2021 NFL Season Thread

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

Lucas gave up and decided to build the museum in California because he wanted the museum to be finished before he died.

It just creates uncertainty about the entire area. I personally think the lawsuit was insane, but for whatever reason the judge decided to entertain the crazies. 

Crazy how? I have no problem with them not allowing people to build on the lakefront.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

5 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

This doesn't close for over a year, plus even if the stadium is privately funded, they still will be seeking infrastructure improvements,  and that political battle could take several years, plus these new NFL stadiums take 3 or 4 years to build. It wouldn't surprise me if the Bears played out their lease. In fact, if the McCaskeys don't sell after Virginia is gone, I would bet on it.

The entire estate tax issue I believe is likely driving the McCaskeys to sell, and I think they'll likely do it sooner than later. That said, it won't be completed quickly by any means.

I think the point in this thread that this improves the that value of the team is true, and I think there are plenty of ultra-rich that would love to buy the Bears and would have no issues financing the stadium in Arlington to become a major revenue generator for them. I think it's almost safe to say the Bears are done with Soldier Field; likely won't happen until 2025-2026, but they're moving out.

It will never happen but I'd love to see the Sox move to the lakefront. They've already desecrated Soldier Field when they remodeled it so what's the point of even keeping it there? Tear it down and put the Sox stadium there.

I've seen a lot of pandering for Bezo's to buy the team; I certainly hope not but it does feel like a real possibility. The McCaskeys are a lot of things but they aren't complete scum and trash. It's frustrating having them own the Bears from a financial standpoint but they seem like good enough people. I feel the same way about Jerry; for an uber rich guy he's one of the better ones.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Crazy how? I have no problem with them not allowing people to build on the lakefront.

A parking lot is a terrible use of public space. The parking lot was already "built". In no world is an empty parking lot better than a museum that will create jobs, bring money into the economy and make better use of public space.

I guess youre a big parking lot guy. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

A parking lot is a terrible use of public space. The parking lot was already "built". In no world is an empty parking lot better than a museum that will create jobs, bring money into the economy and make better use of public space.

I guess youre a big parking lot guy. 

No, I'm not a big parking lot guy but I'm certainly not a big private business buying up lakefront land that has been off limits for the entirety of the cities existence guy. The city has sold it's soul away for the mighty dollar enough already; leave the damn lake front alone.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No, I'm not a big parking lot guy but I'm certainly not a big private business buying up lakefront land that has been off limits for the entirety of the cities existence guy.

Who was buying lakefront land? The City wasnt selling the parking lot, they were leasing the area so that it could be changed from a parking lot to a museum...

Sometimes its important to know the facts before you make statements. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

6 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Who was buying lake front land? The City wasnt selling the parking lot, they were leasing the area so that it could be changed from a parking lot to a museum...

Sometimes its important to know the facts before you make statements. 

It was a $10 lease for 99 years. Parking lot isn't a great usage either though.

 

e: I have some fondness for that particular parking lot, spent probably a dozen Bears pregames there eating lots of delicious chili in the late 90's and early 00's.

 

 

 

e2: as far as I know, Chicago is pretty unique in having this giant, largely undeveloped and public lakefront/shoreline. Do any other major cities around the world have something similar?

Edited September 29, 2021 by StrangeSox

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Who was buying lake front land? The City wasnt selling the parking lot, they were leasing the area so that it could be changed from a parking lot to a museum...

Sometimes its important to know the facts before you make statements. 

"Leasing" the land, which is really a stretch given the terms of the deal, to a private entity is BS.

And sorry, but I don't put George Lucas Star Wars -- sorry, "Museum of Narrative Art" lol -- Museum in the category of educational Science and Industry and Field Museum class. George Lucas shouldn't have anymore of a right to lease land on the lakefront than any other resident of Chicago.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Who was buying lakefront land? The City wasnt selling the parking lot, they were leasing the area so that it could be changed from a parking lot to a museum...

Sometimes its important to know the facts before you make statements. 

