Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

[The Beast]

If the Sox decide to ever move, or have to move because of people leaving the city in droves, I hope they consider the Western suburbs of Chicago. It's a very different vibe out there and the Sox would sell out every game I betcha in Naperville or Schaumburg or Lisle, somewhere like that. Build some kind of palace, 8th wonder of the world in the suburbs and get some rich Chicago company to build it and embrace it.

Only place I'd support the Sox besides Chicago and the Western Suburbs is Vegas. Otherwise they'd be dead to me. However, they'd probably build an indoor stadium in Vegas cause of the temps and I hate indoor baseball. The Sox would take suburbia by storm, however. Do you agree?

People are leaving the city and Illinois in high amounts, but I can't see them ever moving outside of the city unless they were moving out of Illinois. What I think the low attendance boils down to is that the Sox have a smaller fan base than the Cubs due to all of the factors that have been discussed over the years. It's a better environment for families, so at least they can compete with that aspect even if there's no night life scene outside of the park.

 

I was trying to figure out with my dad at the game tonight why they didn't move to the suburbs in the early 90s and we just agreed that there wasn't enough financial backing and quite possibly the fan support for that. Having said that, I think attendance would grow if they were in Oakbrook of all of the suburbs. I could support the Chicago White Sox of Oakbrook, but I don't think I'd enjoy if they were in the loop (not that there's much room for anything there). It was great to see 28,000 there tonight and I could see crowds like that coming if they continue their winning ways into the summer.

[caulfield12]

Therein lies the rub.

 

The White Sox have a tremendously profitable stadium lease arrangement right now, even without drawing in excess of 2,000,000 per season (not to mention control of all the parking revenues). The odds of the public financing climate changing in the state of Illinois, will all its attendant economic and tax problems...and, in light of how close they were to losing the team in the 1980's, you'd have to imagine nobody would step in to rescue them this time.

 

So it amounts to an owner or another market making an even more attractive offer than the guaranteed profits from remaining in Chicago for the next 15 years or so.

 

It's more likely around that time that baseball would be looking to expand internationally...or they'd come up with some type of agreement to play XX number of games per season in Mexico, Havana, Brazil, etc.

 

Las Vegas, for the reasons you mentioned...indoor baseball, the fact that gambling is very macroeconomic-influenced (booms and busts, just like housing), and that it's hard to imagine picking up enough season ticket holders with the transitory nature of seasonal residents, just not seeing it.

 

 

If you look at population and economic trends, San Antonio or Austin, Montreal, California, Charlotte, perhaps Portland (have a feeling both Portland and Vancouver are too close to Seattle, territorial rights)...it all just depends on the type of legacy the Reinsdorf family wants to leave in Chicago. It's likely that JR would try to influence his children to eventually sell to someone who would keep the team in the Chicago area, somehow.

Edited May 8, 2016 by caulfield12

[tray]

Cub fans are the only people who are fixated on attendance figures at Sox games. They dream of the possibility of the Sox leaving Chicago, but that is never going to happen. First of all, the Sox have been in Chicago longer than the Cubs. Secondly, the league would never allow it. Third, Reinsdorf's sons have never indicated they would ever be interested in selling. Cub fans keep repeating a comment JR made to the effect that if his sons sold any team, it would be the baseball team but that doesn't mean they would even want to and if they did, chances are it would be to someone like bill Wirtz or a group of Chicago based investors, including those who already have a stake in the team.

 

It is inevitable that the lakefront will be developed from McCormick Place South. That has been discussed since the Burnham Plan and brought up numerous times over the years including when the City was bidding for the Olympics. The City is now discussing bringing the Lucas Museum here (although Rauner opposes what appears to me to be a very sensible plan to locate it where McCormick Place East is).

 

Eventually, that is going to happen. As part of that there there will likely be a new stadium. The White Sox are the logical tenant along with either the Bears or another NFL franchise ( perhaps a successor to the NFL's Chicago Cardinals) for a stadium right on the Lake. Until then, neither the White Sox nor US Cellular are going to go anywhere.

