77 Hitmen

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

There's really nothing new to report at this point. Once Jerry and Related Midwest submit a proposal with specifics to the legislature, like some state reps are asking for, then maybe we'll hear something. Even then, it'll take a while for both sides to hash things out to the point where there's an actual proposal for lawmakers to consider. So, I don't expect to hear that much new anytime soon. I doubt that'll be this spring legislative session even if Jerry wants a new park built by 2028. He's totally dreaming about that. I know the Sox lease is up in 2029, but I have no doubt that if a deal for a new park is reached and it won't be ready for 2029, that they can extend the GRF lease for a couple of years if needed.

33% of 10 million people is still a base of over 3 million people. Neither Nashville or any other of the mentioned expansion cities has a metro area over 3 million. IMO, a South Loop ballpark would have a lasting positive impact on the Sox market share in Chicago. Right now, only diehards are bothering to go to 35th St. even if it's only a few el stops away. I also wonder if it's easier for fans who live thousands of miles away to say they don't care if the Sox move to another city. I live in Chicagoland and I DO CARE if the Sox move out of town (and I don't think they're going to move).

Well, I agree that the current location is certainly better than any suburban option. It would be as if they took one of the main negatives about the GRF location and then moved the team out to some suburban oasis where it would be much worse. If the South Loop effort dies, then their best option is to stay at 35th St and push for another round of renovations IMO. It has great transit options as you said. Arlington Heights, Naperville, or Tinley Park would be a terrible place for them to relocate to although they are all wonderful places to live. The NY and LA metro area populations are about double the size of Chicago metro and can easily support 2 teams in all four major American sports. As far as the Mets go, Cohen is planning to spend $8B to develop parking lots around Citi Field. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-mets-owner-steve-cohen-announces-8b-plan-to-develop-area-around-citi-field-in-queens/4840197/

Good God, just say NO to any idea of the Sox moving out to the suburbs. That would be a total disaster and IMO , the team dodged a bullet when their site in Addison got rejected 30+ years ago. And I say this as a suburbanite who loves the suburbs. One of the big problems with GRF is that it's a ballpark surrounded by a sea of parking lots with nothing to do around it. The solution to that isn't to move them to some suburb surrounded by parking lots and strip malls. The last 30 years have shown a trend of MLB teams successfully moving closer to downtown near some night life. The Braves are the only ones that did the opposite, but Chicago is NOT Atlanta (one of the most sprawled cities in America) plus the Braves have a big entertainment district around Truist Park. I disagree that the problem with the current park is that suburbanites think the area is too dangerous. That may have been true 30 years ago, but not today. In fact, I think a lot of their fans ARE suburbanites who love being able to drive to the park because it's close to 2 expressways and is surrounded by parking lots. No, the problem is that people just aren't interested in making their way down to Bridgeport to see a game because there's really nothing else to do there. That may have been fine a few decades ago, but times have changed and these days more and more people want something to do before and after a game.

IMO, that supports the argument that JR's bluff of the team moving is just that - a bluff and they aren't moving in the first place. It would be a different story if the Sox played in a dilapidated stadium that was simply awful like the Expos and A's. Do I think the Sox franchise would be much better off with a well-designed stadium at The 78? Absolutely. But GRF isn't so bad such that MLB would approve a Sox move to Nashville or Charlotte. Plus I don't know why MLB would want to go through some convoluted scheme of letting the Sox move and pissing off 1/3 of Chicago only to put an expansion team here at the same GRF. Why not just keep the Sox in Chicago and keep Nashville open for an expansion bid?

Seriously. You'd think so judging by the reaction. Maybe these thoughts will bring some fans back off the ledge: The Governor said he needs to be convinced it's good for the state and hasn't seen that yet. He did not say anything to the effect of "no way, absolutely not in a million years regardless of the terms, we won't give a dime toward this project" MLB wants to put an expansion team in Nashville and reap an exorbitant expansion fee. I doubt the other owners would be keen on letting the Sox leave a perfectly serviceable stadium and the #3 TV market and take the Nashville market off the boards. The only 2 teams who have moved since 1972 played for years in a decrepit stadium and tried for years to get a new park in their current town. And the A's move to Vegas is hitting major roadblocks and isn't quite the done deal it appeared to be a few months ago. Until someone builds something on The 78, it's still available for a potential ballpark in the coming years even if nothing gets passed this year. A deal could be made in future years and maybe with a new owner. I have not seen JR say anywhere that his current funding proposal is his last and final offer before he brings in the moving trucks. All Pritzker's comments tell me is that he's not going to cave to JR's first proposal and give him everything he wants. He'd be a fool to say anything otherwise.

I agree. That debt is *only* $50M. If Jerry isn't willing to cover that, then the state should tell him no. JR is saving at least that much by slashing payroll after the rebuild crashed and burned. There are no term limits for Illinois Governor. Edgar chose not to seek a 3rd term voluntarily. Everyone else since him has been limited due to their incompetence and/or crookedness.