southsider2k5 Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 11 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Ballpark experiences as we know them are a newer phenomenon, and yes it is a major factor in how fans consume the game now, but its not as if the Sox haven't drawn well on 35th street in the past. GRF has its issues, but we'll never know if a park experience would work because they've never tried. Another feather in JR's bad owner cap. My point is that Sox fans show up when the team is good. Being consistently good is something JR has never had as a top priority. A shiny new ballpark near downtown won't solve all of their attendance issues if they don't win. I'm pro South Loop park and believe it can be a shot in the arm for the future health of the franchise, but ultimately its lipstick on a pig if ownership continues to operate the way they have for the past 40+ years. The difference being a decent ballpark attracts people in many places even when the team isn't good, which is really important with a fan base that doesn't show up when things aren't ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball_gal_aly Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Jerry could have had Camden Yards in the 78 35 years ago. He rejected both the location and the stadium design. This is his f*** up. It's up to him to fix it. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NO!!MARY!!! Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 33 minutes ago, baseball_gal_aly said: Jerry could have had Camden Yards in the 78 35 years ago. He rejected both the location and the stadium design. This is his f*** up. It's up to him to fix it. It was Mayor Harold Washington who told that staying at 35th and Shields was part of a stadium deal. The current site was foisted upon them. They did agree, but can we please put to rest the BS narrative of greedy owners rejecting this sweetheart deal that was offered them on a silver platter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 The current deal the Sox have at guaranteed rate field benefits the Sox and not the taxpayers of Illinois. Why would the state agree to continue it? How could the state justify it. Jerry isn’t going to accept a lesser deal. When this new stadium thing dies and the state tells Reinsdorf to buzz off…..what then……? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 4 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: It was Mayor Harold Washington who told that staying at 35th and Shields was part of a stadium deal. The current site was foisted upon them. They did agree, but can we please put to rest the BS narrative of greedy owners rejecting this sweetheart deal that was offered them on a silver platter. Good memory. That’s exactly what happened. I’d forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball_gal_aly Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 7 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: It was Mayor Harold Washington who told that staying at 35th and Shields was part of a stadium deal. The current site was foisted upon them. They did agree, but can we please put to rest the BS narrative of greedy owners rejecting this sweetheart deal that was offered them on a silver platter. Ok, I was too young to remember that stuff so I was just going by what I've heard over the years from people who were around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 6 hours ago, waltwilliams said: The real problem is that the team has been horrible for the past 15 years. At their current location, the Sox were the first team in the city to draw 2 million (in 1983 and 1984). And during the years of promise during and after the World Series championship from 2005 to 2011, they were averaging 2.5 million, which is reasonable for a team in the smallest of the two-team towns (not counting the Bay Area). People will continue to make their way to South Armour Square as long as the team is good. This is true of most teams, especially in the AL Central. If the team sucks, fans won't go -- if the team is good, especially for a number of years, then the fans will go. They need an owner to rebrand them - kind of like the Clippers under Balmer. Not saying Clippers have won a championship and they will never be the Lakers - but they are building their own stadium, creating their own buzz, and definitely have a much bigger presence than before - but more than that - Sox fans - we don't care whether we are the most popular team in Chicago - we care about being the better team - I do think a new stadium and than the new owner (which I just presume is coming with it) will align that way. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 43 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: The current deal the Sox have at guaranteed rate field benefits the Sox and not the taxpayers of Illinois. Why would the state agree to continue it? How could the state justify it. Jerry isn’t going to accept a lesser deal. When this new stadium thing dies and the state tells Reinsdorf to buzz off…..what then……? Does the current deal hurt the taxpayers of Illinois? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said: The difference being a decent ballpark attracts people in many places even when the team isn't good, which is really important with a fan base that doesn't show up when things aren't ideal. True, but it isn’t a perfect fix. The best ballpark experience in the bigs in a super popular location isn’t a complete safeguard from a bad owner and the ass-backwards way he run the franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringfieldFan Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 At this point I’d be happy enough staying at GRF if they go back to decent scoreboard fireworks and not the cheap generic ones they use now. How about opening up early enough to let us in the place to watch batting practice? This is all the kind of thing that strips the culture and that’s what diminishes the “ballpark experience” more than anything. It’s not the park alone; Comiskey 1 smelled funny and it always seemed like something was dripping on you - but the experience was undeniable. Would it hurt them to put out a little and not go cheap and “managed” with everything? