caulfield12 Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 78 at least looks like something futuristic. Staying at the present location...just like using antennas for tv, simply feels like the past and out of touch. There's simply no intriguing vision there left to sell. Sox have done enough making up for mistakes of the past...which inevitable makes things even worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 4 hours ago, tray said: Yes Kyle, I think the 78 plan is a joke and I don't mind explaining and advancing my opinion, even in the face of opposing views. Meanwhile...Don't assume MOST Sox fans from SW suburbs will put their families on mass transit. Some will, many others probably won't based on security and other practical concerns. That is going to potentially decrease attendance....substantially. If you are young and single, or have not attended many games, you may not understand that. IMO, the rendering of the 78 stadium is an architectural/ballpark design joke. And who designed it? Related employees? That mainly metal and glass stadium is supposed to compete for revenue with the historic Wrigley field? LOL. The garish 4 story lit up Sox logo? LOL. The gratuitous pinwheels? The scoreboard obstructing views of downtown? The 78 plan to build commercial hi rises surrounding that park diminishes the opportunity to even consider incompatible architecture. That is why the 78 stadium rendering looks like an office building. 78 is only a bit more than 2 miles from Armor Park (and has similar views of downtown) so what is the major reason one would consider abandoning the White Sox home for over 100 years? I'm asking. Is it worth abandoning Armour Park, all the surrounding land, the infrastructure, and indeed all the history the White Sox have had with their fans on 35th street? Never forget, the 78 started as an idea by a developer who experienced multiple failed attempts at reaching some agreement to get an anchor tenant (including Amazon). Now, the ISFA, Chicago and Illinois taxpayers, and Sox ownership (current or future), should tell Related to stick it. Sox fans should not allow themselves to be sold down the river by some greedy real estate people...and we know their type. You're probably right about the exterior of the new proposed stadium. You would think that a brick exterior would be better. I just hope that JR stays out of the stadium design business. He was the one who rejected the original design of the present stadium. He demanded that the stadium have a second level of suites which created the miserable upper deck. It ruined the stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 BTW.JB said no again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 1 hour ago, caulfield12 said: 78 at least looks like something futuristic. Staying at the present location...just like using antennas for tv, simply feels like the past and out of touch. There's simply no intriguing vision there left to sell. Sox have done enough making up for mistakes of the past...which inevitable makes things even worse. I don’t completely disagree but that is all a byproduct of the ownership and the most dysfunctional organization in professional sports. Guaranteed Rate is absolutely still a serviceable stadium for an MLB team. The facility and location aren’t the issue, it’s the incompetent execution and management by ISFA and Jerry. Putting a competitive product on the field is far more important than the stadium. They just lost the most games in league history. There are far more important things than trying to extort the tax payers to make the real estate guy even richer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 18 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: BTW.JB said no again. Quote The governor said Illinois has a track record of helping private businesses. “Sometimes it's just infrastructure,” Pritzker said. “Putting the street light in front of the business, or building the street or the highway or helping build the infrastructure for transportation.” Pritzker, though, said he draws the line at public funding for a proposed White Sox stadium in the 78 development located in the South Loop. He says the state shouldn't bankroll a ballpark for a baseball team that he says is valuable and owned by wealthy people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 4 minutes ago, Rusty said: I don’t completely disagree but that is all a byproduct of the ownership and the most dysfunctional organization in professional sports. Guaranteed Rate is absolutely still a serviceable stadium for an MLB team. The facility and location aren’t the issue, it’s the incompetent execution and management by ISFA and Jerry. Putting a competitive product on the field is far more important than the stadium. They just lost the most games in league history. There are far more important things than trying to extort the tax payers to make the real estate guy even richer. Guaranteed rate is serviceable but it is also well behind the times and admittedly, because of Reinsdorf, not the best place to see a ballgame. The fact that the lease was coming up was going to motivate something to change. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would give Jerry Reinsdorf any more time in that field without a massive rewriting of his lease, and there is no way Jerry Reinsdorf would ever accept that. Jerry has insane things right now like 100% of the parking revenue and a government backstop if attendance falls too low. No one would ever give him that again, and Reinsdorf would almost certainly leave rather than give up a portion of his precious parking profits. You could see that there would be a stadium impasse coming 10 years ago. Building on a site in the loop, where a new ballpark is used to develop a stranded real estate asset that may never be developed otherwise, and where the ballpark is integrated into the surrounding businesses is a modern, smart, quality setup. It is an obvious way around the impasse that was almost certain without this plan, it is a way to bring all stakeholders on board and to justify a new agreement. Everyone can make money on it, if Reinsdorf acts responsibly and takes advantage of the great credit