NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) And no matter how much they raise it won't be enough, because all they're doing is hurting people that cannot afford to be hurt right now...and creating a snowball effect in the process. Maybe. Revenues from property tax overall are staying close to flat, and the increased fees on things are targeted to specific activities, none of which are necessities. No doubt they will have a negative effect on people's budgets, but it seems to me they did a decent job of keeping it focused in a way that does less harm. The sales tax is actually going to go down this year and next, eventually back to where it was before Stroger's idiocy.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Before anyone jumps on Frank for this, after reading the article twice, it seems pretty clear that Cowley went to him and finagled an answer out of him and turned it into "Frank is asking to be the hitting coach and the Sox aren't listening." Exactly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) I have no idea how big the Sox's ownership group is...has there been any turnover in people owning sections of the team since 05? I'd have to imagine that cashing out some of that equity would have been a smart move in 06-07. Not sure, but equity is still not profit. They are seperate things. Also FYI, JR is not the biggest owner of the team by financial stake. He represents the group as the President of sorts, but he is not the #1 guy in terms of how much of the team he owns.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:45 PM) You agree on nothing because this shows you have little clue as to what's going on around you. The amount of money being ripped off Chicago is EASILY in the hundreds of millions. Easily. Because TONS of people are doing it. 100 bucks here, 500 bucks there, maybe a couple thousand over there...and these are REGULAR City workers. As for an easy fix to correct it?! MY. ASS. It would mean bringing down at least HALF the workers, across the board...none of which will turn themselves in or take the fall for it. Good luck uncovering DECADES of built in corruption that appears so normal that it's actually "book clean", despite being totally illegal. OK. Don't bother trying to argue real points, just assume everyone is clueless but you. Because yeah, I know nothing about how city politics works. Keep telling yourself that. And keep deluding yourself into thinking that simply cleaning out some dirty city workers is going to miraculously come to a 625M savings. That, is clueless. Patronage and corruption are embedded in Chicago city politics, obviously, and no one other than your straw man is saying otherwise. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) I'm done with this conversation. You're all right. There is little to no corruption in Chicago politics. We are hemorrhaging almost no real money on said corruption, too. You're all right, and I'm very wrong, because all I have is "anecdotal" evidence, the overused word play on Soxtalk. I'll say it again, you're right...there's almost no corruption in Chicago politics. I take back everything I said and admit how wrong I am for thinking the words Corruption and Chicago fit together. Honestly, you're all making me laugh...but in a sad way, because you actually believe it. Yes, we are all saying that there is little or no corruption. Find me someone, somewhere, anywhere in here who has said anything like that. I'll buy you a drink if you can. SS2K5 has it right - the problems are too large and too deep to think that a few cuts, or even making the city government pretty clean, is going to do it. And now, because of the BIGGEST problems (which are about how the city was run financially, not about Joe Garbage Truck Manager who gets some extra money he shouldn't), the city has to raise revenues at the most inopportune time.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Again, how prevalent do you actually think that is, compared to a 625 million dollar deficit. If that 625 million could be corrected by that stuff, it would be an easy fix. This is a pretty fair budget consisting of a LOT of cuts EVERYWHERE. I suggest you look at it. I agree. Something else to consider, though... part of the problem that the city and county (and state) have is that certain legal protections for union contracts are impenetrable, they cannot be changed. The city has already been slapped down on this on multuple fronts in the courts. So some of this has to be done legislatively, and others of it has to be done in future times. That limits what they can do. Preckwinkle is trying to play that poker game with her unions - take the unpaid days or I'll just lay off however many I am allowed to.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) Haven't the Sox been named one of the most profitable sports franchises? I like to think that they put a lot of their money back into the team, but I've always suspected that they're making money hand over fist. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) Depends on how you define "Profit", and whether you believe the publicly available Forbes numbers. In the past decade, owning the Sox has been immensely profitable...but most of that was from franchise value increases particularly after 2005. ...which isn't "profit" at all, its equity. The club, if you go by the Forbes list, is one of the most CONSITENTLY profitable, in that it tends to make a little money, but does so year in and year out (where other clubs lose a bunch of make a bunch). It is also one of the most financially stable, as its debt load is among the lowest. But its profit margins are pretty low, just a few points.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 12:29 PM) Until government figures out how to deal with pensions the way the private sector did 30 years ago any cost saving conversation is complete bulls*** and there is no debate Well it is certainly the most important single item... but to say "any cost saving conversation is complete bulls***" is of course ridiculous. If you have one big problem and hundreds of other problems ranging from big to small too, you don't JUST fix the big one, and fixing the others isn't "bulls***".

