Liked for “Crew them.”
Expansion Rumors Megathread
- Thread starter MagnusPax
- Start date
Wow. That really is a fascinating development. The world of soccer in the U.S. is just nuts right now... too much chaos for my liking.
snugglefarts
Registered
I believe a D1 soccer team in Chicago has to play in Bridgeview until 2036. So if they moved the Fire and promoted the new team they'd have to play in Bridgeview. If MLS wanted to promote this USL team as a 2nd Chicago team that would work.
Are there certain attendance figures they have to hit? If not, and there are an odd number of teams in the league; they could rename the Fire the Chicago Bye.
I don’t think that would be legal. Perhaps an MLS team has to play there, and MLS happens to be D1 so the 1st Chicago MLS team if they ever have multipl, but if the USL or NASL or any other league gained D1 status then there’s no way they could be forced to play at Bridgeview. Bridgeview signed a contract with MLS/the Fire, not USSoccer(D1).
I don't know the terms of the Bridgeview deal, but could MLS potentially look to exit the Chicago market for a few years to choke out Bridgeview and force a buyout? Presumably the city is taking revenue from those 17 games a year. Without it, they're bleeding money and are more willing to settle and for less. Then, CHI2 is promoted?
Meh, the most simple explanation is that a USL team would probably kill it at that location, so why wouldn't an investor want to do it and why wouldn't the USL accept?
Would love to see the Fire eventually get out from Bridgeview and into a new place in Hyde Park or something, to set up another North Side v South Side thing like in MLB.
Meh, the most simple explanation is that a USL team would probably kill it at that location, so why wouldn't an investor want to do it and why wouldn't the USL accept?
Would love to see the Fire eventually get out from Bridgeview and into a new place in Hyde Park or something, to set up another North Side v South Side thing like in MLB.
I love how 75% of the board is all “‘Moving the Crew is immoral!” And the other 75% is “MLS should tell Bridgeview to go to hell!”
The contract is with MLS and USSF.
If D1 = true
Then play = bridgeview
Is that a really shitty deal? Yes it is. Was it a shitty deal in the context of being MLS in 2006 and getting one of the first SSS for $0 outlay, good god no.
Not me. I’m consistently fuck ‘em all.
And fuck us, too, if we don’t support the team and/or get a better deal.
No, at least according to the article, they are going forward either way. Other potential office development suitors want entertainment venues they say.
Exactly. For those wondering, and trying to figure out legal ways MLS can escape its obligations, we had this discussion nearly post-for-post back in March. Here is the best summary from back then of the deal.
Bridgeview's strangle hold on MLS activity in the Chicago really is complete if the article cited is accurate. But they paid for the whole stadium. I don't begrudge them any of it.
The thing is, it has been a bad deal for both sides because as with many stadiums built or subsidized by localities, the predicted area development never happened and revenue also fell short of forecasts. When a deal is bad for both sides there should, in theory, be a buyout price acceptable to both. But I doubt MLS and the Fire are willing to pay enough to make Bridgeview whole for 20 years of lost revenue (even with that revenue being less than they wanted) while also paying for a new stadium in the city.
Item #4 is absolutely insane for MLS to have agreed to. As long as there’s one team playing at Bridgeview, the league’s obligations should be met, because that is a ridiculous burden to saddle any new ownership group with through 2035 - it guarantees MLS can’t expand into Chicago with a second team until the contract runs its course.
Now I wonder if there’s a way around it though.... allow a new team to sign a letter of intent to formally join MLS in 2036 with their expansion fee put into escrow immediately, but for the years leading up to 2036, allow the independent team to play a full slate of matches against the league-owned teams. Would that be kosher? Bridgeview can’t claim they’re an MLS team because they aren’t league-owned, and therefore they can build their stadium in LinkenPark or wherever else.
Or could MLS technically reconfigure their corporate structure (I.e. reincorporate in a new state, rebrand, etc) so that their old contracts/leases are voided? Obviously there would be certain ones they’d want to keep (TV, sponsorships, player, etc) but could they rid themselves of bad ones like Bridgeview if the league became the Ultimate Soccer League of America, or some other crazy league name that corporate America gravitates to?
Last edited:
That’s the same logic that had 98% of MLS not wanting to give NYC a second team (ok, a first) because RB had shitty attendance. The Chicago Fire are pretty much in the same black hole as RB by having a stadium that isn’t in a geographically convenient location for the city it claims to serve.
Now that NYC has NYCFC, the doubters have been eating crow and even RB bumps their avg attendance because of the derby(s).
Has anyone here actually been to Bridgeview, Illinois?
If you live in Chicago, you can't attend a Fire match. If you live in the wealthy northern suburbs of Chicago (which is where most of the wealthy commuters live), you can't attend a Fire match. If you live west/northwest of Chicago, going towards O'Hare, where the suburbs are sprawling to, you can't attend a Fire match.
Unless you live south of the city proper, it's impossible to get to a Fire match unless you want to commit 90 minutes to 2 hours to get there. The traffic situation in Chicago is so fucked, it's impossible to get to the stadium. I've tried on numerous occasions.
If you live in Chicago, you can't attend a Fire match. If you live in the wealthy northern suburbs of Chicago (which is where most of the wealthy commuters live), you can't attend a Fire match. If you live west/northwest of Chicago, going towards O'Hare, where the suburbs are sprawling to, you can't attend a Fire match.
Unless you live south of the city proper, it's impossible to get to a Fire match unless you want to commit 90 minutes to 2 hours to get there. The traffic situation in Chicago is so fucked, it's impossible to get to the stadium. I've tried on numerous occasions.
I've been there. We drove from downtown and it wasn't too bad, but it wasn't close. Then afterwards, our battery was dead, so we had to take public transport back. Three buses and two transfers. Nightmare.
Aside from year 1 when I had season tickets, I've always been an impulse attendee. I buy my tickets day of if I feel like going. That would be basically never if I lived in Chicago. Same if an NYCFC stadium was built somewhere like Aqueduct, Belmont, etc.
My money is on Nashville and Cincinnati, although I would prefer Sacramento.
Here is the article on the league page:
https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/11/29/four-finalist-cities-named-next-two-mls-expansion-teams
Similar threads
