New Bears Stadium

[HuskyCaucasian]

I was listening tot he Score on Sunday and Hub was talking about the economics of the game. One of the points he brought up was that with the Bears current stadium deal, they are really falling behind the rest of the league in revenue (specifically the big cities). Yes, they are making money (I think he said they made $40 million in 2008), but they have little room for financial growth as they are in one of the smaller stadiums in the NFL.

 

Hub seemed to think that in 10 years the Bears will probably start posturing for a new stadium. My guess is that they would have to head to a new location... (hey Bears, there is still some great land available in Elk Grove. I know the owner!)

 

I was curious on your thoughts on this.

[The Critic]

I don't want to spend one tax dollar on a new football stadium.

That's my only concern about this issue. I don't care if they get a new stadium or not, I just don't want to contribute one dollar to it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't want to spend one tax dollar on a new football stadium.

That's my only concern about this issue. I don't care if they get a new stadium or not, I just don't want to contribute one dollar to it.

That actually might be an interesting topic for another thread: Tax payer financed stadiums. I have a few thoughts on this as well.

[LittleHurt05]

I was listening tot he Score on Sunday and Hub was talking about the economics of the game. One of the points he brought up was that with the Bears current stadium deal, they are really falling behind the rest of the league in revenue (specifically the big cities). Yes, they are making money (I think he said they made $40 million in 2008), but they have little room for financial growth as they are in one of the smaller stadiums in the NFL.

 

Hub seemed to think that in 10 years the Bears will probably start posturing for a new stadium. My guess is that they would have to head to a new location... (hey Bears, there is still some great land available in Elk Grove. I know the owner!)

 

I was curious on your thoughts on this.

 

They did the same posturing ten years ago, threatened to move to Elk Grove or Gary and that was how they got the renovations. They shouldnt have made it the smallest stadium in the entire NFL. No way the city of Chicago spends money on another renovation so soon after.

[HuskyCaucasian]

No way the city of Chicago spends money on another renovation so soon after.

Hey, Chicago wont pay for it. Plus the Bears and the Park District already have a strained relationship.

 

For $400 million the Bears could get a really nice "plain" stadium in the suburbs. No need to get flashy like the $1 billion for the Cowboys. University of Phoenix Stadium cost $455 million and they got a roof! We payed $600 million and got a spaceship.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[SoxFan562004]

I think the whole situation was botched. The state or city should have gone the extra step and put a roof on the thing, if that meant a whole new building in a different location, that would have been OK by me. A roof would have given the ability to draw extra revenue for big events. If Detroit got a Super Bowl, no doubt Chicago would have got one (although that would have been likely a one time thing), Final Fours, Wrestlemania (might seem obscure to some, but that event often sells 50k+ tickets) and other large events.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I say in 10 years the Bears and Cubs (gasp! yes the Cubs) move to Schaumburg on what is now the Schaumburg Golf Course. There is plenty of room for two stadiums and parking. Just sayin.

 

PS: It'll never happen. The neighbors around here are too whiny.

 

On a side note: I just read this little bit of info I never knew: "Schaumburg (IL) investors were so convinced Wrigley WOULD actually move, they purchased land off I-355 to host a new ballpark. When Wrigley eventually stayed put, that land eventually became the site of Alexian Field and the Schaumburg Flyers. "

Edited February 23, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[RockRaines]

Hey, Chicago wont pay for it. Plus the Bears and the Park District already have a strained relationship.

 

For $400 million the Bears could get a really nice "plain" stadium in the suburbs. No need to get flashy like the $1 billion for the Cowboys. University of Phoenix Stadium cost $455 million and they got a roof! We payed $600 million and got a spaceship.

0.0 chance they build a Bears stadium in the Burbs. The lakefront downtown next to the stadium is incredible and is played up on TV everytime they play.

[Steve9347]

0.0 chance they build a Bears stadium in the Burbs. The lakefront downtown next to the stadium is incredible and is played up on TV everytime they play.

Yeah, f*** that. The Bears need to play on the Lakefront.

[MattZakrowski]

I think the whole situation was botched. The state or city should have gone the extra step and put a roof on the thing, if that meant a whole new building in a different location, that would have been OK by me. A roof would have given the ability to draw extra revenue for big events. If Detroit got a Super Bowl, no doubt Chicago would have got one (although that would have been likely a one time thing), Final Fours, Wrestlemania (might seem obscure to some, but that event often sells 50k+ tickets) and other large events.

 

I was always under the impression that wjen JR built the UC, he had a handshake deal that Chicago wouldn't build another domed stadium, but I could be wrong.