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 The need for this board to attribute all blame to one driver is frustrating. Jerry Reinsdorf has been an absolutely atrocious owner and has certainly killed a lot of fan interest during tenure. However, the current ballpark is also a problem and will never consistently draw causal fans or tourists. The proposed ballpark in the 78 will address the latter and Father Time will address the former soon enough. There is literally a path to becoming an elite sports franchise right in front of our eyes and many here would rather Jerry lose and/or a bunch of tourists not be taxed for using hotels. I hate to break the news to you guys, but even if this deal doesn’t happen, Jerry has already won the life lottery. His kids and their kids and their kids will forever be blessed with unfathomable wealth. Whether he can make another couple hundred million off a stadium deal doesn’t change the calculus. So what does Jerry losing actually accomplish? It puts the franchise in a weaker state for the next owner and causes us Sox fans to lose out on what will likely be a truly incredible ballpark experience. But hey, at least when tourists come to visit their hotel stays will be a bit cheaper…seems like a huge win for us Illinois taxpayers! 7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: The need for this board to attribute all blame to one driver is frustrating. Jerry Reinsdorf has been an absolutely atrocious owner and has certainly killed a lot of fan interest during tenure. However, the current ballpark is also a problem and will never consistently draw causal fans or tourists. The proposed ballpark in the 78 will address the latter and Father Time will address the former soon enough. There is literally a path to becoming an elite sports franchise right in front of our eyes and many here would rather Jerry lose and/or a bunch of tourists not be taxed for using hotels. I hate to break the news to you guys, but even if this deal doesn’t happen, Jerry has already won the life lottery. His kids and their kids and their kids will forever be blessed with unfathomable wealth. Whether he can make another couple hundred million off a stadium deal doesn’t change the calculus. So what does Jerry losing actually accomplish? It puts the franchise in a weaker state for the next owner and causes us Sox fans to lose out on what will likely be a truly incredible ballpark experience. But hey, at least when tourists come to visit their hotel stays will be a bit cheaper…seems like a huge win for us Illinois taxpayers! Truly rational! But being a White Sox fan the past 15 years has pretty much been the definition of irrationality in terms of opportunity cost. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuban_sammiches Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: It was Mayor Harold Washington who told that staying at 35th and Shields was part of a stadium deal. The current site was foisted upon them. They did agree, but can we please put to rest the BS narrative of greedy owners rejecting this sweetheart deal that was offered them on a silver platter. Mayor Washington died 8 months before the deal was made and the General Assembly passed the package to create the ISFA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kba Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, baseball_gal_aly said: Ok, I was too young to remember that stuff so I was just going by what I've heard over the years from people who were around. A drawing of the 1980's stadium plan at the 78 site is posted toward the top of this thread. It was the mayor's plan for a multipurpose domed stadium that looked like the Metrodome, not Camden Yards. The Sox actually were open to it, but the Bears said no, and the plan died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said: Does the current deal hurt the taxpayers of Illinois? The taxpayers don’t benefit. The Sox benefit. The governor remarked “no money to sports teams unless a $ benefit is realized by the taxpayers” to paraphrase. How can the state justify a sweet deal for Jerry (again) so he can pad his pockets and the pockets of his fellow team owners. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxintheCity Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Hello Sox fans! Lots of potential at The 78! I know the early renderings produced by Related Midwest are just that, young ideas that need time to evolve. Setting money aside, I wanted to share some design ideas about making this place really feel like home by channeling my memories of Old & New Comiskey into this new ballpark. Go Sox! https://soxinthecity.wixsite.com/the78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 23 minutes ago, kba said: A drawing of the 1980's stadium plan at the 78 site is posted toward the top of this thread. It was the mayor's plan for a multipurpose domed stadium that looked like the Metrodome, not Camden Yards. The Sox actually were open to it, but the Bears said no, and the plan died. Reinsdorf and McCaskey’s had bad blood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kba Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 7 minutes ago, fathom said: Reinsdorf and McCaskey’s had bad blood This is from 1986. Wonder if they've gotten past it: "Stadium insiders acknowledge that hard feelings exist between the owners of the Bears and the Sox. Some of those feelings stem from the $1.5 billion antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Football