GenericUserName

I think its more the idea that there might be a stoppage, at which point fan sentiment may turn against the owners in general. Why let that ruin the general good feelings of having new, non-JR ownership?

1) You would think so, but we also don't know. Maybe Ishbia would want more control from the development whereas right now the proposal is basically just Related giving JR the land for the stadium and that's it. Maybe Ishbia negotiates for ownership of the land around the current stadium and just builds that up to a stadium district. Maybe he tries to buy the land at the 78 from Related. We really don't know. 2) Mansueto seems to be looking to build at the 78 with or without the White Sox. It was reported in November that he had narrowed his choices to the 78 or Lincoln Yards, but the 78 would be much easier from a zoning and community input perspective. 3) According to Related, yes. Especially now that the U of I facility that was supposed to anchor the southern portion of it has been cancelled. 4) Part of the Related pitch for the Sox stadium at the 78 was to repurpose it to a soccer stadium, but like I said above, Mansueto doesn't seem to be looking at it. However, the Chicago women's soccer team is looking for a new stadium in the city. If they really want their own stadium and don't want to partner with the Fire, it could be the place for them.

Just read an article from the Twins perspective and they mentioned how Ishbia spent the past few months meeting with community leaders and potential minority shareholders. I wonder if something similar is why there is conflicting information about whether this is just a non-controlling sale versus having a path to control. Maybe he is fine getting a larger percentage now, but wants to meet with other investors and maybe political and community leaders before he executes a contract for the controlling interest. That would also make sense from the perspective of the timeline of a normal sale. If this was a controlling sale, it would have been exceptionally fast and quiet. That's even more so the case if its a complicated multi-step process to eventually gain control.

Probably also to see what tax gifts Trump gives to billionaires.

The difference is Kroenke was from Missouri, but everything else for him was based out of Colorado and LA. Ishbia is from Michigan, but his company is based in Chicago and he is currently in the process of building a mega-mansion on the north shore. As for the lower valuation, non-controlling sales are often at a discount.

The point is there won't be a Stewart purchase because the team isn't actually for sale. The earlier rumors of JR being open to selling and then floating Stewart were literally just leverage plays. And if you still want some hope as a Sox fan, the Ishbias might be using JR's own move on him. It is pretty widely known that potential owners often float their name for other teams as both a signal and a kind of trial run at the process before they actually buy a team. This could be the Ishbias basically telling JR that they are serious about owning a team soon and if he doesn't decide to make a move, then they will take themselves out of the running, which also gives whoever the next owner is less competition, and thus, JR a likely lower payout.

The Bears don't have the money to do a project of that size. What makes the most sense for the McCaskeys is whatever gets them the most taxpayer money. Warren is working under the assumption that the Chicago options are best due to the balance of political power in the state. The problem is that even though he is likely right, it still probably isn't enough to get the money that they need.

Its a perfect Hanlon's razor

"Data has been adjusted for regional price parity" Aka lies, damn lies, and statistics lol

Chicago also has its own Walton https://www.forbes.com/profile/lukas-walton/

I don't know all the background, but I know St. Louis sued the NFL when the Rams left. If there was a possibility of Chicago doing the same, we could use that as leverage to put in a clause to allow another Chicago team without the Cubs approval.

Call the bluff. If he goes through with it and Stewart moves the team to Nashville, that's good. Now they can deal with this cursed fucking franchise. And it would let us start fresh. Give us a new expansion team with an ambitious owner and give them the opportunity to do the 78 project and do it right. I think I could get over losing the name and history of the White Sox if it meant a better future. As long as there is a team on the southside that hates the Cubs, I would be happy.