his organization has - thanks to the zero debt status due to his last amazing deal. Jerry Reinsdorf would 100% leave for Nashville rather than accept a lease extension at the Rate which isn’t ungodly team friendly. Any politician would wave goodbye and arrange a police escort out of town before giving him that deal again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 11 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said: Good. Now tell JR directly if he wants state funding he can pay for half of it himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 2 hours ago, caulfield12 said: 78 at least looks like something futuristic. Staying at the present location...just like using antennas for tv, simply feels like the past and out of touch. There's simply no intriguing vision there left to sell. Sox have done enough making up for mistakes of the past...which inevitable makes things even worse. The 78 is Futuristic? How so. It's just a piece of low lying vacant land. The largely unrealistic not to scale artistic rendering is a joke. Perhaps you have have been had like many others by a developer looking to cash in and avoid having to pay real estate taxes on a vacant parcel they have failed to develop. Digital over the air broadcasts ? The quality of the picture is as good as cable and light years beyond what we watched back in the old days. But go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, tray said: The 78 is Futuristic? How so. It's just a piece of low lying vacant land. The largely unrealistic not to scale artistic rendering is a joke. Perhaps you have have been had like many others by a developer looking to cash in and avoid having to pay real estate taxes on a vacant parcel they have failed to develop. Digital over the air broadcasts ? The quality of the picture is as good as cable and light years beyond what we watched back in the old days. But go ahead. While the free OTA option is nice, not having streaming options in addition is a whiff. I won’t have a problem watching Sox games because I get MLB.TV for free every year through T-Mobile and I am tech savvy enough to know how to get around the local blackout with a VPN. But not everyone wants to pay for MLB.TV or knows how to use a VPN and just wants an easy and reliable streaming solution like NBC Sports Chicago provided. Should people bust this out as their portable solution for watching Sox/Bulls/Hawks games in the Chicagoland area? Hopefully the slightly bent antenna will still get a good signal… Edited October 23 by WhiteSox2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 Boeing received $60 million over 20 years. The White Sox are asking for roughly $1 billion...or more. And that's just the beginning, not even considering maintenance and upkeep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksnort Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 3 hours ago, caulfield12 said: Boeing received $60 million over 20 years. The White Sox are asking for roughly $1 billion...or more. And that's just the beginning, not even considering maintenance and upkeep. As with everything else, including his sports teams and chsn, JR is delusional with getting money for the new ballpark as well. He thinks his way will work, but it won't, and it will flop. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 16 hours ago, tray said: Yes Kyle, I think the 78 plan is a joke and I don't mind explaining and advancing my opinion, even in the face of opposing views. Meanwhile...Don't assume MOST Sox fans from SW suburbs will put their families on mass transit. Some will, many others probably won't based on security and other practical concerns. That is going to potentially decrease attendance....substantially. If you are young and single, or have not attended many games, you may not understand that. IMO, the rendering of the 78 stadium is an architectural/ballpark design joke. And who designed it? Related employees? That mainly metal and glass stadium is supposed to compete for revenue with the historic Wrigley field? LOL. The garish 4 story lit up Sox logo? LOL. The gratuitous pinwheels? The scoreboard obstructing views of downtown? The 78 plan to build commercial hi rises surrounding that park diminishes the opportunity to even consider incompatible architecture. That is why the 78 stadium rendering looks like an office building. 78 is only a bit more than 2 miles from Armor Park (and has similar views of downtown) so what is the major reason one would consider abandoning the White Sox home for over 100 years? I'm asking. Is it worth abandoning Armour Park, all the surrounding land, the infrastructure, and indeed all the history the White Sox have had with their fans on 35th street? Never forget, the 78 started as an idea by a developer who experienced multiple failed attempts at reaching some agreement to get an anchor tenant (including Amazon). Now, the ISFA, Chicago and Illinois taxpayers, and Sox ownership (current or future), should tell Related to stick it. Sox fans should not allow themselves to be sold down the river by some greedy real estate people...and we know their type. Nah you aren’t expressing your opinion on this topic as much as yelling at anyone who supports it or merely talks about it. WE KNOW YOU DONT LIKE IT, TRAY. ITS PLAINLY OBVIOUS. just so it’s clear 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 (edited) 15 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Good. Now tell JR directly if he wants state funding he can pay for half of it himself. It'll have to be more than half. The Rays are committing $700M in private funding toward their new stadium. The Royals have proposed $1B in private funding toward a new downtown ballpark they want. Jerry's $200M offer, by comparison, is laughably low-ball. It's obvious that there's no way in hell that he gets $1B in public funding toward a new stadium that'll be used to enrich his estate (by significantly boosting the value of the franchise). If he or a future Sox owner (after he passes) commits to funding the entire cost of the ballpark itself, then yeah the state/city will likely cover the infrastructure costs at the site. Is there anything in between where a Sox owner commits to, say, $1B in private funding and the state agrees to cover the rest of the stadium cost plus infrastructure? I have no idea what would be acceptable. Edited October 23 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 This franchise has lost 222 games in the last two years. Why should it be given any public funds with this record? