Sox looking at building in South Loop

[LittleHurtCG]

1 hour ago, Lightly Folded said:

It sure doesn’t look like the bears have any interest in working together with the Sox. The bears are playing poker while Jerry is playing checkers. The bears are calling the Sox hand. They know Jerry isn’t now going to come out with a +billion dollar announcement for private funding for a new Sox stadium. Jerry is getting ready to fold. 

And why should they? This whole scenario has been fascinating to observe. The only leverage Jerry has left is to threaten to move the team if he doesn't get his way. It is very hard to teach an old dog a new trick and JR is no exception. 

[WhiteSox2023]

JR trying to leech off of the Bears is so embarrassing and unsurprising.  Glad to see they apparently told him to go kick rocks.

Edited March 11 by WhiteSox2023

[Lightly Folded]

3 minutes ago, LittleHurtCG said:

And why should they? This whole scenario has been fascinating to observe. The only leverage Jerry has left is to threaten to move the team if he doesn't get his way. It is very hard to teach an old dog a new trick and JR is no exception. 

The Bears never intended to work together with the Sox regarding public funding as the state requested them to do. This is billionaire vs. billionaire which means a dog-devour-dog back alley knife fight over public funding. 

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said:

The Bears never intended to work together with the Sox regarding public funding as the state requested them to do. This is billionaire vs. billionaire which means a dog-devour-dog back alley knife fight over public funding. 

The Bears are putting up $2 billion of their own money for this.  I don't think they "won" the battle for public funding if that is the case.

[Lightly Folded]

46 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Bears are putting up $2 billion of their own money for this.  I don't think they "won" the battle for public funding if that is the case.

It’s easier for elected officials to say yes to an organization that’s willing to put up 2Billion as opposed to and organization (the Sox) that won’t put up their own money.

[nitetrain8601]

1 hour ago, LittleHurtCG said:

And why should they? This whole scenario has been fascinating to observe. The only leverage Jerry has left is to threaten to move the team if he doesn't get his way. It is very hard to teach an old dog a new trick and JR is no exception. 

My guess is that the Bears and Sox were told to go work something out together (public info), then the Bears and Sox did. Sox probably tried their schtick with the Bears saying "Yeah, you let us use your cash and we'll lobby support behind whatever you want to do." Warren, who has done this before, said "yeah, no, this isn't going to work." and decided, we are just going to move along ourselves. 

I've always felt, the first to the table is the one that gets their stadium done with at least some public financing. The other one will get very little financing and probably doesn't end up building. Bears released this to the press on Sunday less than a week after they were going to try to work with the Sox. It's clear they're racing to the table.

JR moves to the beat of his own drum, so I'm sure he's not panicking. 

[CentralChamps21]

Public funding for a Bears stadium makes more sense than for the Sox due to the simple fact that the Bears stadium can also bring in things like an NCAA Final Four, a Super Bowl, college football, concerts, etc.

[LittleHurtCG]

6 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said:

My guess is that the Bears and Sox were told to go work something out together (public info), then the Bears and Sox did. Sox probably tried their schtick with the Bears saying "Yeah, you let us use your cash and we'll lobby support behind whatever you want to do." Warren, who has done this before, said "yeah, no, this isn't going to work." and decided, we are just going to move along ourselves. 

I've always felt, the first to the table is the one that gets their stadium done with at least some public financing. The other one will get very little financing and probably doesn't end up building. Bears released this to the press on Sunday less than a week after they were going to try to work with the Sox. It's clear they're racing to the table.

JR moves to the beat of his own drum, so I'm sure he's not panicking. 

The two organizations working together on something never made any realistic sense to me. There is no way they can share a stadium and it seems impossible to put both a baseball stadium and a football stadium at the 78 site. 

I still think the Bears end up out in Arlington Heights. They already have the land purchased. Arlington Heights is also so much easier to get to for a majority of their fanbase and season ticket holders. It seems like a natural fit. 

[South Side Hit Men]

2 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

Public funding for a Bears stadium makes more sense than for the Sox due to the simple fact that the Bears stadium can also bring in things like an NCAA Final Four, a Super Bowl, college football, concerts, etc.

There will be likely one Super Bowl ever, and the city and state will lose nine figures net in government funds hosting it.

There are few concerts which need more capacity than what current stadiums provide. There are only a dozen NFL games each year. 

The only reason it would have any support, especially over the White Sox, is the fact there are far more voters who support Bears laundry.

 

[southsider2k5]

26 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said:

It’s easier for elected officials to say yes to an organization that’s willing to put up 2Billion as opposed to and organization (the Sox) that won’t put up their own money.