[ThunderBolt]

I hope a new Bears stadium looks like a boat eating a stadium this time, instead of a space ship.

[ptatc]

I think the whole situation was botched. The state or city should have gone the extra step and put a roof on the thing, if that meant a whole new building in a different location, that would have been OK by me. A roof would have given the ability to draw extra revenue for big events. If Detroit got a Super Bowl, no doubt Chicago would have got one (although that would have been likely a one time thing), Final Fours, Wrestlemania (might seem obscure to some, but that event often sells 50k+ tickets) and other large events.

 

being a season ticket holder, I would not want a dome stadium. The other season ticket holder around us have had this discussion and there would not be very many who would support it. Not that it matters much as McCaskey et al. will do what they want.

 

I realize they could hold more events there, although they do hold many concerts. I like football in bad weather. It's unique in that way.

[kjshoe04]

being a season ticket holder, I would not want a dome stadium. The other season ticket holder around us have had this discussion and there would not be very many who would support it. Not that it matters much as McCaskey et al. will do what they want.

 

I realize they could hold more events there, although they do hold many concerts. I like football in bad weather. It's unique in that way.

I'm the opposite. I don't want anything to do with going to a bears game past october. I don't like sitting in the cold. They should have a dome.

[CanOfCorn]

The Cubs aren't moving...ever.

The Sox...? Well.....I'm just saying, if the Bears and the Sox ever did get together like they almost did in the late 80's...one never knows.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Soldier Field is a joke. Every time I a new stadium come up it makes me sick, knowing the Bears could have had something like that but have a spaceship. I know I'm in the minority here, but I want a dome. I would love to see a Super Bowl come to Chicago, as well as Final Fours/NCAA Regionals. Not to mention a Big Ten football championship assuming they expand.

[RockRaines]

Soldier Field is a joke. Every time I a new stadium come up it makes me sick, knowing the Bears could have had something like that but have a spaceship. I know I'm in the minority here, but I want a dome. I would love to see a Super Bowl come to Chicago, as well as Final Fours/NCAA Regionals. Not to mention a Big Ten football championship assuming they expand.

Thats if you really care about the appearance of the outside of a stadium. The inside of soldier field is easily one of the best venues to watch a football game. Great views from everywhere.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Sox...? Well.....I'm just saying, if the Bears and the Sox ever did get together like they almost did in the late 80's...one never knows.

Forgive me, for I was but a small child in the late 80s, but what almost happened int he 80s?

[Soxbadger]

I like the new stadium. I dont even mind the design.

 

I would hate it if the Bears went to a domed stadium. I would actually hope that they change the name to something lame and girlish, because football is supposed to be played outdoors in the open air.

 

In the last 3 seasons I have been to 2 of the coldest games at Soldier Field, it was an amazing time and it gives the Bears home field advantage. Going to a dome would destroy their identity.

 

As for moving to the suburbs,

 

If the Cubs move, it will be the beginning of the end for that franchise. Wrigley Field, Wrigleyville and the whole atmosphere draw in a lot of the crowd to that park. They will have to decide whether they will rebuild Wrigley or renovate, but I cant imagine giving up a stadium that is more popular than the team itself.

 

The Bears arent going anywhere, they could get away with moving, but it would hurt their prestige on a national level.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I would hate it if the Bears went to a domed stadium. I would actually hope that they change the name to something lame and girlish, because football is supposed to be played outdoors in the open air.

I get kind of tired about that whole "it was ment to be played outdoors" argument people use. Ice hockey started outside, but they felt it would work better INSIDE.

 

In the last 3 seasons I have been to 2 of the coldest games at Soldier Field, it was an amazing time and it gives the Bears home field advantage. Going to a dome would destroy their identity.

I don't care about identity. I care about winning.

 

 

As for moving to the suburbs,

If the Cubs move, it will be the beginning of the end for that franchise. Wrigley Field, Wrigleyville and the whole atmosphere draw in a lot of the crowd to that park. They will have to decide whether they will rebuild Wrigley or renovate, but I cant imagine giving up a stadium that is more popular than the team itself.

That if a completely fair argument, but I think the whole "Wrigleyville " thing is over blown. Put the emphasis on quality of play, not location of park.

 

The Bears arent going anywhere, they could get away with moving, but it would hurt their prestige on a national level.

What "prestige" would be hurt by moving to a suburb? Is it some how less "prestigious" to play in a suburb? It's not like they have a long history at Soldier Field. Hell, the YANKEES torn down probably the most historic sports building in American history.

[IlliniKrush]

I like the new stadium. I dont even mind the design.