Which is really no different from what they are doing with the Bears and Fire. Leasing lakefront facilities to private companies. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Which is really no different from what they are doing with the Bears and Fire. Leasing lakefront facilities to private companies. 

Actually it's completely different given that the city/park district own Soldier Field.

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It was a $10 lease for 99 years. Parking lot isn't a great usage either though.

 

e: I have some fondness for that particular parking lot, spent probably a dozen Bears pregames there eating lots of delicious chili in the late 90's and early 00's.

But the city decided that it was worth it to them to get a free billion dollar museum and so they negotiated the land lease for cheaper. The problem is that if you allow the argument to work, you can basically argue against the City doing anything with that land besides for keeping it a parking lot. If Lucas paid a billion for the lease it makes no difference to the argument that "the city cant develop its property because its on the lakefront." A similar situation occurred with the Children's Museum when they tried to put it in Grant Park.

 

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

"Leasing" the land, which is really a stretch given the terms of the deal, to a private entity is BS.

And sorry, but I don't put George Lucas Star Wars -- sorry, "Museum of Narrative Art" lol -- Museum in the category of educational Science and Industry and Field Museum class. George Lucas shouldn't have anymore of a right to lease land on the lakefront than any other resident of Chicago.

 

Uh no it isnt a stretch. The City owned the land they were never transferring ownership. And George Lucas has no more right than any other resident. If you want to build a billion dollar museum for free on that parking lot, you should have the opportunity to do it and the city should have the right to make the decision what they do with their land. 

No one was asking to develop beach or area that was unused, they were building in a foot print that already existed. Unfortunately there are a few ultra rich people who were going to have their lake front views obstructed and they had the millions to pay attorneys.

 

 

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

Which is really no different from what they are doing with the Bears and Fire. Leasing lakefront facilities to private companies. 

And its why they cant do jack around that area right now. If Bezos wanted to tear down McCormick place and put a free museum of the best art in the world there, he arguably could not because it is building on the lake front.

Which is why it was a legally meritless argument. 

[Balta1701]

21 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The entire estate tax issue I believe is likely driving the McCaskeys to sell, and I think they'll likely do it sooner than later. That said, it won't be completed quickly by any means.

I think the point in this thread that this improves the that value of the team is true, and I think there are plenty of ultra-rich that would love to buy the Bears and would have no issues financing the stadium in Arlington to become a major revenue generator for them. I think it's almost safe to say the Bears are done with Soldier Field; likely won't happen until 2025-2026, but they're moving out.

It will never happen but I'd love to see the Sox move to the lakefront. They've already desecrated Soldier Field when they remodeled it so what's the point of even keeping it there? Tear it down and put the Sox stadium there.

While the setting would be cool, the experience of trying to get 23,000 people to that spot 81 times a year would just be brutal. On weeknights?

And the weather there seems iffy.

[Dick Allen]

As a city resident,  I just don't think there is the public  money to do what the Bears want. It is 10 events the city will have to make up. A few college football games and a few extra concerts is much better than pulling out all stops and making the McCaskeys even richer.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

As a city resident,  I just don't think there is the public  money to do what the Bears want. It is 10 events the city will have to make up. A few college football games and a few extra concerts is much better than pulling out all stops and making the McCaskeys even richer.

What do the Bears want in this context?

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

What do the Bears want in this context?

They want bigger capacity,  a retractable roof, more fan experience space, and would love an entertainment district closer. I read an article quoting some guy who has been involved with NFL stadium building the last 15 years or so. He said the only way Lightfoot could give the Bears what they want is to build a new stadium in the parking lot, or teardown McCormick Place East, which I guess is rarely used anymore, and build it there. Building the Bears a stadium makes little sense.

[Kyyle23]

5 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

They want bigger capacity,  a retractable roof, more fan experience space, and would love an entertainment district closer. I read an article quoting some guy who has been involved with NFL stadium building the last 15 years or so. He said the only way Lightfoot could give the Bears what they want is to build a new stadium in the parking lot, or teardown McCormick Place East, which I guess is rarely used anymore, and build it there. Building the Bears a stadium makes little sense.

