77 Hitmen

Jerry owes every Sox fan an apology.

Interesting. That would explain what's going on with this team, which is more than Jerry's usual level of incompetence.

I agree, but Jerry is 88 years old and will be 93 when the Sox current lease is up. Even if the South Loop ballpark goes forward, there's a very good chance he won't be around to see its opening. He's also said his family will sell the team after he's gone. Ownership change is coming. Of course, some might say that a new owner could be even worse than the way JR has run this team, but unless they move the team out of town, I don't see how that's possible.

The Bears hold their first meeting with the ISFA on their lakefront stadium plan: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2024/04/04/bears-new-stadium-illinois-sports-facilities-authority-white-sox-south-loop-funding “Both teams appear to understand that the continuation of the 2% hotel tax is unlikely to pay for two new stadiums and pay off the legacy [outstanding] stadium debt,” Bilecki told the Sun-Times. “Which, I assume, is part of the ongoing discussion between the teams. That’s up to them to try and figure out. ... It’s the million-dollar question. We’ve got to wait to see what they propose.”

According to this article, this would be the text of the proposed ballot measure: "Shall the people of Chicago provide any taxpayer subsidies to the Chicago Bears or Chicago White Sox in order to build a new stadium or real estate development?," https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/referendum-for-royals-chiefs-stadiums-fails-as-bears-white-sox-seek-public-funds/3400874/ Note that they only mention this being on the ballot in the city, not statewide. Also, I read this to mean that, if it was on the ballot and it passed, it would reject ANY amount of public funding even for infrastructure toward real estate development at the stadium sites. That's pretty strict and with no room for compromise. What if (and I realize it's a huge IF) JR agreed to foot the bill for the entire baseball stadium? Even in that scenario, no public money at all - not one cent - could be spent on things like moving the Metra tracks, extending the Riverwalk, or building a new Red Line subway stop at 15th and Clark. You're right that if the Bears and Sox were separated, the Bears could very well pass while the Sox measure would almost certainly fail. Heck, even some die-hard Sox fans are saying NOT ONE DIME! and some are even practically rooting for the team to move to Nashville before one red cent public cent is spent on The 78.

Heck, if the Royals can say they're proposing to provide $1B in private funding toward a new baseball stadium, then why can't Jerry commit to at least that amount? If JR came out and said he'd provide $1B in private funding toward the ballpark, my guess is that a stadium deal would very likely get approved by the state legislature.

Unfortunately, that's the way Jerry has operated the White Sox pretty much from day 1 and the result is that the Sox have had one of the worst post-season track records in the expanded playoff era of the last 30 years. Number of post-season appearances, number of years where they won at least 1 playoff series, etc - the Sox rank near the bottom. Penny wise and pound foolish is how this team operates. Now, that being said, two things can be (and IMO are) true: The Sox would draw well if they fielded teams that made the playoffs often and were able to advance at least more than once during JR's entire 43 year ownership. At the same time, IMO the Sox would be a better draw at The 78 than at 35th & Shields over the long haul through ups and downs of team performance. The current park is simply never going to get the love outside of the die-hard Sox fan base enough to broaden interest in this team. At best, people outside the core fan base see the park and location as "meh" and that's not going to change. And for those who argue that location won't matter as long as Reinsdorf owns the team. Well, he is 88. Ownership change is coming within the next 10 years and probably sooner than that.

That's not the whole story about the Caps and Wizards, though. The reason why the Virginia deal is dead is because the Caps and Wizards have come to an agreement with DC to stay at their current arena until 2050. The city has agreed to pay $515M in upgrades to Capital One Arena to keep those teams in Washington. https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/03/27/capitals-wizards-alexandria-virginia-arena

But, they're not proposing to raise the hotel tax. The funding would come from the existing 2% hotel tax, not an increase in the tax.

This is basically how I feel about it. The existing 2% hotel tax isn't increasing and isn't going away regardless of what happens to the stadium proposals, so I don't see a negative impact on tourism and convention business. Does this mean I want the state to give JR a $1B blank check? Heck, no! If the McCaskeys can come up with $2B in private financing for their new stadium, why can't Uncle Jerry come up with at least a huge chunk of the $1B needed for his new stadium with private financing? Ultimately, I think there's a deal that can be done here for both projects and if so, that would mean two outstanding facilities and improved infrastructure for citizens to enjoy for decades to come and that'll help showcase Chicago as still one of America's premier cities instead of an image of a decaying, has-been city that doesn't think big anymore.

