WrigleyField 22

Will they or should they?

Interfering with the catch that was caught cleanly.

This Lions team just can't help themselves. Lol. Have fun today. Hope Nagy doesn't switch everything back next week and wait to see if this team is improved at all against a real team next week.

Who would become the coach? Lazor? I'm guessing Mike Pettine. He has experience as a HC. Though, I could see some value in seeing if Lazor or DeFilippo could run a team (especially if it happens this week) with 13 games to go, as there would still be time to turn things around in this season. And either of those guys could be potentially be a long-term hire if things go extremely well, while Pettine would certainly not ever be more than an interim. Yea, I'm thinking it would be Pettine as a caretaker and DeFillippo if they wanted to give someone a legit audition for the permanent role.

They're a running team this year at least. It should be their strength. Yea they're leaning a little hard right now, but it's working right now. Hopefully they'll be a really balanced team that passes and runs well next year with a new coach and a full season of snaps under Fields belt.

I think it's possible. Like if they just get embarrassed against Detroit, it could be as high as 50/50. And no I don't care about what they've done in the past because every situation is unique.

Is it possible the players are actually responsible for initiating this feedback/collaboration thing? https://www.sportsmockery.com/chicago-bears/nick-foles-apparently-confronted-matt-nagy-about-offenses-problems/

Nagy said it’s a game-time decision That's stupid. If there is any doubt that on Friday afternoon that Dalton can play he should just name Fields the starter at least privately. (and its possible he has and he's just being a galaxy brain about gamesmanship.) Hey man, any little competitive advantage you can gain a against *checks notes* the Detroit Lions, you just gotta do.

I think I posted earlier, but I'm sure there's a path where they have a Joint Venture partner(s) with some capital backing. The equity contributions will be small enough for the McCaskeys to be able to put up their share and that venture partner will probably put up significant debt as well. They'll get some NFL money too. All they can probably count on from AH is some tax preferences for the future. I'm sure they'll try from the state, and hopefully fail. And maybe the county will do some bare minimum capital improvement help to the site whether it's roads or infrastructure. That joint venture may even be someone prepared to own the franchise in time. A convertible debt like scenario perhaps (where the McCaskeys can still get a nice 12% ROI on whats there now but give up the upside of an eventual 5.5B valuation). As to the rest of the site development, whether it's sold off directly or leased to developers, yes I'm sure additional development partners are brought in to add capital for hotels/condos/whatevers with some recurring revenue streams set up to go back to the team/partnership. Whether it's sold or leased is likely just a question of tax consequences. But since this thing may take time and Virginia could probably go at any minute, it may just be that it's handed over to the next owner as a ready made solution and still has increased the franchise value more than the $200M they'll put up for it. And presumably that owner will still bring in developer partners, but get to keep more of the downstream revenue by financing more of it directly.

Still skeptical they'll put a full team there rather than just eventually get to a point where everyone has to make the annual trip each year.

I'm not gonna flip allegiances, but I go to as many Sox games as Cubs games since they're convenient and cheap as opposed to inconvenient and expenaive. It doesn't immediately need 2M die hard fans to be viable. If the Bears move up to AH, the new team could maybe play up a North Side/South Side thing similar to Cubs/Sox, especially if the Bears continue to lag behind the rest of the league in terms of actually developing a team. Though I'm not sure how attractive being the White Sox of the city is to a new owner. I guess what are the other cities that will vie for an NFL team expansions attention? San Antonio Portland San Diego Oakland/Bay area 2nd team St Louis OK City?

After all the bitching about how you can’t be a Cubs and White Sox fan for decades, it would be hard to draw a dedicated fanbase. Then again if the Bears continue to flounder and can’t build a modern NFL offense and this new team can, there’s a slight chance. I guess I'm just dumb enough to stick with "my" teams no matter how horsefeathers they are so I wouldn't really give a new team a chance. I'm not gonna flip allegiances, but I go to as many Sox games as Cubs games since they're convenient and cheap as opposed to inconvenient and expenaive. It doesn't immediately need 2M die hard fans to be viable.

Obviously they'd struggle. And theres probably 2 or 3 cities who could support one team better than a 2nd Chicago team, but I would think it should be up there on the options if NFL expands. Especially if the Bears have a top notch facility they can host as tenant or SF as a playable home field.. It makes some sense.