 

 

[caulfield12]

A multipurpose stadium for two teams?

 

Really? That close to Soldier Field? I can buy the new stadium (where is the funding going to come from if it's only related to MLB/Sox, though?) idea, perhaps...but how many stadiums today work well for both baseball and football equally?

 

It would have to be one of the most expensive and modern stadiums in history to pull off that feat, and would undoubtedly also involve a retractable dome/roof idea to protect against the weather.

 

Hard to imagine another NFL team in the same market, and literally down the street from the Bears.

[tray]

Hard to imagine another NFL team in the same market, and literally down the street from the Bears.

 

There already was and they played in Comiskey Park while the Bears played in Wrigley Field.

I'm not sure if another franchise will ever come to Chicago again but it is possible.

 

As far as a future ballpark for the White Sox, it may not be in our lifetime but the lakefront is a logical place to build the next one.

 

 

 

[Quin]

Cub fans are the only people who are fixated on attendance figures at Sox games. They dream of the possibility of the Sox leaving Chicago, but that is never going to happen. First of all, the Sox have been in Chicago longer than the Cubs. Secondly, the league would never allow it. Third, Reinsdorf's sons have never indicated they would ever be interested in selling. Cub fans keep repeating a comment JR made to the effect that if his sons sold any team, it would be the baseball team but that doesn't mean they would even want to and if they did, chances are it would be to someone like bill Wirtz or a group of Chicago based investors, including those who already have a stake in the team.

 

It is inevitable that the lakefront will be developed from McCormick Place South. That has been discussed since the Burnham Plan and brought up numerous times over the years including when the City was bidding for the Olympics. The City is now discussing bringing the Lucas Museum here (although Rauner opposes what appears to me to be a very sensible plan to locate it where McCormick Place East is).

 

Eventually, that is going to happen. As part of that there there will likely be a new stadium. The White Sox are the logical tenant along with either the Bears or another NFL franchise ( perhaps a successor to the NFL's Chicago Cardinals) for a stadium right on the Lake. Until then, neither the White Sox nor US Cellular are going to go anywhere.

 

I feel the need to point out that the Cubs are the oldest active team in professional sports, were founded here, have never left the city and were the original Chicago White Stockings. They eventually became the Orphans, Colts and eventually the Cubs.

 

The St. Paul Saints moved to the Southside and took up the old name due to its install base, then shortened it to Sox.

[southsider2k5]

I feel the need to point out that the Cubs are the oldest active team in professional sports, were founded here, have never left the city and were the original Chicago White Stockings. They eventually became the Orphans, Colts and eventually the Cubs.

 

The St. Paul Saints moved to the Southside and took up the old name due to its install base, then shortened it to Sox.

 

Absolutely right. The Cubs were established in 1876. The Saints moved here in the winter of 1900, and became the White Sox for the inaugural American League 1901 season.

[3GamesToLove]

Why don't the Sox draw as well as the Cubs? Well, there are many reasons, one of which is that there aren't as many Sox fans as there are Cubs fans. And that's fine. I don't care if the thing(s) that I like are the most popular.

[The Beast]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I was thinking of a few things regarding the attendance today when I was at the park. First off, there were 27,631 people there today. It was a beautiful day and it was a Saturday day game against a divisional opponent that travels well and the Cubs were out of town. Given that the park holds 40,000, what do you all think is a good crowd, considering the upper deck doesn't ever fill up on a consistent basis? I think anything north of 25,000 is a good day at the ballpark. If they could average 25,000 that is respectable.

 

I did wonder what you all thought about giving fans in the upper deck the opportunity to come down and sit in the empty 100 level seats after the third inning of games when it's not sold out or the lower bowl is a decent size crowd. Does that negatively impact anything? Does it cause a problem with the value of tickets if they did this once in a while?