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) Three years ago I took out all of the equity in my house and refinanced into an FHA loan for 95% of the home's value at a 30 year fixed at 5%. I used all of the equity money to improve my financial situation (no cars, trips, etc.) The downside I have to pay PMI, which is tax deductible. I am now in the process of a streamlined FHA refinance. The fees are minimal and there is no appraisal as I have made all of my payments on time. My rate is 4% which when you look at the tax benefit it is almost a wash. When the market recovered last year I also took a loan against my 403B at 5.3% to payoff some debt. The market is not returning 5.3% any time soon so I figured I would pay myself some interest instead of the bank. The FHA program has done me right. I make three extra house payments a year and should have my home paid off well under the 30 year limit but I paid what I want when I want at the nice rate of 4%. Not sure how the bolded makes any sense. The interest is a tax deduction, not a credit, so it reduces your tax liability by that amount against the % you are already paying. So for example, if you are paying roughly 20% on your income tax, then you save 20% of your total interest payments. It is 20% of 5%, or of 4%, or whatever. There is no level of interest that allows the tax deduction to make it a "wash".

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) Hmmm... are you sure? I really don't think White Sox tickets are all that inexpensive. Highest non-premium? Interesting way to see it, as it is the premium seating as a % that makes the average ticket so much more expensive at the other joints. However, you do make a good point, that from a certain perspective, the ticket prices are higher than average. Less than across town, but still higher than other teams. Or you could look at average ticket price, or cheapest available, or whatever. And that number seems odd to me - non-premium tickets average $40+ at the Cell? We have front row UD tickets as a season package, and their regular face for non-premium games is like $20, $24 or $30 depending on the game. Curious what their definition is.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) We have argued this before SS2K he pays nothing for rent 1.5 million is nothing.............NO reason parking should be that high with all other revenue JR recieves. Do you know anything about running a business? I ask because you don't seem to see the full picture. Tickets to the Sox are on the lower end of the scale in MLB, far lower than across town in the same city. And payroll is very high. The Sox simply don't make much profit, less than a lot of clubs, though they at least aren't losing money. Most of the money is plowed back into payroll enhancements, and the payroll has risen from about 50M to about 120M in 6 years. Also just as advice... one can always park somewhere else and take the train to the park if you don't like that level of cost for parking.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) I would bet heavily that they find funds to put into it or detract from other areas to do so. It's Theo's model to build through the draft, and I bet he made that clear to Ricketts before coming over there. Oh of course. No doubt that is his plan. I guess what I am getting at is, a lot of Cubs fans seem to think that suddenly everything gets better. It doesn't. The major league club is a horrible mess, worse off than most teams, plus a weak farm system. It will take a bunch of years to get them where he wants them to be. I think he knows that, and I think Cubs management knows that... but a lot of the fans don't seem to.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) I love that the average middle class American, the people most in need of assistance in this s***ty, s***ty economy (and who are probably the key to getting us out of this mess) are being nickle and dimed by little bulls*** taxes and fees to cover the failures of government, all while gigantic corporations and industries in general are being provided with tax relief and business incentives (if not straight up cash payments) to stick around and/or stay in business. Makes total sense. I agree, but I am more focused on the problems of the uneven tax structures on business. But, about the CME and CBOE tax breaks that I assume you are referring to... my first reaction when they started whining was that they were just making a play for more money because they know the city and state are desperate to keep them around. And that is still true. However, now that I see how the tax structure had been working for them, they actually do have a legitimate beef. Most Illinois businesses, if they do transactions outside of the state, are only taxed on the full rate for in-state transactions. But for CME/CBOT and CBOE/CSX, for electronic trades, they were being taxed full rate on all, even though they were being materially executed out of state. The new proposed law changes that to put them on even ground in that sense.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) how much do you think market rate would be for running a city of of dozens of thousands of workers and 6 million people. Probably more than a mid level software engineer. And should be.