Which was never the Sox goal, and probably not the Bears either to be honest, though I have no idea what they are trying to do with pissing away all of that money in the burbs, only to come back and pony up $2b when they could have done that without losing money.

[WBWSF]

The  Bears didn't want to spend a few million dollars in taxes in Arlington Heights. I find it hard to believe the Bears are going to pay $2 Billion dollars for a stadium in Chicago.

[nitetrain8601]

19 minutes ago, LittleHurtCG said:

The two organizations working together on something never made any realistic sense to me. There is no way they can share a stadium and it seems impossible to put both a baseball stadium and a football stadium at the 78 site. 

I still think the Bears end up out in Arlington Heights. They already have the land purchased. Arlington Heights is also so much easier to get to for a majority of their fanbase and season ticket holders. It seems like a natural fit. 

 

3 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

The  Bears didn't want to spend a few million dollars in taxes in Arlington Heights. I find it hard to believe the Bears are going to pay $2 Billion dollars for a stadium in Chicago.

I think they end up selling Arlington Heights and are including that sale as part of the "We'll pony up 2 mil". And I think that's why it gets done. Even if the stadium is 4 billion to build, that's half. You would be lucky to get even a quarter of that from JR.

[LittleHurtCG]

3 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said:

 

I think they end up selling Arlington Heights and are including that sale as part of the "We'll pony up 2 mil". And I think that's why it gets done. Even if the stadium is 4 billion to build, that's half. You would be lucky to get even a quarter of that from JR.

Who is going to buy up that Arlington Heights property? The Bears are going to take a haircut if they put it back on the market anytime soon. 

[nitetrain8601]

19 minutes ago, LittleHurtCG said:

Who is going to buy up that Arlington Heights property? The Bears are going to take a haircut if they put it back on the market anytime soon. 

A developer. I don't think that's too hard. They may sell it at a slight loss, but maybe not since the area is clear. You can start building on it almost immediately. 

[southsider2k5]

46 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

The  Bears didn't want to spend a few million dollars in taxes in Arlington Heights. I find it hard to believe the Bears are going to pay $2 Billion dollars for a stadium in Chicago.

Yet here they are with a story that hasn't been denied.

[LittleHurtCG]

46 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said:

A developer. I don't think that's too hard. They may sell it at a slight loss, but maybe not since the area is clear. You can start building on it almost immediately. 

Is the land zoned for residential? I'm not sure what a developer would put there now. The Bears would have very little leverage in a sale if the buyer knew they had to move the property asap. 

[pcq]

10 hours ago, tray said:

I have enumerated facts supported by links why the 78 site makes no sense for the WSox, coupled with my own opinions and reasoning and no, it wasn't only about parking. However, it would be short sighted to discount that. I do not want to re-litigate the Related/78 proposal, but to highlight a few points.

The 78 site is over a former river bed and dump site. Related is looking (once again) through rose colored glasses with their hands out after their prior proposals for that site (going back over 20 years) have failed.  Reorienting streets, railroad tracks, and ingress/egress for the 78 would add tremendously to development costs for the City and State over developing other sites, including the Bridgeport or Bronzeville/M. Reese site. 

The 78 rendering of a nondescript baseball stadium within an office park was uninspiring. Related patronizing fans with a later version of their rendering painted green for St. Pat's day, was insulting.

 

 

 

Being close to downtown would be the best thing ever for the Bridgeport Nine. 

[southsider2k5]

26 minutes ago, LittleHurtCG said:

Is the land zoned for residential? I'm not sure what a developer would put there now. The Bears would have very little leverage in a sale if the buyer knew they had to move the property asap. 

Getting it rezoned would be the least of the problems.

[Sleepy Harold]

9 hours ago, LittleHurtCG said:

The State of Illinois and the Bears still owe like 300-400 million on the Soldier Field renovation, no? How are they planning to make those debt payments disappear? 

According to this article https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/bears-new-stadium-plan-raises-funding-questions-as-taxpayers-still-owe-589m-on-soldier-field/3379911/%3famp=1, the Bears still owe $589M on the Soldier Field renovations.

[77 Hitmen]

10 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

There will be likely one Super Bowl ever, and the city and state will lose nine figures net in government funds hosting it.

There are few concerts which need more capacity than what current stadiums provide. There are only a dozen NFL games each year. 

The only reason it would have any support, especially over the White Sox, is the fact there are far more voters who support Bears laundry.

 

This seems to be the case with any cold-weather city with an indoor stadium - yes, the NFL gives them a Super Bowl, but it's one and done.  Detroit and Minneapolis have had two each, but only after they replaced their old domes with new stadiums.   Unlike warm weather cities, I don't expect Detroit, Minneapolis, or Indianapolis to be in the rotation for another Super Bowl again.  Chicago would probably be in the same boat given the typical weather here in Chicago in early Feb. even if the game itself is indoors.

