Chicago Fire for sale ??

[ferrarinycfc]

http://sbisoccer.com/2016/08/report-a-least-three-groups-interested-in-purchase-of-fire

 

[413Blue]

Chicago>Sacramento?

I was wondering why Peter Wilt was working on his Chicago NASL project. He is in the know, perhaps he see's an empty Chicago market (it pretty much is already, the Fire are irrelevant in Chi-town) on the horizon and is looking to easily capture the vacated Chicago fanbase who were loyal to him in it's early days. If he can build a successful Chicago NASL club, like he did with the Fire at the start, and like he did with Indy Eleven, he could hold the key to a crazy lucrative MLS Chicago MLS market in the future.

Or it could be that Hauptmann has realized how shitty of an owner he is and realizes his most profitable strategy is to cash out now.

On another note, let this be a lesson as to why we should not rush into a stadium deal. That Bridgeview stadium is possibly the worst deal in the history of sports, both the Fire lost with a shitty lease deal, and the town lost by financing themselves near bankruptcy for it. Let's stay away from distant little suburbs with limited access.

 

[NYCFCfan]

Here's the original report from Guillermo Rivera:

http://www.chicagonow.com/fire-confidential/2016/08/fire-sale-at-least-three-groups-interested/

Chicago have been trying to get out of their stadium deal, to no avail. Under the terms of the contract:

• Any Chicago MLS team has to play there for the next 20 years.
• Bridgeview owns naming rights and merchandise rights in the stadium.
• The Fire have to pay rent, $300k which increases 2% annually, for the field and for practice facilities.
• Chicago only get 92% of gross ticket revenue; 50% split of net parking and net concession revenue
• Bridgeview receives 77.5% of gross merchandise revenue.

Some people allegedly are interested but the Fire have no intention to sell right now. I wouldn't either considering how much the value is going up, I'd sit on it for at least 15 more years.

TL;DR - Fire aren't for sale, their stadium situation is a mess.

 

[danger]

A bit of background on stadium as it relates to Bridgeview residents:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...rena-means-bridgeview-taxpayers-cover-the-tab

 

[Ulrich]

Here's the original report from Guillermo Rivera:

http://www.chicagonow.com/fire-confidential/2016/08/fire-sale-at-least-three-groups-interested/

Chicago have been trying to get out of their stadium deal, to no avail. Under the terms of the contract:

• Any Chicago MLS team has to play there for the next 20 years.
• Bridgeview owns naming rights and merchandise rights in the stadium.
• The Fire have to pay rent, $300k which increases 2% annually, for the field and for practice facilities.
• Chicago only get 92% of gross ticket revenue; 50% split of net parking and net concession revenue
• Bridgeview receives 77.5% of gross merchandise revenue.

Some people allegedly are interested but the Fire have no intention to sell right now. I wouldn't either considering how much the value is going up, I'd sit on it for at least 15 more years.

TL;DR - Fire aren't for sale, their stadium situation is a mess.

Wow, who thought giving up that much merchandise proceeds was a good idea???

And naming rights?? That's a team's bread and butter...

 

[Fantazma]

is this why there are NASL "ownership groups" are so confident that they can be successful in starting their own team Chicago and not the suburbs?

 

[Ulrich]

Here's the original report from Guillermo Rivera:

http://www.chicagonow.com/fire-confidential/2016/08/fire-sale-at-least-three-groups-interested/

Chicago have been trying to get out of their stadium deal, to no avail. Under the terms of the contract:

• Any Chicago MLS team has to play there for the next 20 years.
• Bridgeview owns naming rights and merchandise rights in the stadium.
• The Fire have to pay rent, $300k which increases 2% annually, for the field and for practice facilities.
• Chicago only get 92% of gross ticket revenue; 50% split of net parking and net concession revenue
• Bridgeview receives 77.5% of gross merchandise revenue.

Some people allegedly are interested but the Fire have no intention to sell right now. I wouldn't either considering how much the value is going up, I'd sit on it for at least 15 more years.

TL;DR - Fire aren't for sale, their stadium situation is a mess.

Also interesting is the 1st line item. How is that even enforceable with any team other that this particular Chicago entity? Did Bridgeview write the contract with the Chicago Fire or with MLS? Because if MLS was to grant a hypothetical 2nd Chicago expansion team, they wouldn't want to be bound to playing at Bridgeview. Hell, MLS was desperate back then so maybe the league co-signed the contract binding all teams???

 

[danger]

who thought giving up that much merchandise proceeds was a good idea???

Even then, it seems like Bridgeview hasn't been getting enough revenue to cover their loan payments on the stadium deal:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0609_1_bridgeview-soccer-stadium-chicago-fire

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ls-bridgeview-taxpayers-village-owned-stadium

Edit: Adding http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-fire-field-fuels-tax-increase-for-residents

(The first MLS match I attended was the Fire in 2012, and I used to read the S8 ISA forums a bit when I was more casually following the league, which is where I recall having seen some of this stuff)

 

[NYCFCfan]

Also interesting is the 1st line item. How is that even enforceable with any team other that this particular Chicago entity? Did Bridgeview write the contract with the Chicago Fire or with MLS? Because if MLS was to grant a hypothetical 2nd Chicago expansion team, they wouldn't want to be bound to playing at Bridgeview. Hell, MLS was desperate back then so maybe the league co-signed the contract binding all teams???

Considering its single entity, with MLS. Which is why I'd assume the team and MLS are trying to get out of the contract.