In addition to several of the points already brought up in this thread, one interesting thing they mention is that leagues usually charge franchises several hundred million $ for a relocation fee. Is this true for MLB? Does anyone know if the A's are paying such a fee? If so, it's another argument against JR's veiled relocation threat. If he or a new Sox owner are going to have to cough up a few hundred mil to the league to move to a smaller market, why not just apply that money toward private financing of a stadium at Lot 78? For those who can't read the article due to the paywall, they also mention that, while Nashville is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the US, it's still has 2.1M people vs. Chicagoland's 9.4M. Also, it's not a given that Nashville is going to hand Sox ownership $1B in public funding for a baseball stadium just after they spent over $1B in public money for the new Titans stadium that is currently under construction. In the end, my guess is that JR (or a new Sox owner if he passes) comes up with enough private money to get a South Loop ballpark built. Even if it takes a few years, as long as something else isn't built on that lot or the Sox sign a long-term lease at GRF, a new ballpark in the South Loop will still be an option.

My guess is that he'll ultimately pay for a significant chunk of a new stadium because that'll make the franchise much more valuable if and when it's sold. The McCaskeys (below) say they'll commit $2B in private funding towards a new Bears stadium. If they do that, then the pressure will be on JR to get private funding for a $1B baseball stadium. Like you said, we'll see. One thing I don't get is why the McCaskeys would pay $2B for a stadium that is publicly owned. Isn't that one of their main complaints now - that they don't own their own stadium and there's nothing around the stadium to generate a ton of revenue? Also, I'm not sure where they'd squeeze in a hotel and restaurants if they're going to build a massive indoor stadium on the existing parking lots and convert Soldier Field to public athletic facility.

If this source is accurate, I take that comment to mean that JR will ultimately pay up to make this happen if it comes to that. Of course, he isn't going to say that now right after he has asked for the moon. Heck, it worked once.....actually twice if you count his role in getting public financing for Nationals Park. He didn't get rich without knowing how to negotiate. He's not going to undermine that now by admitting what, if any, private funds he'll contribute toward a new stadium. But if this source truly believes this "will definitely happen", that tells me that, in the end, JR will pay up to make this happen. The Andy Shaw editorial from the other day gives one example of how he could make this happen. The Twitter post above about how much money the Braves are raking in gives an indication that JR isn't going to simply walk away from the 78 stadium if he's rebuffed by the state. At the very least, they'll have to get the state to pay for the infrastructure work, but that's probably something that the Gov and Legislature can accept and sell to the public.

Andy Shaw, former local TV political reporter and former head of the Better Government Association, offers a pretty good opinion on funding for a new South Loop Sox ballpark including a suggestion of how to privately finance the new stadium. https://chicago.suntimes.com/other-views/2024/03/13/white-sox-jerry-reinsdorf-white-sox-stadium-do-not-give-taxpayer-subsidies-andy-shaw

Phoenix has hosted a Super Bowl 4 times, with 3 of those at their current State Farm Stadium. Two of those were within an 8 year period (2015 and 2023). So, I expect them to be on the NFL's list host again at some point. Dallas hosted once and, while the game was indoors, the weather during "Super Bowl week" was miserable. https://abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-hit-bitter-cold-ice-super-bowl/story?id=12832352 New Orleans is hosting the game again next year. I'm personally not a fan of having it in Miami because it's outdoors and can rain - as it did for the Bears-Colts game. But, I can see why the NFL likes going there since the week of festivities in the host city leading up to the game has become an important part of the event.

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.

Father time is going to make Jerry relocate away from this world at some point. Maybe even before any new ballpark in the South Loop ever opens. A number of Sox fans are actually saying this. They would rather the Sox move to Nashville than he gets "ONE DIME" of public money toward a new ballpark. But then again, I suppose it can be argued that they're not "most reasonable people." JR is no doubt is emboldened by the deals he got for New Comiskey and Nationals Park. This time, he won't get away without putting a big chunk of his own money toward this. There's probably some middle ground where he commits enough of his own funds to get a deal done. If he's going to refuse to pay anything, then the deal is dead IMO.

Their existing minor league ballpark? It seats about 8,000, so they've need to add about 4x the current capacity plus put a roof over the park. Is that really practical to do to the existing park?

