WBWSF Posted November 17 Share Posted November 17 6 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: I haven't seen this reported anywhere can you provide a link to what you watched. The youtube channel is by a popular man known as Depressed Ginger. He has a big following on youtube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted November 17 Share Posted November 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: I haven't seen this reported anywhere can you provide a link to what you watched. 3 hours ago, WBWSF said: I just saw a video on Youtube that claims the bonds needed for the proposed new Rays stadium was not passed. Good chance the Rays will move the team now. I remember when JR said that St.Pete was a better business model than the southside of Chicago. I also remember when Eddie Einhorn said Florida was the greatest opportunity for MLB since the Dodgers moved to LA. There are reports all over Tampa media that the deal could be in jeopardy. https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/sports/2024/11/16/rays-stadium-deal-could-collapse https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/11/16/rays-stadium-deal-bonds-vote-pinellas-st-petersburg-tropicana-field-steinbrenner/ This is unbelievable, we were told this summer that the stadium was a done deal, baseball could very well be returning to Montreal. As someone who has watched this fiasco for years, I thought it was a mistake to build a new stadium again in St. Pete, the Rays fan fast base is in the city of Tampa and the surrounding suburbs. If they can’t work out a deal in Tampa they should look at Orlando which has tons of money or else it’s adios Florida which I think Sternberg has wished for all along, he knew that building a new stadium in St. Pete wasn’t the ideal situation and Tampa was the place but he took what he could get. Edited November 17 by The Mighty Mite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted November 17 Share Posted November 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, WBWSF said: The youtube channel is by a popular man known as Depressed Ginger. He has a big following on youtube. It's being reported in the press. It's not just some YouTube dude saying it. https://sports.yahoo.com/rays-stadium-drama-potential-relocation-184034221.html Edited November 17 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 17 Share Posted November 17 Florida just never seems to have dedicated fanbases for pro baseball teams. Miami and Tampa have struggled a lot and it’s hard to see how they can justify new stadiums. But Miami did pull it off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted November 18 Share Posted November 18 5 hours ago, Kyyle23 said: Florida just never seems to have dedicated fanbases for pro baseball teams. Miami and Tampa have struggled a lot and it’s hard to see how they can justify new stadiums. But Miami did pull it off Orlando might have the financial base, but the nature of all those amusement parks being the top priority for visitors and the fact that you would be relying on supplemental tourist traffic (not unlike Las Vegas) complicates matters, not to mention the ongoing political dispute between Disney and the governor's office. Then there's the weather issue (dome or no dome)...would probably be an outdoor facility to fit in with the vibe of that area. Not to mention you're starting to run into Braves' territory going further north...built-in through all of those years of TBS/TNT and connected by the interstate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted November 18 Share Posted November 18 They would love the GRATE then Jerry can move to the Neverland place that will not support his failing endeavor. He can take the White Sox name with him if he'd like. Start anew and I will back them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted November 18 Share Posted November 18 On 11/16/2024 at 12:22 PM, Timmy U said: There is public transport now, but everything near a subway is getting huge apartment blocks built on it. There’s no huge tracts with good infrastructure nearby that is not already spoken for. The Dodgers would kill for the set up the Bears are rejecting in Arlington Heights. I think in another 10 years, they would be able to do so where LA Live is. I do see the Lakers trying to move again. They failed with Ballmer beating them to the punch, but the Lakers don't want to be in downtown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted November 26 Share Posted November 26 The Bears agreed to tax conditions in Arlington Heights. Looks like some movement is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted November 26 Share Posted November 26 4 hours ago, WBWSF said: The Bears agreed to tax conditions in Arlington Heights. Looks like some movement is coming. Bears still saying that want the stadium on the lakefront. Politicians still laughing at that idea. Their plan, which requires upwards of $1 billion in public funding, drew cheers from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson — and cold shoulders from state lawmakers in Springfield. https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/bears-stadium/2024/11/25/bears-stadium-arlington-heights-lakefront-michael-reese-soldier-field The Bears (and White Sox) will get nothing and like it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltwilliams Posted November 26 Share Posted November 26 15 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Bears still saying that want the stadium on the lakefront. Politicians still laughing at that idea. Their plan, which requires upwards of $1 billion in public funding, drew cheers from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson — and cold shoulders from state lawmakers in Springfield. https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/bears-stadium/2024/11/25/bears-stadium-arlington-heights-lakefront-michael-reese-soldier-field The Bears (and White Sox) will get nothing and like it. Kevin Warren is the key driver of keeping the Bears on the lakefront. I think the McCaskeys and Ted Phillips were perfectly fine with the Arlington Heights location, which at the end of the day, makes more sense for the Bears than staying downtown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted November 26 Share Posted November 26 3 hours ago, waltwilliams said: Kevin Warren is the key driver of keeping the Bears on the lakefront. I think the McCaskeys and Ted Phillips were perfectly fine with the Arlington Heights location, which at the end of the day, makes more sense for the Bears than staying downtown. Warren is an outsider who doesn’t understand how things work in Chicago. No way it gets built where they want it. Maybe down south, but is that better than Arlington? I have always thought it would be in AH. They own the land. They would own the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenericUserName Posted November 26 Share Posted November 26 3 hours ago, waltwilliams said: Kevin Warren is the key driver of keeping the Bears on the lakefront. I think the McCaskeys and Ted Phillips were perfectly fine with the Arlington Heights location, which at the end of the day, makes more sense for the Bears than staying downtown. