Wasn't sure where else to put this, a little bit dated now but a wide ranging discussion including stadium facilities.
NFL NFL Stadiums Discussion
- Thread starter Dirty Bird
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don't understand why Illinois is bothering with this. Like New York and Los Angeles, the NFL needs Chicago more than Chicago needs the NFL. What will they do, move the team to some much smaller city like St Louis? The Bears haven't even given the city a Super Bowl in nearly 40 years.State willing to help Bears with new stadium at Michael Reese site, Speaker Welch says | FOX 32 Chicago
For the first time, Illinois lawmakers are signaling support for using taxpayer money to assist the Chicago Bears with a potential stadium project.www.fox32chicago.com
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Chicago should really have two teams. Next biggest city after NY and LA
- May 3, 2015
- 3,469
- 7,644
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Cubs Blackhawks Fulham Ivanhoe FC
They did in the beginning.
Brasher
Premium Platinum
Unless they go dom they will never get a SB.
The stadiums in Detroit and Minny have both only hosted one SB each. A billion dollars in government funding for one SB seems like a poor return.
Brasher
Premium Platinum
It's more winter outdoor conditions and which city the NFL stakeholders prefer to spend the SB fortnight.
It's why we see so many games in Miami and New Orleans.
Minnie and Detroit get their SBs as part of a promise incorporated into the financing deal.
A11dAtP0w3R
Dumpster Fire Diver
- Oct 18, 2013
- 96,104
- 141,513
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Carolina Panthers
Bears fans deserve another option.
I have thought Chicago could easily accommodate two NBA teams. Has it been long enough since the 90s that another team could get oxygen alongside the Bulls? Won't happen though, they have three candidates for two potential expansion spots already.
- May 3, 2015
- 3,469
- 7,644
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Cubs Blackhawks Fulham Ivanhoe FC
I know one that would probably jump ship.
Then I’d have to stop giving GG and that Karen Parker fan grief for being turncoats
caveat until or unless the McCaskeys sell
Last edited:
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Looking purely from a financial sense rather than a fan sense, I think Haslam would be better off moving the team. And I don't mean to the suburbs, I mean out of Ohio altogether. Cleveland only has 2 million people in its metro area, is shrinking, is nothing special economically and has a state income tax. Somewhere like Austin or San Antonio would have a bigger population and none of the other issues.
But, Cleveland's loyal fans deserve a team, and ripping it away for a second time would be really cruel.
But, Cleveland's loyal fans deserve a team, and ripping it away for a second time would be really cruel.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
If market size was all that mattered then Green Bay shouldn't have a team either, but you can't/shouldn't uproot tradition/history just to pander to dollars.
Problem with the league is the divisions, makes it very hard to add even just a new expansion team or two because then you "need" to add 8 in one go to ensure divisions are even.
If they did away with divisions and just had conferences, then you could slowly add one expansion city at a time.....St Louis, San Diego, San Antonio, Chicago-2
The Packers are owned by the city, right? They're hardly likely to move the team. Anyway, every franchise that has moved had history and tradition uprooted. Yet the league considers it fine every time and signs off on it if they pay the relocation fee. Oakland had history and tradition and the Raiders spat on them, twice.
They didn't always have four divisions of four though. There used to be three divisions per conference. If they went back to that, they would only need to add four teams to make them even. (4x4x2=32 to 6x3x2=36)
That's true. But I doubt the NFL will expand again within the US. I think eventually they'll work out which four cities in Europe are the best expansion choices and put teams there.