I think a big "want" is the sports book and the city refuses 

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

They want bigger capacity,  a retractable roof, more fan experience space, and would love an entertainment district closer. I read an article quoting some guy who has been involved with NFL stadium building the last 15 years or so. He said the only way Lightfoot could give the Bears what they want is to build a new stadium in the parking lot, or teardown McCormick Place East, which I guess is rarely used anymore, and build it there. Building the Bears a stadium makes little sense.

Oh I agree I hate public funds for stadiums. A mostly privately financed palace in the suburbs and a redeveloped lakefront with some legit use would have been my favorite concept 20 years ago before the spaceship landed and destroyed the historic designation. But the Bears moving to the suburbs and that land being stranded as rarely used parking lots seems like the worst possible scenario, worse than the city building a modern stadium there, so that’s my guess as to what will happen.

[Dick Allen]

2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I think a big "want" is the sports book and the city refuses 

Yeah that too. They think, and probably correctly,  it would hurt a city casino. New York Jets and Giants don't play in NY. Washington doesn't play in Washington. The Cowboys don't play in Dallas. The 49ers don't play in SF. The move sucks for ticketholders who live in the city and south, although NW side fans probably will have an easier time getting to Arlington heights. 

[ptatc]

21 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

As a city resident,  I just don't think there is the public  money to do what the Bears want. It is 10 events the city will have to make up. A few college football games and a few extra concerts is much better than pulling out all stops and making the McCaskeys even richer.

The mayor implied that they would make it indoor to use all year long.

[ptatc]

7 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I think a big "want" is the sports book and the city refuses 

Yes. Because it will impact the city casino in the works.

[Soxbadger]

12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

They want bigger capacity,  a retractable roof, more fan experience space, and would love an entertainment district closer. I read an article quoting some guy who has been involved with NFL stadium building the last 15 years or so. He said the only way Lightfoot could give the Bears what they want is to build a new stadium in the parking lot, or teardown McCormick Place East, which I guess is rarely used anymore, and build it there. Building the Bears a stadium makes little sense.

Problem with the teardown of McCormick East is that the rebuild could get caught in years of litigation. Due to the Friends of the Park Lawsuit there is absolutely nothing that the City can do with any certainty in that area besides for keeping beautiful parking lots. 

Its really a shame because that area is already developed and the city could use it in a variety of ways to make more revenue and help residents. Instead we are stuck with parking lots because those are beautiful and can be enjoyed by all Chicago residents. 

[Dick Allen]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The mayor implied that they would make it indoor to use all year long.

It won't happen. They would compete for events with the Bears new place and would be smaller, less modern and fewer amenities. 

[Dick Allen]

I think they easily could attract 7 or 8 college football games a year. It's 10 events.

[Kyyle23]

17 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Yes. Because it will impact the city casino in the works.

Would it though?  How many books are in Vegas?  People are gonna gamble, in a lot of different places.  There a lot of people in and around chicago as well as flying in and out of Chicago regularly.   

[maloney.adam]

The Bears are moving to Arlington. It’s just a matter of when. They want more capacity, a state of the art retractable roof stadium that can host Super Bowl’s and other big revenue generating sporting events and an entertainment complex. It’s all about the fan experience. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by maloney.adam

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

This doesn't close for over a year, plus even if the stadium is privately funded, they still will be seeking infrastructure improvements,  and that political battle could take several years, plus these new NFL stadiums take 3 or 4 years to build. It wouldn't surprise me if the Bears played out their lease. In fact, if the McCaskeys don't sell after Virginia is gone, I would bet on it.

I expect Bears, if serious, would put pedal to mettle and be in a position to where they are breaking ground a year from now to be in a position to be in the new stadium the very first year they can opt out of the lease. $85M or whatever it is is rounding relative to the Billions the stadium will cost.