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted November 27 Share Posted November 27 23 hours ago, GenericUserName said: 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. So the balance of political power in the State makes Chicago a better option ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted Wednesday at 05:26 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 05:26 AM CLEARWATER, Fla. -- The Pinellas County Commission voted Tuesday to approve bonds that will finance its share of a new Rays ballpark in St. Petersburg, but the club said the county’s previous delays would force them to push back the planned opening of the ballpark by a year and makes it unrealistic for them to solely afford the increased cost of construction. County Commissioners initially agreed to delay their vote on Oct. 29. Before the county again deferred its vote on Nov. 19, Rays presidents Matt Silverman and Brian Auld wrote that the unexpected October pause “ended the ability for a 2028 delivery of the ballpark,” as scheduled, and added that “a 2029 ballpark delivery would result in significantly higher costs that we are not able to absorb alone.” The St. Petersburg City Council voted earlier this month, 4-3, to approve bonds to fund the city’s $287.5 million portion of the Rays’ planned $1.3 billion stadium and surrounding Historic Gas Plant District development. The County Commission followed suit on Tuesday with a 5-2 vote in favor of the bonds funding the county’s $312.5 million investment in the project. $600 million from city and country, $700 million (plus) from the Rays...now also they're claiming that 2029 will be the year for the new stadium, not 2028 https://www.mlb.com/news/rays-pinellas-county-negotiations-new-stadium-deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted Thursday at 12:34 AM Share Posted Thursday at 12:34 AM If the proposed stadium isn't opening until 2029, could the Rays just play at Steinbrenner Field until then? Highly unlikely. The Rays are treating Steinbrenner as a stopover, not unlike how the Athletics are using another minor league stadium, Sutter Health Park, to set up shop before their planned move to Las Vegas in 2028. It's not just the weather concerns -- the combination of extreme heat and rain in the summer that, accordingly, have the Rays on the road for 35 of 48 games between July 4 and the end of August. Deposing a minor league affiliate of an organization in the same division is simply something that's not likely to be agreed upon for an extended period of time. Where would the Rays play, then? Good question. Would MLB give them permission to moonlight in a potential expansion city? Could they find somewhere to play in Pinellas County for three more years? Is Omaha, which the Wall Street Journal reported could host the Rays, really a possibility? It's all unknown. Just as important as the next few years is what comes after that. The goal is for the Rays to know where they're going to be in 2028 and 2029 as early as 2026. Though as the A's showed this year, those sorts of timelines tend to be more fluid than the "deadlines" suggest. https://global.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/43039285/mlb-2024-tampa-bay-rays-st-petersburg-new-stadium-future-tropicana-field-faq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted Thursday at 11:47 AM Share Posted Thursday at 11:47 AM On 11/27/2024 at 4:25 PM, tray said: So the balance of political power in the State makes Chicago a better option ? No, the Bears know that the politicians in Chicago favor the team playing and staying in Chicago, so the owners and Warren are focusing their efforts there because it is much more sympathetic than Springfield, which has just flat out shut the door in their faces Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted yesterday at 01:42 PM Share Posted yesterday at 01:42 PM It appears that the Fire are now focusing on the 78 site for their new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted yesterday at 01:53 PM Share Posted yesterday at 01:53 PM 12 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said: It appears that the Fire are now focusing on the 78 site for their new stadium. Are the Sox giving up their plans then? I don’t see how the developer could be working with both the Sox and Fire simultaneously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kba Posted yesterday at 02:49 PM Share Posted yesterday at 02:49 PM 58 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Are the Sox giving up their plans then? I don’t see how the developer could be working with both the Sox and Fire simultaneously. "We are actively exploring the co-location of dual stadiums for the Chicago White Sox and Chicago Fire, two organizations whose presence at The 78 would align with our vision of creating Chicago’s next great neighborhood." https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/possible-future-home-of-white-sox-could-have-a-second-stadium-developer-says/3578694/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted yesterday at 03:38 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:38 PM 51 minutes ago, kba said: "We are actively exploring the co-location of dual stadiums for the Chicago White Sox and Chicago Fire, two organizations whose presence at The 78 would align with our vision of creating Chicago’s next great neighborhood." https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/possible-future-home-of-white-sox-could-have-a-second-stadium-developer-says/3578694/ Thanks for sharing. Surprised they can fit two stadiums and a bunch other s%*# on that site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted yesterday at 03:48 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:48 PM 1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said: Are the Sox giving up their plans then? I don’t see how the developer could be working with both the Sox and Fire simultaneously. In that piece the Sox nor Related commented, but housing both teams on the site was still mentioned in the piece. The Fire apparently are looking at 7-10 acres there for their stadium. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted yesterday at 03:58 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:58 PM One difference is the Fires owner doesn’t think he’s entitled to a free stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted yesterday at 06:09 PM Share Posted yesterday at 06:09 PM Just FYI, read a story in the Tribune a few days ago where representatives from the pro women's sports teams met with members of the state legislator branch. They are trying to get a law passed that if the state allocates any money at all towards construction of new stadiums for male teams (like the Sox and Bears) they must also offer money for the construction of new women's stadiums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago 6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Just FYI, read a story in the Tribune a few days ago where representatives from the pro women's sports teams met with members of the state legislator branch. They are trying to get a law passed that if the state allocates any money at all towards construction of new stadiums for male teams (like the Sox and Bears) they must also offer money for the construction of new women's stadiums. I read where the present White Sox stadium would be given to the females if the White Sox get the new stadium in the South Loop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted 20 hours ago Share Posted 20 hours ago 46 minutes ago, WBWSF said: I read where the present White Sox stadium would be given to the females if the White Sox get the new stadium in the South Loop. Then we won't have to worry about either situation taking place more than likely. 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.