-
This Is Comical......Daley Touts Two NFL Franchises in Chicago.........
Two NFL franchises for Chicago? Forget about it
Daley just feeding sports talk as London, others provide more enticing markets
David Haugh's In the Wake of the News 6:27 p.m. CDT, August 25, 2012
Now we know what role former Mayor Richard M. Daley can play in the private sector and still galvanize people in the city: sports talk programmer.
Rich from Bridgeport, floated an idea only a radio-show caller could love when he suggested Chicago needs a second NFL team. Daley's grandiose plan contained the ideal mix to kill an hour of morning- or afternoon-drive time — two parts fantasy, one part reality. All that was missing was a sponsor and a Web poll.
It captured the imagination enough locally that, besides "Where's Dusseldorf?'' the question I was asked most last week was, "Do you think Chicago really can get another NFL team?''
With due respect, Mr. Mayor, no, I don't. And if Daley still were being held accountable for balanced budgets and safe streets, he likely would have sounded less enthusiastic about the possibility than he did as a former mayor talking sports.
"I really believe we can get a second football team,'' Daley told CSN's David Kaplan. "Why is it New York has two (teams), Florida has three? San Francisco has two. Chicago loves sports, we could get a second team in here.''
The New York metro area has 22.2 million people according to the latest census — 12.8 million more than the Chicago area and enough to support two NFL teams. Plus, the Giants and Jets share MetLife Stadium. Florida? The state's three NFL teams exist in markets spread throughout the state; Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg and Jacksonville, which is struggling. Using San Francisco as an example of a market with two NFL teams technically fits Daley's argument, though lacks legitimacy given the Raiders franchise instability status in Oakland.
But Daley's most difficult comments to fathom came in regard to government's role in securing Chicago's second NFL team. I wish I could have heard Mayor Rahm Emanuel's reaction. Laughter is so easy to transcribe.
"You could build a new stadium, you could have huge international soccer teams coming in, you could do the Final Four, and if you wanted with a brand new stadium, it would be privately funded, the government could help a little bit,'' Daley said.
The government could help a little bit. That's what the Cubs thought about Wrigley Field too. They're still waiting.
If the NFL were chocolate, we all would be two pants sizes larger. We cannot get enough. We love it. But in speaking from the heart, Daley stopped following his head.
Truth is, governments seldom "help a little bit,'' financing NFL stadiums. They help a lot. The state of Minnesota and Minneapolis will combine to pay $548 million toward the Vikings' new $975 million stadium. Public funding accounted for $620 million of the $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium. Private money contributed $525 million to $1.2 billion Cowboys Stadium but a $325 million bond issue led to sales tax increases.
Chicago struggles enough finding money for teachers and police that it seems hard to envision the city or state justifying the huge financial commitment required for the all-purpose facility Daley describes — the kind he should have demanded Soldier Field become before renovations.
I enjoyed Daley waxing romantic about the days Chicago had two of the NFL's 12 teams before the Cardinals left in 1959. Gas cost 25 cents a gallon in 1959 too. The world's different.
Nowadays, the line for new NFL franchises forms behind Los Angeles and London. Yes, jolly ol' London has a better chance of getting its first NFL franchise before Chicago gets a second. Both cities represent large, untapped markets NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wants to penetrate. A June memo the commissioner sent to all 32 teams reiterated Goodell's comments at Super Bowl XLVI.
"We would like to be back in Los Angeles if we can do it correctly,'' Goodell said.
As for London, I bloody hate the idea but respect that 2 million NFL fans live in Britain and Reuters reports TV ratings for American football games there have increased 154 percent. Of most significance, Goodell sounds impressed.
"Part of our theory here is that London could someday be a host for an NFL franchise,'' Goodell said last Monday discussing Jacksonville's game abroad with the Jaguars' Website.
The Rams, Chargers and Raiders have been the subject of relocation rumors too. Or what if, as Goodell has hinted, the NFL expands to 34 teams?
None of it affects the discussion of adding a second NFL team here because, well, there wasn't one until a certain former mayor started thinking out loud. If Chicago really wants to debate a transformational sporting idea in need of creative financing, bidding on the 2024 Olympics potentially enhances the city more than pursuing another pro football team. Right?
I'll hang up and listen for my answer.
dhaugh@tribune.com
Twitter @DavidHaugh
Copyright © 2012, Chicago Tribune
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. 