 

And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move?

[greg775]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I was thinking of a few things regarding the attendance today when I was at the park. First off, there were 27,631 people there today. It was a beautiful day and it was a Saturday day game against a divisional opponent that travels well and the Cubs were out of town. Given that the park holds 40,000, what do you all think is a good crowd, considering the upper deck doesn't ever fill up on a consistent basis? I think anything north of 25,000 is a good day at the ballpark. If they could average 25,000 that is respectable.

 

I did wonder what you all thought about giving fans in the upper deck the opportunity to come down and sit in the empty 100 level seats after the third inning of games when it's not sold out or the lower bowl is a decent size crowd. Does that negatively impact anything? Does it cause a problem with the value of tickets if they did this once in a while?

 

And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move?

It doesn't work bringing the fans in the upper tank down to the expensive seats. Once a person in an expensive seat sees in the second inning he has some room to spread out, he doesnt want some family coming down and cramping him. my take.

[Bananarchy]

And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move?

I don't foresee it for a while, but considering where the growth is in the United States, anything could be possible in 20 years. Not to mention Illinois is the worst run state in the union.

[The Beast]

It doesn't work bringing the fans in the upper tank down to the expensive seats. Once a person in an expensive seat sees in the second inning he has some room to spread out, he doesnt want some family coming down and cramping him. my take.

Let me be clear that I am talking about areas in the lower deck where that are rows of empty seats, because there are definitely those. They'd have to know their analytics well to see how this would work out and where people could sit. And I wouldn't say the lower deck is "expensive," not with all of the coupon codes that are out there. I got $49 seats for $22 to sit 4 rows from the field in right. I never pay full price for a Sox game anymore and always sit in the lower bowl.

[Lip Man 1]

Keep this in mind about the future. Jerry Reinsdorf has publicly said more than once that he will recommend that his family sell the White Sox when he dies and told Bob Sirott on Chicago Tonight in May 2004 that he believes his family has no interest in owning the White Sox after he's dead.

 

Plus I've been told by a very good source who was a part of the organization that Jerry's wife has been urging him for years to sell the team and get out but he's refused.

 

That says something I think about how the family feels about all this.

 

Mark

[ewokpelts]

Keep this in mind about the future. Jerry Reinsdorf has publicly said more than once that he will recommend that his family sell the White Sox when he dies and told Bob Sirott on Chicago Tonight in May 2004 that he believes his family has no interest in owning the White Sox after he's dead.

 

Plus I've been told by a very good source who was a part of the organization that Jerry's wife has been urging him for years to sell the team and get out but he's refused.

 

That says something I think about how the family feels about all this.

 

Mark

And there's just as many rumblings that his son Michael has no interest in selling. And none of this has any bearing on how well the sox draw in 2016, nor does attendance even matter in how healthy the franchise is. There is a multi BILLION dollar tv contract looming. Imagine what someone who's been waiting patiently to run the franchise(if he indeed wants to keep and run the sox) could do with that kind of money...

 

[ewokpelts]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I was thinking of a few things regarding the attendance today when I was at the park. First off, there were 27,631 people there today. It was a beautiful day and it was a Saturday day game against a divisional opponent that travels well and the Cubs were out of town. Given that the park holds 40,000, what do you all think is a good crowd, considering the upper deck doesn't ever fill up on a consistent basis? I think anything north of 25,000 is a good day at the ballpark. If they could average 25,000 that is respectable.

 

I did wonder what you all thought about giving fans in the upper deck the opportunity to come down and sit in the empty 100 level seats after the third inning of games when it's not sold out or the lower bowl is a decent size crowd. Does that negatively impact anything? Does it cause a problem with the value of tickets if they did this once in a while?

 

And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move?

A 25K average equals 2 million fans. I think that's amore than acceptable for this franchise in the environment we're in right now.