There are a lot of questions about the Bears stadium. The $900m will come from the hotel tax. It will also cover the refinancing of the current debt and a liquidity fund. They say it will work because its for 40 years and only assumes a 4% annual hotel revenue growth. But as others have said, what happens if it doesn't cover the debt payments? The liquidity fund is supposed to cover it and seems to suggest the Bears don't want to cover it. But recently the tax hasn't been covering it, so do we really feel good about having to have 4% annual growth for 4 decades? What is the worst case scenario for this? But that's not even all the money the team needs. The nice parks between the colonnades and all the other amenities are supposed to cost another $1.5b, more than $300m of which is required right at the start. That amount isn't covered by the ISFA bonds. How would the City be expected to pay for that? Then there is the almost completely unaddressed questions of rent, lease termination terms, and other event revenue split. Are we basically renting it out at cost? Or could that be a source of revenue to borrow against for the infrastructure costs? Is the lease tied in any way to paying off the debt, or could we be in another situation in 20 years where the Bears want a new stadium and we're stuck with hundreds of millions in debt from the old one? And if there is such an appetite for all sorts of events at this nice new stadium, does the City get any cut of the revenue or just the normal amusement tax revenue? It seems like the Governor and most state legislators are against the proposal as it currently stands, so these questions might be areas of negotiations that could potentially take this to the point of actually being good for both the taxpayers and the Bears.

First time posting in a long time because this drama has been the first time I have given the Sox more than two seconds of thought in years. JR is asking for lots of money, but the debate is missing the point. I have been mostly negative on his proposal once the ask came out, but with more thought, I think it really depends on how its all structured. Right now the ISFA has a ton of debt, mostly from Soldier Field. It is being paid off by the hotel tax. Everyone knows that. But the important distinction is that the city pre-pays the payment and then earns back the amount from the tax. In years when the hotel tax is less than the payment, the city government is stuck paying for it. Or, what has often happened, is that the city pays just the interest or refinances the bonds to lower the current payment so the current administration doesn't have to deal with it, leaving it to future city councils to deal with. That is how we end up in a situation where almost none of the principal of the Soldier Field deal has been paid off. With this new deal, it seems like JR wants to tap into existing TIF money for the area for infrastructure. That, to me, makes complete sense. Its basically what it was made for and makes sense from a common sense point of view. The city is basically paying for the infrastructure up front in exchange for future payments once the infrastructure is paid off. Its a good way to build up an area like the 78. On top of that, JR wants the city to pay for the stadium. That seems outrageous, but it depends. Technically, it could just be a way to tap into the city's ability to get better rates on debt. If that's all it was, I really don't think people could be upset. But the key point is how it is paid back, and specifically, how much is actually expected to be paid back by the business. Its been said he wants the hotel tax to cover it, but right now, that tax can't even cover the smaller amount of Soldier Field payments. So there would likely be shortfalls. So the question is, who covers the difference? If its the Sox, then its really not a terrible deal. There are no new taxes, the city pays for infrastructure, and ends up not spending any Chicago taxpayer money on the stadium. But JR doesn't want to pay the difference that he knows will occur. So he wants to also tap into the sales tax in the 78 and put that towards the stadium payments. That is a new tax as much as he will want to say its not. The city would then be looking at reduced tax revenue for the area that will cost city spending. That is straight up a cost to the city, which is indirectly a tax on city taxpayers. So really, the question will come down to who is taking the risk in this proposal. If the Sox are responsible for the entirety of the bond payment and are only given the hotel tax and the sales tax in the 78, its probably at worst a slight negative financial impact for the city with a decent chance of being a pretty big positive financial impact. But that assumes the Sox are the thing pushing the 78 development towards completion. However, if the city is the one ultimately responsible for the bond payments or if we think the 78 will get developed anyway, this could be a massive financial boondoggle. The thing that throws a wrench into all of this is the Bears. It has been stated enough times here: the Bears and Sox are competing for these ISFA funds. As much as that makes it seem like taxpayers are about to get screwed, it could actually be a great thing for the city's negotiating leverage. If we can use that to get a scenario where the financial risk is less on the city, this could actually turn into a good project.

Maybe he thought he could get more money than we were willing to offer, and when he couldn't he came back around to us? Or we were planning on spending on someone in an earlier round and they got taken before we could get them, so we had more available to get to his number.