GenericUserName

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.

https://twitter.com/IHSBCA/status https://twitter.com/IHSBCA/status/1415112944581500929?s=20 /1415112944581500929?s=20 https:https://twitter.com/IHSBCA/status/14151129445815009 29?s=20//twitter.com/IHSBCA/status/1415112944581500929?s=20 https://twitter.com/IHSBCA/status/1415112944581500929 Its confusing, but the tweet with the first all state team says that all drafted players are automatically all state. So he isn't on the lists, but he is still all state.

I feel like this is an interesting combo with Montgomery. Two guys who are probably 3B, but might be able to stay at SS.

He's been a favorite of mine for a while now. He had several really good international tournaments and apparently hit .400 in the CNS last season. Hopefully we still have some 2022 money left to go after him.

I can't take any analysis seriously when they spell catcher wrong.

That Arizona error effects a couple different news orgs. As I understand it, all the news orgs get their results from one of two sources that aggregate all the results. I believe Edison is the larger of the two.