 

That's also paid attendance. Butts in seats including comps is probably more like 2.4 million.

[ewokpelts]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I was thinking of a few things regarding the attendance today when I was at the park. First off, there were 27,631 people there today. It was a beautiful day and it was a Saturday day game against a divisional opponent that travels well and the Cubs were out of town. Given that the park holds 40,000, what do you all think is a good crowd, considering the upper deck doesn't ever fill up on a consistent basis? I think anything north of 25,000 is a good day at the ballpark. If they could average 25,000 that is respectable.

 

I did wonder what you all thought about giving fans in the upper deck the opportunity to come down and sit in the empty 100 level seats after the third inning of games when it's not sold out or the lower bowl is a decent size crowd. Does that negatively impact anything? Does it cause a problem with the value of tickets if they did this once in a while?

 

And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move?

If they project sub 25k sales, they open the lower deck to all.

[caulfield12]

The White Sox are in a terrible position to get a multi-billion dollar t.v. deal at the moment.

 

Obviously, it's three years in the future, but the White Sox are going to be lucky to get something in the same vicinity as the ROOT Sports deal for the Mariners in Seattle.

 

Nobody knows how long the bubble will last with these deals, for one thing. There's lots of concern about the economy going into a period of flat/lower growth, higher interest rates, less corporate profits, credit/loans much harder to come by.

 

Houston had all kinds of problems. Or look at LA, where they overbid by so much and tried to pass the costs onto consumers and none of the service providers were willing to go for it, with so many non-sports fans already cutting the cord (the last time a month or so ago there were attempted re-negotiations they rejected a 30-35% discount from the prior asking price).

 

Point #2 is the Cubs are getting 80% of the attention and that means the lion's share of the marketing/advertising dollars in Chicago. Unless something changes dramatically in that dynamic (the Cubs' current young core) it doesn't make any sense to project a huge tv contract for the White Sox.

 

Where's the profit going to come by paying the White Sox $120 million per season when they haven't made the playoffs (potentially) in over a decade at/by that time? We are well aware how bad the tv and radio ratings have been the last couple of years, in the bottom 3 of the major leagues, if not #30.

 

This assumption that the new tv rights deal is going to "save" the White Sox somehow is pretty ludicrous unless they dramatically change the way they evaluate and procure talent.

Edited May 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[Lip Man 1]

The White Sox are in a terrible position to get a multi-billion dollar t.v. deal at the moment.

 

Obviously, it's three years in the future, but the White Sox are going to be lucky to get something in the same vicinity as the ROOT Sports deal for the Mariners in Seattle.

 

Nobody knows how long the bubble will last with these deals, for one thing. There's lots of concern about the economy going into a period of flat/lower growth, higher interest rates, less corporate profits, credit/loans much harder to come by.

 

Houston had all kinds of problems. Or look at LA, where they overbid by so much and tried to pass the costs onto consumers and none of the service providers were willing to go for it, with so many non-sports fans already cutting the cord (the last time a month or so ago there were attempted re-negotiations they rejected a 30-35% discount from the prior asking price).

 

Point #2 is the Cubs are getting 80% of the attention and that means the lion's share of the marketing/advertising dollars in Chicago. Unless something changes dramatically in that dynamic (the Cubs' current young core) it doesn't make any sense to project a huge tv contract for the White Sox.

 

Where's the profit going to come by paying the White Sox $120 million per season when they haven't made the playoffs (potentially) in over a decade at/by that time? We are well aware how bad the tv and radio ratings have been the last couple of years, in the bottom 3 of the major leagues, if not #30.

 

This assumption that the new tv rights deal is going to "save" the White Sox somehow is pretty ludicrous unless they dramatically change the way they evaluate and procure talent.

 

Agreed. And when the Cubs announce their own TV station / network that's going to suck up a lot of the advertising dollars.

