Jake Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 I find the mayor's openness to this to be interesting given that I would have profiled him as someone hostile to this kind of thing. That's probably good news for the White Sox. I've yet to see any meaningful opposition to the Sox proposals by any public officials, as a matter of fact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Just now, Jake said: I find the mayor's openness to this to be interesting given that I would have profiled him as someone hostile to this kind of thing. That's probably good news for the White Sox. I've yet to see any meaningful opposition to the Sox proposals by any public officials, as a matter of fact. In a link to a story I posted yesterday there were at least three state legislators who were quoted as basically saying the Sox can kiss their rear end if they think they are going to get votes from them allowing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, caulfield12 said: Jerry Reinsdorf: Shohei Ohtani's contract scares us As for the real estate question, Reinsdorf said his team couldn't survive in a world in which the Los Angeles Dodgers are giving Shohei Ohtani $700 million: “The economics of baseball have completely changed,” with top ballplayers signing contracts worth as much as $700 million, Reinsdorf said. “At the location we’re at now, we cannot generate the revenue needed to pay those salaries,” said Reinsdorf, referring to the team’s heavily-residential Bridgeport home. A new space in a livelier downtown area with shops, bars and other entertainment venues within walking distance should do better, he contends. Reinsdorf denied that the real problem is poor performance by his team. Even after winning the World Series in 2005, “we didn’t crack the 3 million (attendance) mark,” something that Series winners routinely accomplish. Perhaps at this point we should note that the largest contract Reinsdorf has ever given out as White Sox owner is Andrew Benintendi's five-year, $75 million extension. Reinsdorf is clearly implying that his team would be able to play with the heavy hitters if it had that real estate income, which is something you will have to just trust him on. The Washington Nationals have also never cracked 3 million in attendance, but they've still paid out some massive contracts, such as those of Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg. The Houston Astros cracked 3 million for the first time since 2007 last year. I totally agree. Pitchers having a revision UCL reconstruction only have about a 30% chance of returning to their prior level. He may just be a really expensive outfielder with a damaged arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, Jake said: I find the mayor's openness to this to be interesting given that I would have profiled him as someone hostile to this kind of thing. That's probably good news for the White Sox. I've yet to see any meaningful opposition to the Sox proposals by any public officials, as a matter of fact. I think the mayor supports it just to get anything out of the 78 area. It's just a drag on the city right now. The development company needs an anchor for the area to thrive. The ballpark would do that. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 minute ago, Lip Man 1 said: In a link to a story I posted yesterday there were at least three state legislators who were quoted as basically saying the Sox can kiss their rear end if they think they are going to get votes from them allowing this. Probably southern Illinois Chicago hating country rubes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: In a link to a story I posted yesterday there were at least three state legislators who were quoted as basically saying the Sox can kiss their rear end if they think they are going to get votes from them allowing this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is Illinois so we'll see who pays for the most votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 14 minutes ago, ptatc said: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is Illinois so we'll see who pays for the most votes. It’s not just Illinois it’s the same all over the world. Money rules everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 55 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: Why wouldn’t they move to a city that would provide them with a new stadium and partial ownership of those things within an accompanying entertainment area, (restaurants, bars, legal gambling parlors, hotel(s) and whatever. That’s how the money is made not in some backwater neighborhood like Bridgeport that has nothing else going for it except 81 baseball games a year. If you read the article the new mayor of Nashville is totally against publicly funding a stadium. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 35 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: It’s not just Illinois it’s the same all over the world. Money rules everything. Yeah, but Illinois has the record for the most Governors sent to prison. Illinois takes it to the next level compared to other governments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 25 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: If you read the article the new mayor of Nashville is totally against publicly funding a stadium. And Pontius Pilate was totally against crucifying Jesus…..at first. The Nashville wheelers and dealers will show him the light, or the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 4 minutes ago, ptatc said: Yeah, but Illinois has the record for the most Governors sent to prison. Illinois takes it to the next level compared to other governments. That because things get exposed here. Not so much elsewhere especially in small town American fiefdoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: In a link to a story I posted yesterday there were at least three state legislators who were quoted as basically saying the Sox can kiss their rear end if they think they are going to get votes from them allowing this. But they don't need a unanimous vote to pass any stadium funding legislation, right? Having 3 legislators saying no way in hell doesn't mean this is doomed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Jake said: I find the mayor's openness to this to be interesting given that I would have profiled him as someone hostile to this kind of thing. That's probably good news for the White Sox. I've yet to see any meaningful opposition to the Sox proposals by any public officials, as a matter of fact. Does the mayor actually have any influence here? The state government controls the sports funds, right? The TIF for this land has already been created so there's already money put in to develop it if development goes forwards. Is anyone asking the mayor to do anything right now? If not, then it makes sense for the mayor to take no position on things as the mayor doesn't want to piss people off on the other side until they have to make a real decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 17 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: And Pontius Pilate was totally against crucifying Jesus…..at first. The Nashville wheelers and dealers will show him the light, or the door. That's what he ran on, and won. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 18 hours ago, Tnetennba said: Here come the not so veiled threats…??