Message Boards

Yup.

I think there are more interesting topics to discuss than the condition of Soldier Field.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

Maybe the city of Chicago should talk to the groundskeepers at Lambeau Field. The field at lambeau is always in good condition and they have a worse climate than Chicago.

The Green Bay Packers Organization takes great pride in the condition of their field while the city of Chicago considers it a nuisance to make Soldier Field playable.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

Won't Field Turf cause more injuries in colder weather?

21 of 32 NFL teams now play or practice on Field Turf which is much improved over the artificial turf that was first installed in NFL stadiums.

The Bears do not own nor have anything to do with Solider's Field. The Park District owns and maintain's Solider Field. Someone needs to email Rahem Emanuel.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

I don't see why the city of Chicago doesn't care enough to have a decent field in their stadium. The team is paying these players millions of dollars and you'd think they would not want to risk injury to their best players.

The politicians that run the city of Chicago could give a rat's behind on the condition of Soldier Field. Many of them are still upset that the Chicago Bears didn't fund all the improvements done on that stadium.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

If Field turf is fairly safe to play on then, Chicago should have it installed. No up keep necessary, win/win!

Tell that to their useless new Mayor.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

I think the Bears organization needs to send the Park District a memo.

They'd probably throw it away!

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

Don't mince words Old, tell me how you really feel....

That field isn't fit for NFL football.

Yes. Chicago field sucks. But the Park district won't renovate it unless it is profitable to them.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

Don't the Steelers have similar issues with their field?

I'm not familiar with the condition of the field at Pittsburgh. Did you hear something negative about it?

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

I think the Bears organization needs to send the Park District a memo.

A memo.

That should do the trick...

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

It seems to me that having a decent playing surface for a football team is the most basic requirement for any team/city. The Bears organization surely is profitable, they should give the Park District a share of each games revenue over a two year period to pay them back for a new field. seems like an easy solution.

That would take revenue out of the city's pocket. Not going to happen.

Until enough pressure is put ON the right people BY the right people, Chicago will ALWAYS have one of the worst fields in the NFL. If say the Mayor realized that he would start losing votes over this or something else simular, pressuring someone to get a change done, NOTHING WILL BE DONE!!! This is a disgrace and is a problem that needs to be corrected.

No Hell no..

They need to get all of the other activities off the field, which tears it up.
It is a proven fact, that less injuries take place on natural grass...anyone that does not understand it, has never had knee injuries.

QUOTE(#28):

Originally posted 08:40 AM ET  08.10 by BGDUECE

No Hell no..They need to get all of the other activities off the field, which tears it up.It is a proven fact, that less injuries take place on natural grass...anyone that does not understand it, has never had knee injuries.

Field Turf is the surface most players prefer.

I really wonder if the grass field has extended the careers of Urlacher etc. Maybe it has and BGDUECE is exactly right it's the other activities that are the problem. Now the question to me is to ask is, how do you stop these other activities? Knowing the monetary lure for the City, is the only answer that Bears own their own field? If that's the case I'm afraid we will never have a good playing surface for the Bears to play on.

QUOTE(#30):

Originally posted 08:10 AM ET  08.11 by bearsfan6522009

is the only answer that Bears own their own field? If that's the case I'm afraid we will never have a good playing surface for the Bears to play on.

You nailed it. This will be the case until the day comes when the Bears get new ownership.

QUOTE(#31):

Originally posted 09:12 AM ET  08.11 by Melman

You nailed it. This will be the case until the day comes when the Bears get new ownership.

The Bears need an owner with deep pockets that will build a new stadium the fans can be proud of. I would prefer an outdoor venue instead of a domed facility.