 1967 is ancient history. Even the youngest Sox fans who remember 1967 are eligible to start collecting Social Security now. Edited October 3 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 5 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: 1951 - 1967 is ancient history. Even the youngest Sox fans who remember 1967 are eligible to start collecting Social Security now. WTF does that mean ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 2 minutes ago, tray said: WTF does that mean ? It means 1967 was almost 60 years ago, and that puts you really close to the age where you start collecting social security. It wasn't that deep. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 4 minutes ago, tray said: WTF does that mean ? It means that people who were 4 years old in 1967 are age 62 now. Is that too confusing? Saying that the Sox outdrew the Cubs in that Go Go Era means pretty much nothing to the state of the franchises today. Edited October 3 by 77 Hitmen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 22 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: 1951 - 1967 is ancient history. Even the youngest Sox fans who remember 1967 are eligible to start collecting Social Security now. 77 Hitmen: You probably don't remember seeing the "77 Hitmen, " but regardless, your posts drip with sarcasm and disrespect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 3 minutes ago, tray said: 77 Hitmen: You probably don't remember seeing the "77 Hitmen, " but regardless, your posts drip with sarcasm and disrespect. How are you offended by basic math? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 23 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: It means that people who were 4 years old in 1967 are age 62 now. Is that too confusing? Saying that the Sox outdrew the Cubs in that Go Go Era means pretty much nothing to the state of the franchises today. The person who started the post made a specific comment "Really the key thing is fielding a competitive team year after year. The Sox have never been able to do that." My reply was "I assume you mean since JR took over" because saying the Sox have never done that is factually incorrect. That was the only point I was making. Are we good now???????????????????????? Edited October 3 by Lip Man 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: How are you offended by basic math? Your posts share a lot of structure and grammar usage with 77 Hitmen. But anyway, my post was addressed to that entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 10 hours ago, Ducksnort said: Idk, I could be wrong but I don't think the franchise is in "imminent danger. " I also don't think the fanbase is gone, I do think it's dormant and fed up. It is a fact that in order to get fans to show up the product on the field needs to be competitive. Chicago is big enough to have 2 baseball teams. The Cubs/Ricketts have been proactive about preserving the historical significance of Wrigley, while at the same time spending/ investing in it for renovating without losing that historical feel, and have also put a consistently winning product on the field. All of that leads to success. Jerry has done some good things to the ballpark to make it a better GameDay experience, but nothing has been done to preserve the historical significance of the franchise (of which there is plenty but it's not as publicly known due to no efforts to highlight it), and as we all know, there is clear incompetence when it comes to actually running a baseball team. I genuinely believe Jerry wants to win, I also genuinely believe his ego has gotten the best of him when it comes to decision making. Anyway, I believe the city is big enough to where the Sox and Cubs could have similar high attendance numbers. The problem is only one team knows how to attract and keep it's fans interested. Really the key thing is fielding a competitive team year after year. The Sox have never been able to do that. It's just perpetual rebuilding. The Cubs have figured out how to stay competitive. Historical data will show that the Sox draw big crowds when they play well. Also, look at St Louis this year. Top 10 ballpark, one of the best baseball cities in the country, took a huge hit in attendance with now multiple years in a row with subpar teams. I agree that "imminent danger" and that the fanbase is "gone" is a too strong. But that doesn't mean this team doesn't have serious problems with the fan base. Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? Like how the Sox lost a lot of market share among people who grew up in the SportsVision era, I fear that they've lost a new generation now due to how badly this organization has been run since 2007 or so while the Cubs have become exciting over the last decade or so. And yeah, first and foremost the next owners have to build this organization into being one that is perpetually competitive. Building a new ballpark and then running the team "Jerry's way" would end badly. But that doesn't mean that there aren't issues with the ballpark and its surroundings that need to be fixed. Maybe those can be addressed while remaining at 35th & Shields. I personally have my doubts, but I agree that staying at 35th St. and improving things there is certainly possible. As far as the St. Louis attendance issue, their huge drop off should be concerning to them, but the only times in the last 30 years the Sox have exceeded the Cardinals' huge drop off today of 27,778 per game was 2005-2009. I actually think the St. Louis drop off should be a huge red flag to all of MLB, not just the Cardinals front office. The league is moving to a two-tiered set of teams where the small and even medium markets can't keep up with the top 12 or so big market teams and fans in those cities are turning away from the sport. