Jimbo's Drinker Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 12, 2006 -> 12:40 AM) Doesn't help us much. It's gotta be in the city. lets knock down wrigley and make the cubs play in peoria for 2 years.....blah blah QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 12, 2006 -> 12:40 AM) Doesn't help us much. It's gotta be in the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 How about making the stadium w/ 80,000 seats, and then scale it back to about 40,000 after the games and give the Sox a new ballpark. The Cell will be 25 years old by the time the Olympics are over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 12, 2006 -> 08:07 AM) How about making the stadium w/ 80,000 seats, and then scale it back to about 40,000 after the games and give the Sox a new ballpark. The Cell will be 25 years old by the time the Olympics are over. ssshhhh.... that's a taboo subject! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 12, 2006 -> 07:07 AM) How about making the stadium w/ 80,000 seats, and then scale it back to about 40,000 after the games and give the Sox a new ballpark. The Cell will be 25 years old by the time the Olympics are over. I don't see that happening. I WANT A SECOND FOOTBALL TEAM! AND A FINAL FOUR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 They need "The Ditka Dome" (Married..with Children reference) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 12, 2006 -> 08:07 AM) How about making the stadium w/ 80,000 seats, and then scale it back to about 40,000 after the games and give the Sox a new ballpark. The Cell will be 25 years old by the time the Olympics are over. I am pretty sure the Sox extended their lease a long time at USCF as a part of their being allowed to remodel it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) They could build it on the south shore where the old US Steel plant was. This is an area that could use a huge shot in the arm. They could rebuild LSD So. and run water taxis in and out of down town. If this was the proposed site, I would be all for it. This part of Chicago could use it. By the times the games rolled around the entire area would be as happening as Lincoln Park. All the way up and down the So shore there are old buildings that would make an awesome investment. US Steel. Edited May 16, 2006 by My Dixie Normus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I WANT A SECOND FOOTBALL TEAM! Seeing how 2 baseball teams in this city has worked out, NO. Everyone in town loves the Bears. The way baseball has taken this town, w/ 2 teams and fans of both teams fighting and s***, I don't want a second team. Going at it w/ Packers fans is enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ May 16, 2006 -> 12:26 AM) They could build it on the south shore where the old US Steel plant was. This is an area that could use a huge shot in the arm. They could rebuild LSD So. and run water taxis in and out of down town. If this was the proposed site, I would be all for it. This part of Chicago could use it. By the times the games rolled around the entire area would be as happening as Lincoln Park. All the way up and down the So shore there are old buildings that would make an awesome investment. US Steel. I think that's too far south in the city. I'm pretty sure they want to keep it centralized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 16, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) I think that's too far south in the city. I'm pretty sure they want to keep it centralized. You beat me too it. I was going to say the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) The whole reason that the remodel of Soldier Field had such a low capacity was to try to keep the historical standing of it... now that it is gone, why not just expand it to 80K+ God knows they could sell the tickets for the Bears anyway. great point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I HIGHLY doubt that you could get enough interest to support another NFL team in Chicago. Everyone in the city LOVES the Bears. Dealing with the Packers is enough. I don't want to deal w/ a second football team in the city, the way we have to deal w/ the Cubs AND the Twins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 16, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) I think that's too far south in the city. I'm pretty sure they want to keep it centralized. Once the Ryan expansion is done, you could be there via the Sky-Way in 20 minutes. If they expanded LSD South like they have LSD North, you could be there from the loop in 15 minutes. It would be exactly what the whole So. Shore needs to revitalize that whole stretch from McCormick Place to US Steel. Edited May 17, 2006 by My Dixie Normus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 16, 2006 -> 07:28 PM) Dealing with the Packers is enough. I don't want to deal w/ a second football team in the city, the way we have to deal w/ the Cubs AND the Twins. Except this time the Bears would be take the cubby role and we would all blindly follow them lol . I wouldnt mind a 2nd team though...Football is the most entertaining sport to watch and maybe with 2 teams in the city ill be able to find a way to get to a live game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Except this time the Bears would be take the cubby role and we would all blindly follow them lol . I wouldnt mind a 2nd team though...Football is the most entertaining sport to watch and maybe with 2 teams in the city ill be able to find a way to get to a live game. No. 20 years after, you're going to see fights of Cubs-Sox proportions if that were to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 17, 2006 -> 03:38 AM) No. 20 years after, you're going to see fights of Cubs-Sox proportions if that were to happen No you wouldnt.... The Bears will be so much more the dominant team that it would take whatevr the 2nd team is to win 5 straight superbowls to start getting close to popularity. Thats not saying the city couldnt support the team. Im sorry but not everyone has some kind of anger issues like yourself and hates another team more than you like your own team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I could root for two Chicago football teams. If the Bay area can support two teams, Chicago can. One would be in the AFC. But that isn't going to happen until the LA market gets filled. It only makes sense that the Saints move to the NFC West, in LA and the Rams move to the NFC South with the Carolina, TB and Atlanta. Right now there is perfect balance in the NFL. 4 Divisions per conference and 4 teams per division. Since no team would move to Chicago with markets like LA, San Antonio and Las Vegas open all to themselves, that would mean that the NFL would have to expand. That would be bad for football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I dont see a team going to Las Vegas and dont think there would be as many fans there to support it anyways. Also I dont think San Antonio is neccesarily ahead of us either. The NFL failed twice in LA hasnt it whats the point going for a 3rd attempt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ May 16, 2006 -> 11:42 PM) I dont see a team going to Las Vegas and dont think there would be as many fans there to support it anyways. Also I dont think San Antonio is neccesarily ahead of us either. The NFL failed twice in LA hasnt it whats the point going for a 3rd attempt? TV money is the point of a 3rd attempt in LA. The Rams never had the right personality for LA and the Raiders were always seen as carpet baggers. No one thought they would stay and they didn't. San Antonio is the 8th largest city in America. Larger than all of these NFL cities. They could easily support an NFL team. They are far and away ahead of a second team in Chicago and right behind LA for the next team available. Dallas, Tex. Detroit, Mich. Indianapolis, Ind. Jacksonville, Fla. San Francisco, Calif. Baltimore, Md. Seattle, Wash. Boston, Mass. Denver, Colo. Washington, DC New Orleans, La. Cleveland, Ohio Kansas City, Mo. Atlanta, Ga. Oakland, Calif. Miami, Fla. Minneapolis, Minn. Vegas falls in between DC and New Orleans and is the fastest growing city in the US. The casinos would buy up 1/4 of the stadium at least and the home games would become a road trip destination for every NFL fan. But the NFL would want to associate itself with gambling so closely. If it wasn't for gambling, the NFL would not enjoy the popularity it does but that doesn't mean they have to like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 How would being in Vegas have concerns over gambling?? You don't have to be in Vegas in-person to gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 17, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) How would being in Vegas have concerns over gambling?? You don't have to be in Vegas in-person to gamble. Access to the players and the players having access to gambling. IIRC you still can't wager on UNLV games. Dallas metroplex is bigger than SA. You have to toss Fort Worth into the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Access to the players and the players having access to gambling. I don't understand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Las Vegas is not conducive to honesty and player focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Well, we have gotten pretty far off topic but yes, you would have to include Ft. Worth. Philly also has more people within 100 miles. Boston, Washington.... on and on. But San Antonio has a little of that too. I don't see Vegas getting a team before LA. Or any other city before LA. And IMO it will be an existing team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Here is the latest update on the Chicago olympic bid... Two options being floated about are to either build a temporary stadium, or they could tear down McCormick Place East and build an Olympic Stadium there. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-oly12.html 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.