 

Sully had a column today in the Tribune which has been running a number of stories on the 25 years of U.S. Cellular Field and he had an interesting line in it:

 

"One longtime Sox employee told me Saturday they would have been better off if they had built the ballpark in the suburbs."

 

That's the first time that I know of somebody with the Sox has made a comment like that. Of course they had no choice as Mayor Washington said the ONLY location that he would support (as well as his cronies on the Sports Stadium Authority Board) would be across the street from the original Comiskey Park.)

 

Mark

[The Mighty Mite]

Agreed. And when the Cubs announce their own TV station / network that's going to suck up a lot of the advertising dollars.

 

Sully had a column today in the Tribune which has been running a number of stories on the 25 years of U.S. Cellular Field and he had an interesting line in it:

 

"One longtime Sox employee told me Saturday they would have been better off if they had built the ballpark in the suburbs."

 

That's the first time that I know of somebody with the Sox has made a comment like that. Of course they had no choice as Mayor Washington said the ONLY location that he would support (as well as his cronies on the Sports Stadium Authority Board) would be across the street from the original Comiskey Park.)

 

Mark

 

I've always believed that, the Sox would have had a Bonanza in the Burbs. The biggest mistake was building the new park at 35th and Shields but after Addison turned down the move the Sox had no other choice.

Edited May 22, 2016 by The Mighty Mite

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

I've always thought the location of the park was fine. It's literally right off the Dan Ryan and the Red Line. It's not too far from the downtown METRA stations either. The area around the park gets a real bad rap as well.

[The Mighty Mite]

People are leaving the city and Illinois in high amounts, but I can't see them ever moving outside of the city unless they were moving out of Illinois. What I think the low attendance boils down to is that the Sox have a smaller fan base than the Cubs due to all of the factors that have been discussed over the years. It's a better environment for families, so at least they can compete with that aspect even if there's no night life scene outside of the park.

 

I was trying to figure out with my dad at the game tonight why they didn't move to the suburbs in the early 90s and we just agreed that there wasn't enough financial backing and quite possibly the fan support for that. Having said that, I think attendance would grow if they were in Oakbrook of all of the suburbs. I could support the Chicago White Sox of Oakbrook, but I don't think I'd enjoy if they were in the loop (not that there's much room for anything there). It was great to see 28,000 there tonight and I could see crowds like that coming if they continue their winning ways into the summer.

 

They tried like hell to build the new stadium in Addison on land owned by JR off of 355 just south of 290, Addison and Phillip Pate didn't want them and the issue was voted down.

[The Beast]

I've always believed that, the Sox would have had a Bonanza in the Burbs. The biggest mistake was building the new park at 35th and Shields but after Addison turned down the move the Sox had no other choice.

Would Oakbrook have been an option? I wish it was in the suburbs, at least they would have built bars and restaurants around the park. I mean, I guess it doesn't matter, I only don't like going south of the ballpark. It was never going to be Clark street anyway.

[The Mighty Mite]

I've always thought the location of the park was fine. It's literally right off the Dan Ryan and the Red Line. It's not too far from the downtown METRA stations either. The area around the park gets a real bad rap as well.

 

The trouble is that most of the Sox fan base moved to the burbs, that plus a lot of people who live in the northern burbs have never ventured to the Southside of Chicago.

 

[The Mighty Mite]

Would Oakbrook have been an option? I wish it was in the suburbs, at least they would have built bars and restaurants around the park. I mean, I guess it doesn't matter, I only don't like going south of the ballpark. It was never going to be Clark street anyway.

 

After the Addison move was voted down there was no more talk of a move to the burbs, the issue was then build a new park for the Sox in the city or they move to Florida.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by The Mighty Mite

[Lip Man 1]

They tried like hell to build the new stadium in Addison on land owned by JR off of 355 just south of 290, Addison and Phillip Pate didn't want them and the issue was voted down.

 

If I recall correctly the motion lost by one single, solitary vote after the public had its say.

 

Mark