♀️ Also, Jerry, seriously, go f*** yourself. I both can't believe it and I also can - this is such a crappy, 1980s way to try to get your way. "Pay me money or I take my present and leave" darn well should provoke a "Here's a map" response. If you want a ton of public money, and I'm a public official, you better darn well be selling me on the positives not threatening me with the negatives. Give me estimates that say putting $2 billion into this site will produce $4 billion in new tax revenue. Give me something that says how many high paying jobs it will create, show me how you're going to raise wages for everyone in the area. I really do hope government has learned to spit on threats like this and reward people who work with them constructively. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Does the mayor actually have any influence here? The state government controls the sports funds, right? The TIF for this land has already been created so there's already money put in to develop it if development goes forwards. Is anyone asking the mayor to do anything right now? If not, then it makes sense for the mayor to take no position on things as the mayor doesn't want to piss people off on the other side until they have to make a real decision. The mayor would be for this possibly because it takes away responsibility to cover any hotel tax shortage from the City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Lightly Folded said: Probably southern Illinois Chicago hating country rubes. At least one of the Reps was Kelly Cassidy, whose district includes the Rogers Park part of the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I both can't believe it and I also can - this is such a crappy, 1980s way to try to get your way. "Pay me money or I take my present and leave" darn well should provoke a "Here's a map" response. If you want a ton of public money, and I'm a public official, you better darn well be selling me on the positives not threatening me with the negatives. Give me estimates that say putting $2 billion into this site will produce $4 billion in new tax revenue. Give me something that says how many high paying jobs it will create, show me how you're going to raise wages for everyone in the area. I really do hope government has learned to spit on threats like this and reward people who work with them constructively. Yeah, it is totally believable and not at all surprising that he's taking this tactic, but no less insulting at the same time. As if we don't all know how he operates or that he's tried this move before. It's gross, and proves once again how out of touch he is. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 25 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Does the mayor actually have any influence here? The state government controls the sports funds, right? The TIF for this land has already been created so there's already money put in to develop it if development goes forwards. Is anyone asking the mayor to do anything right now? If not, then it makes sense for the mayor to take no position on things as the mayor doesn't want to piss people off on the other side until they have to make a real decision. The city gets to nominate a set amount of the ISFA board, so at the very least he has those votes seemingly under his control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Balta1701 said: I both can't believe it and I also can - this is such a crappy, 1980s way to try to get your way. "Pay me money or I take my present and leave" darn well should provoke a "Here's a map" response. If you want a ton of public money, and I'm a public official, you better darn well be selling me on the positives not threatening me with the negatives. Give me estimates that say putting $2 billion into this site will produce $4 billion in new tax revenue. Give me something that says how many high paying jobs it will create, show me how you're going to raise wages for everyone in the area. I really do hope government has learned to spit on threats like this and reward people who work with them constructively. If the thing got built like the pictures, which is probably a long shot, what types of high paying jobs would there be? Apartments have door personnel and maintenance people. White Sox game day doesn't pay much and its only transferred from Bridgeport. Restaurants and bars aren't high paying. It's all BS. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: If the thing got built like the pictures, which is probably a long shot, what types of high paying jobs would there be? Apartments have door personnel and maintenance people. White Sox game day doesn't pay much and its only transferred from Bridgeport. Restaurants and bars aren't high paying. It's all BS. Construction, engineering, operations...and a pledge to raise worker wages, which is of course entirely in his purview to do. But that would be working constructively, which is why he can't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 hours ago, Jake said: Most folks are aware of the dubious claims made about the economic benefits of public financing for sports stadiums/arenas. Biggest issue tends to be that while there is undeniably significant economic activity generated by a new ballpark, there is lots of economic activity with any investment of that size into a similar plot of land. Jerry's best argument here, IMO, is that this is not true about the 78. For the reasons discussed previously ITT, as best as I can tell the 78 has somewhat limited options in terms of what kinds of stuff you could build there due to the ground it's on, the stuff that is built near it, etc. And there's some proof in the pudding too: there's literally nothing there! Crazy that an area right in the heart of Chicago is completely undeveloped. I think it's at least a plausible argument that nothing useful may happen there if the Sox don't get a stadium there. If so, this is a matter of adding economic activity to the city rather than just prioritizing a baseball field over some other form of development. It's unclear to me how far he can get with the line of argument that the Sox may end up leaving town if they don't get a good stadium deal. It sure seems like many stakeholders including Sox fans, are happy to tell the team to f*** off and go play in some other city. Maybe it's the Cubs' world and we're just living in it. Very well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Construction, engineering, operations...and a pledge to raise worker wages, which is of course entirely in his purview to do. But that would be working constructively, which is why he can't do it. Those jobs are gone once it's built. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said: But they don't need a unanimous vote to pass any stadium funding legislation, right? Having 3 legislators saying no way in hell doesn't mean this is doomed. Never said it was or wasn't simply pointing out to the poster that wrote that they hadn't seen any negative comments from politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 From August. JR owes the Crain's guy an apology “Somebody at Crain’s decided he wanted to write that (the Sox) were looking at the Bears (situation),” Reinsdorf said, “and the White Sox lease has six or seven years left to go and the White Sox have some options, they might move out of the city, they might move out of town, they might go to Nashville. That wasn’t us, that was a (reporter) at Crain’s. “And ever since the article came out, I’ve been reading that I’ve been threatening to move to Nashville. That article didn’t come from me. But it’s obvious, if we have six years left … we’ve got to decide what’s the future (of where the Sox home is) going to be? “We’ll get to it, but I never threatened to move out. We haven’t even begun to have discussions with the (Illinois) Sports Authority, which we’ll have to do soon.” 1 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.