77 Hitmen

Lawmakers frustrated at Bears negotiating tactics. State Sen. Cunningham: “They pivoted between various plans, back and forth between Arlington Heights and the lakefront, and that shifting continued right up until the spring, when they were publicly saying there was a binary choice between Arlington Heights and Hammond, while they were conducting, you know, let’s call them back-channel discussions with the city of Chicago,” he said on WSCR-AM 670. “I think they pumped hope into the idea that a lakefront stadium was still possible and that made it all the more difficult to get (state lawmakers from) Chicago to support a plan for Arlington Heights.” https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/06/bears-stadium-indiana-reaction/

The following were able to get massive stadium projects done in Illinois: Fire, Northwestern (Ryan Field), Cubs (Wrigley renovations), and Bulls & Blackhawks (1901 Project). Yet, under McCaskey and Warren the Bears stadium debacle has dragged on for years and now looks like it'll end with a massive $1B taxpayer handout to the Bears in Indiana. Plenty of blame to go around with the Bears debacle, including Mayor Johnson, but f--- McCaskey and Warren. I hope Justin Ishbia has been paying close attention to how the McCaskeys totally botched this while projects like McDonald's Park and the 1901 Project got off the ground incredibly quickly.

Even better if they have 570' from the river to the edge of the active train tracks and the BNSF/Metra property. I don't think a Fenway Green Monster-type wall there is something they'd want because that would totally wall off the stadium from the riverfront, so it seems that even 570' is still a little short of what they'd need. That's why my guess is that they would do either a partial build over the Metra tracks like at Target Field or buy some of the Metra land (if there's enough room to compress Metra's operations there).

Yep. The Bears only account for about 20% of the Park District's revenue from Soldier Field. Sold-out marquee concerts will continue there and they could possible schedule even more in late August and into September now. It'll be a bigger draw for the mild weather months than a dome surrounded by refinery and coke battery fumes.

The Amtrak site alone is not wide enough for a ballpark. It's ~500 ft. wide and I'd say they'd need a minimum of 600 ft. even with an urban, asymmetrical, short RF fence design. But two options are to: 1) build the far western edge of the stadium over the Metra tracks similar to what was done at Target Field (see below); or 2) Purchase something like 100 ft. of land from Metra/BNSF and have them shift the active rail line slightly to the west. Option 1 is definitely feasible since, as shown above, it's been done elsewhere. There are even examples in Chicago of structures sitting right above active train tracks. I have no idea if option 2 is feasible. Metra would have to agree to it and they'd have to have enough remaining land for their maintenance yard.

If the goal is to make me throw up a little in my mouth every time I go to this site, then this is absolutely the right choice for a new banner.

Add these on either side of Ishbia's picture: and

Jerry Reinsdorf has been wanting to move the Sox out of their historic home since Justin Ishbia was in grade school. And when he was told in 1988 that he would only get a taxpayer funded stadium if it was built at the current location, he saw to it that the stadium was separated from the Bridgeport neighborhood with a sea of parking lots because he wanted fans to do all their spending inside the stadium, where he'd reap all the profits, and not in the surrounding area. Now that we're nearing the end of the stadium's lease, he's been very public in his desire to move the team away from the current location to the 78. None of this is opinion, it's reality. Would the Sox be better off moving to the South Loop? Well, BOTH Jerry Reinsdorf and apparently Justin Ishbia think so. The difference is that the former wants taxpayers to pay for a new stadium. Sell the team to someone else other than Ishbia when Jerry passes and I'd be willing to bet they'd come to the same conclusion. It doesn't matter how many turds a single poster keeps dumping on the idea, that's been the (very successful) MLB stadium trend for the last 30 years - build a ballpark that has or will have a lot of night life around it. The "surround the stadium with acres of surface lots because all fans want to drive to the game" business model doesn't work anymore.

What a mess. I have no idea how this is all going to end. The Bears said Chicago wasn’t in play. Records point to a...Records obtained by Crain's show six conversations between City Hall and team attorneys as Springfield lawmakers weighed legislation sought by the Bears."Cunningham spoke to “sources within city government who are not part of Brandon Johnson’s political team, who have confirmed for me that these conversations did occur, and they were absolutely not limited to discussions about the current Soldier Field lease.” Rep. Kam Buckner, the House negotiator, agreed, saying the Bears maintained there was one meeting that the “city hijacked” with talk of a new stadium."