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
-
Isn't it wonderful when politicians or former politicians like Rich from Bridgeport has now become are so liberal when it comes to spending other peoples money?
Chicago needs a second NFL team about as much as the Packers need Favre to backup Rodgers.
EDIT: Good thing he's not running for mayor on the basis of this poll. Most of Chicago-land seems to disagree with him.
VOTE: Would you want 2 NFL teams in Chicago?
Would you want to see 2 NFL teams in Chicago?
- Yes (559 responses)
36%
- No (976 responses)
64%
1535 total responses
(Results not scientific)
Last edited by soulman; 08-26-2012 at 03:43 PM.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
Two teams? Before LA has one? Hahahaha
The White Sox are in 1st place in late August and still don't sell more than 25,000 seats most games.
-
COULD Chicago support 2 teams, yes. WOULD they (if it was in place ) yes. WOULD chicagoians or the state PAY for another, NO. The BEARS would be the Cubs ( in football sense) and the new team would be the SOX. Now another question, What if the new team( would have to be an AFC team) played their games at Soilder Field too? Next question would be about the FIELD, would have to be fake grass, as it can't stand up to one team. The area could support two team, but but the NFL give another here? I'm against ANY more expansion of teams. TOO water down the league is becoming. Or is this a new RALLY cry for when LA gets the new team and they need a THREAT of a city any team could move to so the TAX payers have to pony up to keep their team.
The passion of a few, to rule the many, that's Washington D.C.. Where else was that said before, about whom?
-
High Fives / Like - 3 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
yttocs 
COULD Chicago support 2 teams, yes. WOULD they (if it was in place ) yes. WOULD chicagoians or the state PAY for another, NO. The BEARS would be the Cubs ( in football sense) and the new team would be the SOX. Now another question, What if the new team( would have to be an AFC team) played their games at Soilder Field too? Next question would be about the FIELD, would have to be fake grass, as it can't stand up to one team. The area could support two team, but but the NFL give another here? I'm against ANY more expansion of teams. TOO water down the league is becoming. Or is this a new RALLY cry for when LA gets the new team and they need a THREAT of a city any team could move to so the TAX payers have to pony up to keep their team.
If they did, the new owner would have to get a team that is already on the upswing (lets say Car or Jax) and then have to pay up the cost for a new dome w/a retractable roof. I agree though, the city COULD support two teams; mainly b/c it's just a transit city anyways. There are plenty of people in Chicago that are not from it; and therefore have no ties to it, they just want to go and have a good time...hense why the cubs get so much more money from the city; wrigley is a party/social event more then a ballgame. A dome team that is also good would get those fans b/c the weather would always be good; no one outside of die hards want to goto the Bears when it's -10K below w/the winds blowing and watch a team slush around in a marsh that is soldier field after 2 hs teams played on it, a soccor team played there, and the rock concert from the night before. I don't think it will ever happen, but it would be viable...but they would be the Sox. This city will forever be Bears 1, Cubs 2, Blackhawks 3, Bulls 4 sox 5
-
yeah, COULD they do it? sure.
SHOULD they? not a chance.
I'm trying//to let go//of maybe//but maybe's just so//very interesting//Oh, what a thing.
-
Originally Posted by
yttocs COULD Chicago support 2 teams, yes. WOULD they (if it was in place ) yes. WOULD chicagoians or the state PAY for another, NO. The BEARS would be the Cubs ( in football sense) and the new team would be the SOX. Now another question, What if the new team( would have to be an AFC team) played their games at Soilder Field too? Next question would be about the FIELD, would have to be fake grass, as it can't stand up to one team. The area could support two team, but but the NFL give another here? I'm against ANY more expansion of teams. TOO water down the league is becoming. Or is this a new RALLY cry for when LA gets the new team and they need a THREAT of a city any team could move to so the TAX payers have to pony up to keep their team.
Tell me your reasons for that when they didn't when there were two teams in Chicago? The Bears ran the Cards out of town. You'd divide the town, maybe, and possibly get far less than you expected as a result.
The Bears would be the Cubs and the "Others" (I like that. The Chicago Others. Tough to come up with a logo though) would be the Sox. Well we had that before when the Bears played at Wrigley and the Cards in Comiskey Park. It didn't work for the "Others" I mean the Cards and it was too doo loo to old St. Loo.