It'll be the only MLB stadium with a view of the New York City skyline! Seriously though, it does look pretty cool. The unique roof is suppose to allow natural light to come into the park indirectly and that glass wall in the outfield looks humongous. Only 2,500 parking spaces according to news articles. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/sport/oakland-athletics-ballpark-las-vegas-spt-intl/index.html

I'm not sure why Sox fans want the Sox to be the one "line in the sand" stand against public funding for sports stadiums. There's other stadiums that are funded by an increase in sales tax, which IMO is much worse than extending an existing 2% hotel tax that'll still be there whether the Sox build a new park or not. Well, I think I know why.....because JR is a greedy, horrible, tone-deaf owner who already played the relocation card to get a new stadium once and then helped botch the design of said stadium. And I totally agree with that sentiment. But, I'll be a Sox fan long after Jerry has left this world and I think a South Loop ballpark would be great for the franchise in a post-Reinsdorf era. IMO, I hope they make Jerry pay a significant portion of this project (since his family and shareholders will get a huge bump in franchise value if this park is built) and a deal gets done to make this happen. Oh, and I'm no fan of the McCaskeys either. They're worse than Reinsdorf IMO. At least he built his own fortune and didn't just inherit it from his Grandpa. They've arguably run the Bears worse than he's run the Sox over the last 30 years, which is no small feat. And that 2002 Solider Field deal is much worse for the taxpayers than the 1988 New Comiskey deal was. There's $200M MORE owed on Solider Field now than when the renovated stadium opened 20 years ago!

In that Sox Machine podcast interview, Neil deMause brought up a good point - a new stadium only has to be approved once. He said the Twins tried for 10 years to get funding for a new stadium before finally succeeding. As long as something else isn't built on the 78, it'll be an option for a new Sox ballpark.

Interesting article. So, the Related guy says the infrastructure costs are half of what Jerry said. Also, the sales tax overlay is only as a backstop for when there's a shortfall in the hotel tax (which only happened during COVID in the past). There would indeed be a riverwalk stretching all the way to Lake Street. For proponents of the 78 proposal, the less Jerry talks to the press, the better. Every time he makes a veiled threat to move, or cries how hard it is for him to compete, or blames the fans for not supporting the team, the chances of this passing drops. As far as a Bears lakefront stadium goes, is there room a hotel and entertainment district to go along with a stadium at that location as is mentioned in the article? Are they suggesting that the Sox and Bears stadiums would both be surrounded by their own entertainment district? I'm not sure about that - they aren't that far apart.

I was responding to the notion that the ISFA would take a "go f*** yourself, Jerry" stance in lease negotiations. I really can't imagine why they would. I also don't believe that JR is stupid enough to be checkmated to the point that his team would be in an Oakland A's-type "without a home" situation. That doesn't mean it's a guarantee that they'll come to a lease agreement at GRF if the South Loop project dies. I just don't think the ISFA is as bent on running the Sox out of town as some of the local talk radio guys are as well as some Sox fans on social media. There's going to be several moving parts going on in the next few years in MLB as the Sox lease ends in 2029. Will MLB go ahead and award an expansion franchise to Nashville? Does the A's move to Vegas fall apart? If so, then what? Will the Rays stadium deal fall apart (it sounds like a terrible idea to build a $1B stadium at the same location, to me) and they move to somewhere like Charlotte? I don't think it's likely that the highest bidder for the Sox will take them out of town. It's not impossible that this will happen, I just don't think it's probable.

There is no way the state is going to negotiate a new lease at GRF with Reinsdorf like that. They're certainly not going to issue some sort of "go f*** yourself" ultimatum as their opening and final offer to him since they'd much rather have the Sox remain as a tenant at GRF instead of having the park abandoned and bulldozed. Unlike some Sox fans, ISFA is not just itching to have the Sox move out of town. Also, JR isn't stupid enough to let the Sox be a team without a home. He didn't become a billionaire by negotiating in such a juvenile way. He's cold-blooded, but not a moron.

I don't remember if this was posted earlier in this thread, but I thought this was an interesting discussion on WTTW with 3 state reps (from both political parties) about the new Sox stadium request. https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/27/are-publicly-funded-stadiums-good-investment-state-lawmakers-weigh-chicago-teams-plans