That'd be popular with Cartoon Network fans. https://adventuretime.fandom.com/wiki/BMO

This is especially true for the McCaskeys. To my knowledge their sole source of fortune is owning the Bears and that's it. It's sort of like how so many people have homes these days that are approaching $500k in value. It's not like that means these people have $500k in cash sitting around to buy sports cars and take 5 luxury vacations a year (unless they borrow against that equity, of course). To a less extent it's true for Reinsdorf. Not completely, because he made his wealth in real estate and not by inheriting a sports franchise, but again, he's a billionaire because of the value of his sports franchises. He doesn't have $1B+ in liquid cash sitting around.....though he's no doubt very wealthy. It's just astounding that Sox fans aren't genuinely hopeful at the prospect of deep pocketed billionaire brothers who seem to have a fan-friendly record in owning the Suns are lined up to buy this team. Actually, I think a vast majority (at least 95%) are. It's just a vocal minority (extreme minority) that loudly keeps this inane narrative going.

You win the thread.

People are fans of the Chicago White Sox, not the Chicago Reinsdorfs.

It'd be cool to see Bo Jackson there.

South Side Stand Up! South Side STAND UP!!!1

It's a shame the ignore feature doesn't work on quoted posts. Now people are saying that fans who hate Jerry Reinsdorf should step away and not back this team or franchise. Good Lord......yeah, that'd be a wonderful way to grow this fanbase - apply a Jerry Reinsdorf loyalty test to fans. Absurd.

Interesting discussion with political reporter Paris Schutz on Mully & Haugh. He points out how the Bears really screwed up this entire process. First, by privately meeting with the city while state reps were trying to get this bill done - which derailed any momentum this legislation had - and also by the fact that McCaskey and Warren were nowhere to be seen in Springfield while this legislation was being debated. I thought Warren was hired by the McCaskeys specifically for his skill in getting a stadium deal done. IMO, he's done an incredibly lousy job over the past 3-4 years on the stadium front. McCaskey is so incompetent that it makes we wonder if he could run a frozen banana stand if he weren't a nepo baby.

Welcome aboard! Yeah, the Amtrak site is in a different ward and would avoid her threat (whether real or not) to block a Sox stadium there.

The spring session for the IL legislature has ended without any action for a new Bears stadium. So, what happens now? Do the Bears ink a deal with Indiana soon? I guess we'll find out if they were bluffing about Hammond all along. I doubt they were, but I also think that they would very much prefer to build on the Arlington site. One option is to call a special session, which has been done before on other issues, to get a stadium authority deal passed, but I don't know if that is even being considered at this time.

Updated version of the Crain's article I previously posted on the last-ditch "stadium authority" proposal. The Ishbia Amtrak Sox stadium proposal is mentioned in the article. Lawmakers map a new route to keep Bears in IllinoisIllinois lawmakers are abandoning the Chicago Bears’ long-sought property tax break in favor of a new stadium authority model that could reopen competition between Chicago and Arlington Heights.Excerpts from the article: "The bill creates a structure allowing municipalities in Cook County over 70,000 people to set up their own stadium authority that could take ownership of a stadium site, allowing the location to be exempt from property taxes. The exemption would narrowly apply to the stadium parcels, not a surrounding entertainment district like the Bears have proposed in Arlington Heights." "The public benefit agreement opens up the possibility local taxing districts could push for an annual payment from the Bears." "The bill approved new incentives aimed at Chicago projects, including the long-stalled One Central and Michael Reese developments and future Chicago White Sox owner Justin Ishbia’s plans for Amtrak’s 14th St. railyard."

I think only the Elder Wand would be able to pull off that bit of magic.

Yeah, that's something I'd like to see addressed in the next CBA.

Not that I agree with the owners about the need for a hard cap, but winning May championships hardly "explodes" the competitive balance issue. Those May 31 championship flags don't fly forever. Big market teams have won 17 of the last 20 WS titles. Really it's only been 1 small market team (KC) in the last 20 years. I'd argue that the 2x that the Cardinals won it all 15 and 20 years ago, the economics of the game weren't so broken and they were really a mid-market team at the time with their big fan base and (if I'm not mistaken) $1B local RSN deal. If you agree with Ken Rosenthal, even he acknowledges that there's an obvious competitive balance problem in MLB while calling BS on the push for a hard cap. Again, two things can be true - the owners are greedy, disingenuous bastards AND the economics of the game have gotten too far out of whack. IMO, it's the owners that need to get their own house in order with things like more TV revenue-based revenue sharing - perhaps with strings attached such as the shared money has to go back into payroll. They're just using revenue disparity reality as an excuse to push their hard salary cap dream because that'll further boost franchise valuation.

MLB Pipeline's Jonathan Mayo talks about the options for the Sox #1 pick.