League against the National Football League. Sox president Eddie Einhorn, who hopes to start a USFL team here, is among the plaintiffs and McCaskey among the defendants." https://www.chicagotribune.com/1986/06/16/bears-sack-mayors-stadium/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, cuban_sammiches said: Mayor Washington died 8 months before the deal was made and the General Assembly passed the package to create the ISFA. Washington however told the Sox that the only way his appointees on the ISFA would vote to approve any deal was that the stadium be built across the street from Comiskey Park so those that say he forced the Sox into taking the location are correct. It is also a fact in the book that came out on the building of Camden Yards that a person with the HOK firm which designed the Orioles Stadium was quoted directly as stating that firm offered the Camden Yards design to JR and he rejected it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, kba said: This is from 1986. Wonder if they've gotten past it: "Stadium insiders acknowledge that hard feelings exist between the owners of the Bears and the Sox. Some of those feelings stem from the $1.5 billion antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Football League against the National Football League. Sox president Eddie Einhorn, who hopes to start a USFL team here, is among the plaintiffs and McCaskey among the defendants." https://www.chicagotribune.com/1986/06/16/bears-sack-mayors-stadium/ Spiegs said today he was told it was a huge deal that they met recently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuban_sammiches Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: Washington however told the Sox that the only way his appointees on the ISFA would vote to approve any deal was that the stadium be built across the street from Comiskey Park so those that say he forced the Sox into taking the location are correct. It is also a fact in the book that came out on the building of Camden Yards that a person with the HOK firm which designed the Orioles Stadium was quoted directly as stating that firm offered the Camden Yards design to JR and he rejected it. According to this article, Washington offered land at Clark and Roosevelt for a football/baseball complex in 1985 but Reinsdorf wanted to keep all parking and concessions (even after the city built all the infrastructure for the area). The Sox then tried to go to Addison but that was voted down by Addison voters. So where is the demand from Washington that it had to be built on 35th Street? I think it is more likely that Washington wanted the team to stay in the city. By 1988, when the deal was done, Washington was dead and Sawyer was mayor. https://www.southsidesox.com/2012/11/9/3619970/south-loop-sox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringfieldFan Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, kba said: This is from 1986. Wonder if they've gotten past it: "Stadium insiders acknowledge that hard feelings exist between the owners of the Bears and the Sox. Some of those feelings stem from the $1.5 billion antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Football League against the National Football League. Sox president Eddie Einhorn, who hopes to start a USFL team here, is among the plaintiffs and McCaskey among the defendants." https://www.chicagotribune.com/1986/06/16/bears-sack-mayors-stadium/ Neither here nor there but I’m not sure about Einhorn wanting to start a USFL team. The USFL Blitz had already died in 1985 and I recall hearing Einhorn briefly mentioning wanting to start a Chicago *baseball* franchise in a new offseason league. Anyone recall that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 4 hours ago, Lightly Folded said: The taxpayers don’t benefit. The Sox benefit. The governor remarked “no money to sports teams unless a $ benefit is realized by the taxpayers” to paraphrase. How can the state justify a sweet deal for Jerry (again) so he can pad his pockets and the pockets of his fellow team owners. This. Literally $800 million was spent by the IHSA since 2009, and several hundred million, perhaps over a billion (they only post financial records since 2009) for Comiskey Park II, including hundreds of millions in interest, the initial $150M, and at least $100M spent to fix the upper deck Jerry demanded in 1988, the bar scam across the street McCuddy's was denied after Gov. Thompson promised they would be allowed to operate. The new proposed stadium will likely top $10 billion when you include all stadium and infrastructure costs, the inevitable demands for upgrades over 30-40 years, and the several billion in bond interest, perhaps much more in a rising interest environment vs. the much lower rates paid over the past 30 years. None of the above includes the 50% + city/state sales tax the Sox haven't paid over the decades because they fall under 1.9M interested in Jerry's horseshit teams, nor the $400M he wants to pocket in IL sales tax, or the $0.00 in property tax he has or will pay over 75 years past/present/future, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 (edited) 81 pages so far and everything that could be said has been said but bottom line is there are around 10 million people in the Chicago metro area and the Cubs own the market with 67 percent Cub fans and 33 percent Sox fans. A new stadium will help draw fans for a while but after a few years the Cubs will still own the market and the Sox will struggle to draw 2 million a year. The Sox would be better off in another city and frankly I don’t care as that’s what 42 years of JR’s ownership has done to me. Edited February 29 by The Mighty Mite 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 7 hours ago, fathom said: Reinsdorf and McCaskey’s had bad blood 1 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.