Originally Posted by kobo
It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.
I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.
The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.
From a management perspective? Yes. The Cubs lost 101 games last year and still drew 2.8 million fans. If Wrigley Field is removed from the equation, how many people do you think come to see them? From 1999 to 2002 the Cubs had three season where they lost at least 95 games and every year they drew AT LEAST 2.7 million people, except for 2002 when they drew 2.693 million.
I would think that an owner of the Cubs knows that it is in their best interest to do everything they can do to keep Wrigley Field standing for as long as possible. I also think that Rahm knows that as well and he also knows the Cubs have no real leverage here.