So, the promise that spending $1B+ in public funds will land Chicago a Super Bowl - it'll just be a one-time thing and not a recurring event.  

[Dick Allen]

3 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

This seems to be the case with any cold-weather city with an indoor stadium - yes, the NFL gives them a Super Bowl, but it's one and done.  Detroit and Minneapolis have had two each, but only after they replaced their old domes with new stadiums.   Unlike warm weather cities, I don't expect Detroit, Minneapolis, or Indianapolis to be in the rotation for another Super Bowl again.  Chicago would probably be in the same boat given the typical weather here in Chicago in early Feb. even if the game itself is indoors.

So, the promise that spending $1B+ in public funds will land Chicago a Super Bowl - it'll just be a one-time thing and not a recurring event.  

Chicago is different from Minneapolis and Detroit, and Minneapolis will get another Super Bowl.  But even if the eventually get 3 or 4 Super Bowls, a couple Final Fours, Big Ten Championship games, it won't cover the bill. I read where a new Bears dome would cost at least $3 billion, and that just builds the stadium. They would have to deconstruct Soldier Field, add park land, and get it through all the legal stuff that is sure to happen.  Even throwing in $2 Billion , it's still going to coast about the same as building JR a ballpark for free.I still think the Bears go to Arlington Heights until that land is sold. 

Edited March 12 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

7 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

This seems to be the case with any cold-weather city with an indoor stadium - yes, the NFL gives them a Super Bowl, but it's one and done.  Detroit and Minneapolis have had two each, but only after they replaced their old domes with new stadiums.   Unlike warm weather cities, I don't expect Detroit, Minneapolis, or Indianapolis to be in the rotation for another Super Bowl again.  Chicago would probably be in the same boat given the typical weather here in Chicago in early Feb. even if the game itself is indoors.

So, the promise that spending $1B+ in public funds will land Chicago a Super Bowl - it'll just be a one-time thing and not a recurring event.  

I think some of that will be that the cities are smaller and so are the stadia. Over a full 30 years stadium lifetime, in Chicago, I’m guessing two assuming they build a quality venue.

[soxfan18]

4 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Chicago is different from Minneapolis and Detroit, and Minneapolis will get another Super Bowl.  But even if the eventually get 3 or 4 Super Bowls, a couple Final Fours, Big Ten Championship games, it won't cover the bill. I read where a new Bears dome would cost at least $3 billion, and that just builds the stadium. They would have to deconstruct Soldier Field, add park land, and get it through all the legal stuff that is sure to happen.  Even throwing in $2 Billion , it's still going to coast about the same as building JR a ballpark for free.I still think the Bears go to Arlington Heights until that land is sold. 

I highly doubt it. 

The Super Bowl is more than the game, it's about pampering sponsors with elaborate outdoor parties and golf and whatnot. 

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

I think some of that will be that the cities are smaller and so are the stadia. Over a full 30 years stadium lifetime, in Chicago, I’m guessing two assuming they build a quality venue.

Nobody wants to be in Chicago in February. Chicago (or Detroit, Minnesota, or even New York) are solely considered to keep the publicly funded stadium shakedown racket going, similar to the garbage MLB All Star Game stadium rotation.

It’s also a net money losing proposition in terms of local tax receipts vs. government funded expenses due to all the costs the NFL shifts to taxpayers. 

They really should just rotate between Miami, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Perhaps New Orleans if people still want to go there, which may be a stretch in 2024.

Dallas, Houston and Phoenix have ok plus weather, but not sure anyone wants to go there on a regular rotation.

https://www.betfirm.com/super-bowl-host-cities-stadiums/

Edited March 12 by South Side Hit Men

[NO!!MARY!!!]

1 hour ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Nobody wants to be in Chicago in February. Chicago (or Detroit, Minnesota, or even New York) are solely considered to keep the publicly funded stadium shakedown racket going, similar to the garbage MLB All Star Game stadium rotation.

It’s also a net money losing proposition in terms of local tax receipts vs. government funded expenses due to all the costs the NFL shifts to taxpayers. 

They really should just rotate between Miami, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Perhaps New Orleans if people still want to go there, which may be a stretch in 2024.

Dallas, Houston and Phoenix have ok plus weather, but not sure anyone wants to go there on a regular rotation.

https://www.betfirm.com/super-bowl-host-cities-stadiums/

The Super Bowl rotation was Miami, New Orleans and Los Angeles until they started adding more in the 1980s. 

Edited March 12 by NO!!MARY!!!