Chicago probably should have a second team, but any scenario where there's two monstrous football stadiums is dumb. Since a second Chicago team will have trouble filling the stands for a while anyways, maybe they could be a SF tenant. They'll get no special treatment other than a low lease offer though, and the responsibility to keep up the turf.

Its for sale. In any development that happens there the city probably will be involved too. It doesnt take a huge leap for the city to help negotiate the path presuming the seller is willing to part at a price that makes sense. Outside of the state of the land, the main area of consternation with the Bears having a new stadium anywhere in the city is going to be the team wanting money to help fund it, and the city and state's attitude being "go pound sand." An area of land simply being for sale or not isn't the issue/solution. Well they did anyways for SF. While the state/city funding zero would be great, wonder what the 600M could have done there circa 2000. Call it 1B including cleanup for the whole site, which could have then been partioned off to Private developers. And SF could have just hobbled along for occasional non marquee events. Maybe Lucas Muesum could have eventually found its way to the Muesum campus. But yea now, I wouldn't want the city state to give any funding. Maybe a tax credit directly related to the cleanup aspect, but that's about it.

Aren't most former steel plant locations EPA supersites? Is this what you're referencing? I don't see it listed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Illinois If it were though, what's the implication, that it's too expensive to cleanup? I can find several articles about some level of desire for the city to make development happen there now. US steel moved out in 1992. I was too young to remember what was going on in the late 90s... Like has that site ever had promising plans?

Its for sale. In any development that happens there the city probably will be involved too. It doesnt take a huge leap for the city to help negotiate the path presuming the seller is willing to part at a price that makes sense.

Coming back to the idea of staying in Chicago, anyone have any idea why the US Steel Southworks site was never offered up as a solution? 400+ acres. On the lake. Nearby 90. On LSD. Close to a CTA stop. And a area that actually could benefit from development. 2021 aside, even when they were trying to figure things out in 2000s why wasn't that a proposed solution?

I would still prefer them to play in Chicago if all things are equal but my ultimate preference is a state of the art retractable (or just enclosed) stadium with a capacity that reflects the size of Chicago (aka not the smallest capacity in the NFL like Soldier Field is) and can host the types of events that go to other cities like the Big Ten Championship game, not to mention Final Four and an occasional Super Bowl. And if that can only be done in Arlington Heights, lets do it. Watch the McCaskey's blow it and do an open-air stadium because they believe in the meatball concept of Bear Weather. Yeah, I don't care about any of that stuff. It doesn't benefit me in anyway. I have a preference that sports teams should play in dense urban areas, but football might be the exception with their short schedule. Even in cases where it doesn't impact me directly I do just think it's better. I think the Super Bowls and Final Fours are overrated. But it amazes me that San Antonio built the Alomodome for ~$300M in today's dollars, never attracted the NFL team they were after and have hosted just about as many Final Fours as anywhere else (though no SB) . And now new stadiums will cost $2B to hopefully get a couple of those SBs and Final Fours. I'd love to see some financial argument that someone could spend < $1B and get a multi-purpose convention center that gets year round business, but can scale stadium seating for mega sporting events. Maybe it's not a feasible one though, but football stadiums are just very nuts now.

I don't actually watch that stuff, but being a crazy overreactiionary, but being a boring looking white guy wearing glasses sounds like a pretty brilliant marketing move. Well done.

I don't care about Bear weather, but I have come around lately to the idea that the games should be played on real grass. So screw the retractable roof and go with AZ/LV movable field where they roll in Bears grass 8 times a year and have field turf or whatever for other events.

On second thought just put a Bass Pro Shop that can also host a Final Four at Arlington Park.

Counterpoint: I love it (I've never been, but I'm sure it's the second best Bass Pro, after Branson)

I think that's fine. A lot comes down to maintenance costs I'm sure. The Fire and some concerts aren't the Bears, but if ticket tax revenue outpaces maintenance then they can just stumble along for a while. If maintenance costs are burdensome, bust out the TNT.

I think there is a high probability that will be the best course of action. We'll see though. Maybe there is a long term play that an MLS team can be a good long term anchor tenant, but it's a big bet as the Fire aren't that today. But I'd have to think they can retrofit to the Fire's liking in that scenario without doing something entirely new.