You can throw up a billion dollar stadium and bring in a new team but roughly 2/3rds of those responding to that Trib poll are saying "hell no we won't go" when it comes to buying tickets. Daley is living in la la land if he thinks the NFL would or ever could put another team here. The Bears own Chicago and Halas made certain of it.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
Originally Posted by
soulman Tell me your reasons for that when they didn't when there were two teams in Chicago? The Bears ran the Cards out of town. You'd divide the town, maybe, and possibly get far less than you expected as a result.
The Bears would be the Cubs and the "Others" (I like that. The Chicago Others. Tough to come up with a logo though) would be the Sox. Well we had that before when the Bears played at Wrigley and the Cards in Comiskey Park. It didn't work for the "Others" I mean the Cards and it was too doo loo to old St. Loo.
You can throw up a billion dollar stadium and bring in a new team but roughly 2/3rds of those responding to that Trib poll are saying "hell no we won't go" when it comes to buying tickets. Daley is living in la la land if he thinks the NFL would or ever could put another team here. The Bears own Chicago and Halas made certain of it.
UMMM, the world has change since 1959. Was the waiting list for season tickets as long then? Where there less teams then? Has the NFL grown since then? WAS the NFL a Blue Collar sport at one time, thats changed Divide them out of town and you COULD divide them, well you could get the opposite of that too. I ran a "poll" at work and 75% said yes. It's a "POLL". Do "POLLS" give you the answer to elections? If so why do I vote them cause a "POLLS" said who the winning will be. I'm a SOX fan but have I been to see a cubs game, yes. BUT I'm a BEARS fan, first and formost But would that stop me from going to game when the Bears are away and seeing another team I like NO.
EDIT: spelling
Last edited by yttocs; 08-26-2012 at 06:43 PM.
The passion of a few, to rule the many, that's Washington D.C.. Where else was that said before, about whom?
-
Last edited by soulman; 08-26-2012 at 07:24 PM.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
Originally Posted by
soulman No the waiting lists weren't that long but neither were the stadiums as large. Wrigley held about 40k for a game SF holds 60k plus and Daley suggests putting up an 80k house for "The Others" but they won't fill it. If you're gonna do that move the Bears into it. Then you'll fill it.
You also couldn't even get home games on local network TV then let alone cable with on demand replays and I can get them on my computer for nothing. I love going to a game and there's always somebody with some seat to a Broncos game but I'm not spending $100 to go even if was a Bears game.
Well your poll is no more of less scientific than the Tribs scotty but it's one hell of a lot easier to vote with your keyboard or mouse than it is with your wallet. I would be willing to bet that few if any Bears season ticket holders would go to see "The Others" when the Bears played on the road. A lot of people will say they'd go but what happens if the new guys are based out of Joliet, or half way between O'Hare and Rockford. (I'm exaggerating a little there trying to make a point).
I doubt a new team would sell out their stadium to season ticket holders so they'll need to depend on game day sales. On a snowy December day with the Bears playing an important divisional game that may clinch there playoff spot on TV live as you see it happening you and 75% of your co-workers are gonna say fuck it and drive to sit and watch the 2-12 "Others" play in 20 degrees temps in the snow? If you say yes you're either a liar or you're truly crazy.
Oh I forgot
LOL Well I am Blue Collar, so I work outside year round ( Iron Worker) Sitting at a game whem its cold doesnt faze me. With todays tech you can watch other games outside your house (sling box). Thats one game example there. MANY people want to see a game and cant ,with the MARK UP PRICES tickets ,go from here. I'm not saying it WILL work , it COULD work. Over 7 million people in the metro, 66K + on one day is nothing, 150 K people doing something on a single day is still nothing here. What 2 million people watched the air show this year( could be a little off on the number but not much) 2 MILLION PEOPLE, OK thats one day a year, 2 million by 16 games is 125 K. Bears 66K+ would leave 59 K, and add to that the non inflated price more would turn out. COULD Chicago support a scond team YES.
EDIT : WHAT IF the new team IS doing well, then what would the numbers be.
63 years ago half the leagues starting QB's where back up's
EDIT part two: The teams can now set threshold on what a sell out is, they are allowed to lower it for the year, not one game. And I do believe a new team would get a few GRACE years from the fans, as to season ticket holders.
Last edited by yttocs; 08-26-2012 at 10:06 PM.
The passion of a few, to rule the many, that's Washington D.C.. Where else was that said before, about whom?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
VOTE: Would you want 2 teams in Chicago?
Reply With Quote