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 5 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: The person who started the post made a specific comment "Really the key thing is fielding a competitive team year after year. The Sox have never been able to do that." My reply was "I assume you mean since JR took over" because saying the Sox have never done that is factually incorrect. That was the only point I was making. Are we good now???????????????????????? Fair enough. I was just highlighting that it really was a long time ago, but didn't mean it to be a criticism leveled directly at you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 6 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: I agree that "imminent danger" and that the fanbase is "gone" is a too strong. But that doesn't mean this team doesn't have serious problems with the fan base. Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? Like how the Sox lost a lot of market share among people who grew up in the SportsVision era, I fear that they've lost a new generation now due to how badly this organization has been run since 2007 or so while the Cubs have become exciting over the last decade or so. And yeah, first and foremost the next owners have to build this organization into being one that is perpetually competitive. Building a new ballpark and then running the team "Jerry's way" would end badly. But that doesn't mean that there aren't issues with the ballpark and its surroundings that need to be fixed. Maybe those can be addressed while remaining at 35th & Shields. I personally have my doubts, but I agree that staying at 35th St. and improving things there is certainly possible. As far as the St. Louis attendance issue, their huge drop off should be concerning to them, but the only times in the last 30 years the Sox have exceeded the Cardinals' huge drop off today of 27,778 per game was 2005-2009. I actually think the St. Louis drop off should be a huge red flag to all of MLB, not just the Cardinals front office. The league is moving to a two-tiered set of teams where the small and even medium markets can't keep up with the top 12 or so big market teams and fans in those cities are turning away from the sport. "Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? " You don't know anything about the fan base. Maybe best to keep your thoughts to yourself. Edited October 3 by tray 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 7 minutes ago, tray said: "Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? " You don't know anything about the fan base. Maybe best to keep your thoughts to yourself. On 9/26/2025 at 9:05 PM, tray said: Go root for the cubs . Tired of your whining. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksnort Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 20 minutes ago, tray said: "Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? " You don't know anything about the fan base. Maybe best to keep your thoughts to yourself. Those are kind of strong words. He's not wrong... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksnort Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: I assume you mean specifically under JR because from 1951-1967 they had 17 straight winning seasons and outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 years. Sure. I'm not 800 years old so I'm only thinking about during my lifetime lol. Which dates back to the late 90s. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 29 minutes ago, tray said: "Life long Sox fans aren't going to up and switch to the Cubs, but are enough Gen Z and Gen Alpha fans building a strong connection to the team as they've grown up over the last 15 years? " You don't know anything about the fan base. Maybe best to keep your thoughts to yourself. Yikes. Dude, it's a chat board. I've certainly gotten into my share of SoxTalk tiffs, and still do, but casually looking over the "78" thread, it's like you're picking fights with everyone over everything. While I disagree with the "lost a generation of Sox fans" idea, the Cubs make inroads into a citywide fanbase when they win, the Sox lose, and players like PCA capture the imagination of kids. That's important as us seniors shift to fixed budgets and die off/forget that baseball exists. I'm certainly not choosing a Shane Smith jersey over my next case of Busch Light. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoUEvenShift Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 5 minutes ago, WestEddy said: I'm certainly not choosing a Shane Smith jersey over my next case of Busch Light. You either find really cheap jerseys or pay way too much for your Busch Light 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 5 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said: You either find really cheap jerseys or pay way too much for your Busch Light Okay, next 8 cases. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.