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 50 minutes ago, Highland said: This franchise has lost 222 games in the last two years. Why should it be given any public funds with this record? Because even with this terrible team nearly 2 million people attended ballgames this year and that is a market that can be used to help develop a neighborhood in Chicago that has sat barren for 60+ years. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 DVS has a story in the Sun-Times: A source close to Reinsdorf said the chairman has grown increasingly skeptical about getting a deal done to build a new stadium under the 78 South Loop development. The Sox’ lease with the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority at Guaranteed Rate Field expires in 2029. https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/10/23/commissioner-on-white-sox-chicago-is-two-team-town My take is that JR must be starting to realize unless he pays a fair portion of the cost he isn't getting squat from the state or city (given Mayor Johnson's recent comment...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 4 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: DVS has a story in the Sun-Times: A source close to Reinsdorf said the chairman has grown increasingly skeptical about getting a deal done to build a new stadium under the 78 South Loop development. The Sox’ lease with the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority at Guaranteed Rate Field expires in 2029. https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/10/23/commissioner-on-white-sox-chicago-is-two-team-town My take is that JR must be starting to realize unless he pays a fair portion of the cost he isn't getting squat from the state or city (given Mayor Johnson's recent comment...) Is it a coincidence that this comes 1 week after the latest threat to sell the team and move it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Is it a coincidence that this comes 1 week after the latest threat to sell the team and move it? The intentionally leaked Dave Stewart news to The Athletic was just more of the same. Jerry is so obvious. Edited October 23 by WhiteSox2023 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 3 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said: The intentionally leaked Dave Stewart news to The Athletic was just more of the same. Jerry is so obvious. Prediction: 6 years from now, there is no way the White Sox are in Chicago and still owned by the Reinsdorf group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Prediction: 6 years from now, there is no way the White Sox are in Chicago and still owned by the Reinsdorf group. That's an easy prediction because more than likely in six years JR probably won't be around anyway. But the new owner or owners won't be moving them anywhere in my opinion because of solid financial reasons. His family isn't keeping the team that's for sure. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 Looks like the Illinois Governor is not on board for a new White Sox stadium. I assume he's not on board for a new Bears stadium also. If that is the case I can't help but wonder what the owners of these 2 teams is going o do, I know the Bears have a long term lease at their present stadium. But they want out of that stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 25 minutes ago, WBWSF said: Looks like the Illinois Governor is not on board for a new White Sox stadium. I assume he's not on board for a new Bears stadium also. If that is the case I can't help but wonder what the owners of these 2 teams is going o do, I know the Bears have a long term lease at their present stadium. But they want out of that stadium. The Bears bought some land in Arlington Heights. That is where they will end up. The White Sox, who knows? But wherever they go, their owner will have to break out the checkbook. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 19 hours ago, Balta1701 said: Because even with this terrible team nearly 2 million people attended ballgames this year and that is a market that can be used to help develop a neighborhood in Chicago that has sat barren for 60+ years. Then Jerry and other business people can do the developing. Many times stadiums do nothing to develop a neighborhood. JR has had one free stadium. He doesn't deserve another. A businessman shouldn't be rewarded like this when he has run his business into the ground. If he wants help from the state, he needs to put up some real money. And then show a real effort to put a team together. He shouldn't get a new stadium for a team that loses 100 games. This isn't about developing a neighborhood. This is about JR making himself richer than he already is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 13 minutes ago, Highland said: Then Jerry and other business people can do the developing. Many times stadiums do nothing to develop a neighborhood. JR has had one free stadium. He doesn't deserve another. A businessman shouldn't be rewarded like this when he has run his business into the ground. If he wants help from the state, he needs to put up some real money. And then show a real effort to put a team together. He shouldn't get a new stadium for a team that loses 100 games. This isn't about developing a neighborhood. This is about JR making himself richer than he already is. What I don't get is JR asks for minimal help with the United Center and now it's re-development. It's so inconsistent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleAleSox Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 31 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: What I don't get is JR asks for minimal help with the United Center and now it's re-development. It's so inconsistent. That's something his family is going to continue to own after he is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.