 

I would hate it if the Bears went to a domed stadium. I would actually hope that they change the name to something lame and girlish, because football is supposed to be played outdoors in the open air.

 

In the last 3 seasons I have been to 2 of the coldest games at Soldier Field, it was an amazing time and it gives the Bears home field advantage. Going to a dome would destroy their identity.

 

As for moving to the suburbs,

 

If the Cubs move, it will be the beginning of the end for that franchise. Wrigley Field, Wrigleyville and the whole atmosphere draw in a lot of the crowd to that park. They will have to decide whether they will rebuild Wrigley or renovate, but I cant imagine giving up a stadium that is more popular than the team itself.

 

The Bears arent going anywhere, they could get away with moving, but it would hurt their prestige on a national level.

Football is supposed to be played somewhere where players can perform to the best of their abilities. Hence all the b****ing about the terrible field. There's a reason the Super Bowl is played where it is.

 

Now cold I don't have a big problem with, but snow games where it's just a suckfest where no one can do anything, is lame. The whole "TOUGH COLD RUNNING THE BALL BEARS FOOTBALL" identity thing is stupid. Play in 72 degrees and throw the ball 60 times, I could care less as long as it produces wins. Your identity is your record, now the weather you play in.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I was always under the impression that wjen JR built the UC, he had a handshake deal that Chicago wouldn't build another domed stadium, but I could be wrong.

In my simplistic mind, places like the Sears Center in Hoffman Estates (oh what a DUMB idea it was to build that!) and the Rosemont Horizon (excuse me, AllState Arean) are more direct competition to the UC than a domed football stadium.

[SoxFan562004]

In my simplistic mind, places like the Sears Center in Hoffman Estates (oh what a DUMB idea it was to build that!) and the Rosemont Horizon (excuse me, AllState Arean) are more direct competition to the UC than a domed football stadium.

I would agree, the UC will never get the mega events because they simply don't have enough seating. You may get a top touring act or two who would play one show inside of a huge retractable roof stadium instead of 2-3 at the UC, that's the direct competition I can think of.

[Soxbadger]

I get kind of tired about that whole "it was ment to be played outdoors" argument people use. Ice hockey started outside, but they felt it would work better INSIDE.

 

You get tired of the "argument"? Its my opinion, it would be like saying that I get tired of people saying that Pepsi is better than Coke.

 

We are all entitled to our opinion, my opinion is that football is at its best outdoors. Its better to watch, its better to play, it what I enjoy.

 

I don't care about identity. I care about winning.

 

Im not even sure the relevance of this statement.

 

How does a dome improve winning?

 

Im pretty sure prior to the Rams winning the Super Bowl, that no dome team had ever won one. If anything I think a dome hurts a teams chances at winning, if the Bears played the Saints in a dome instead of outdoors in the NFC Championship game, who knows if the Bears win. It was a definitive advantage to be playing a team from a dome outdoors.

 

That if a completely fair argument, but I think the whole "Wrigleyville " thing is over blown. Put the emphasis on quality of play, not location of park.

 

Wrigleyville is not overblown. Go down there on a weekday when the Cubs are playing, the bars are filled with people, let alone the 35k in the stands. Go to Wrigleyville on a weekday when the Cubs arent playing, its a ghost town. Wrigleyville is a huge draw, if you are a Cubs fan its an amazing atmosphere.

 

What "prestige" would be hurt by moving to a suburb? Is it some how less "prestigious" to play in a suburb? It's not like they have a long history at Soldier Field. Hell, the YANKEES torn down probably the most historic sports building in American history.

 

Playing next to Lake Michigan and in the City gives the team more prestige. Prestige is an opinion and in my opinion its less prestigious to have your stadium no where near the metropolitan center.

 

The Bears may not have a long history at Soldier Field, but Soldier Field has a long prestigious history, just like Chicago.

 

Once again, my opinion.

[Soxbadger]

Now cold I don't have a big problem with, but snow games where it's just a suckfest where no one can do anything, is lame.

 

I love snow games, if even the worst game is being played in snow, I try and catch it.

 

I think elements are part of the game of football. I like wind, I like snow, I like rain. Perfect conditions are nice, but Id rather have the fog bowl or the Pats v. Raiders.

 

Those games have extra spice.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Cubs will never, ever, move out of Wrigleyville. I don't understand why people still think this could happen. the Cubs live and die with that field, in that neighborhood. Moving the suburbs makes no sense for them under any circumstances.

 

And LOL if the Bears expect public financing for a new stadium less than 20 years after they just got a new one, spaceship or not.