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) Even if I didn't know a thing about Theo, I still wouldn't be able to help but be impressed by listening to him. And this guy is DEAD f***ING SERIOUS when it comes to scouting and player development. He mentioned in more than once so far in his Score interview. Unbelievable hire for the Cubs. Unfortunately, after the compensation is done for Theo and Hoyer, Theo will have very, very little available to develop in the Cubs system. It is already just about as bad as the Sox have.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) Well they cant tear down wrigley, so they would have to build it somewhere else. Immediately they lose ALL of their tourist fan base. Or... QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) They could absolutely do what the Red Sox did with Fenway to bring it to the 21st century. They may need to do MORE work than was needed on Fenway, but they are absolutely not moving from that location. They may even be willing to spend part or all of a season playing elsewhere while it is rebuilt in place, or maybe they go 2 or 3 seasons having parts of the park closed at a time... but they will not move.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:40 AM) My guess is they are re-examining it to see if the Sox actually had a clear right to build the bar and the store outside the stadium. If it's a bit ambiguous, that might open up the door to some renegotiations. That's probably right, they are looking for any vague clause they can potentially use to extract more money. They may find one, who knows. Also, just to make sure this is clear... the ISFA only gets $1.5M annually in rent, but the state also gets all the taxes generated from ticket sales, concessions, etc. for the team to stay in town. If ISFA doesn't exist and the stadium isn't built, the team is gone entirely.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) I make a great living -- in my opinion anyway. If I had to guess, I'd say I probably make double what the average person makes in/around Chicago -- and if these nickle/dime tax hikes, fees, toll road hikes, etc. year after year are affecting me -- I damn well know they're affecting others even worse. Maybe f***face Rham and Preckwinkle need to start off by cutting their own salaries and everyone that works near them before they CUT MY f***ING SALARY in some form of tax increases and fees year after year. Can I afford this? Sure. But I know most average people can't...and unlike a payroll tax -- these taxes affect everyone, including those that CANNOT afford it anymore. Actually, they have done that. They have both said they will take the same number of unpaid days that they are asking their boards/employees to do. They will still make more than others do, but they are making an effort to share the burden. And given the level of responsibility, and the hours they put in, I have no problem with either of them making a very good salary. The one thing that neither of them are doing much about though, not enough at least, is the pension problem. They are doing a little, which is more than the state can say, but they are not making the really difficult decisions on that topic yet.

Not sure if it was posted here, maybe I missed it... Selig has said that if the Cubs and Red Cubs don't get compensation agreed to by 11/1, that he would do it for them.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) It's easy for people like Preckwinkle to increase fees and taxes since they make 125k+ per year (if not more), on top of their endless perks and massive pensions. What baffles me is how users on this board are ok with it, and worse, DEFEND it...because obviously they must be rich or something and it doesn't affect them. *Every year* taxes and fees of some form or another have gone up -- hell, what's tax on a cell phone bill these days, approaching 20%? (Yes, TWENTY percent, you read that right). Yet in light of that, budget holes CONTINUE to get bigger...somehow. It's absurd. In a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing, payrolls are down, inflation is increasing at a higher rate than standard pay raises to keep up with it...they add taxes and fees on top of other taxes and fees, because you know..."f*** the people...after all, most of them are so dumb they'll just reelect us anyway". Maybe if they hadn't hired 1000+ people they didn't need in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about making up for the money they lost over the last X years. It is because I am not OK with the way the city and county were run, that I am cheering for having leaders in there now who are actually doing something about it. You, who claims to understand business, should get that - Daley and Stroger (and their predecessors and cohorts) ran their budgets into the toilet, just as SS2K5 said. Do you really expect the new mayor or chairperson to be able to turn it around on a dime in a year? Come back to reality. You can choose to say that Emmanuel and Preckwinkle are the same as Daley and Stroger... but you'd not only be obviously and factually wrong, you'd also be supporting the very thing you don't like.

OK, first of all, saying that the "lease is in jeopardy" is outright false. The article states the ISFA is taking another look at the details in it. Second, here is the actual basis article from Crain's. The lease isn't up until 2029, which answers the first question I had. To the second question, the lease appears to give all income from added operations to the Sox ownership, and there is nothing here about any rights to renegotiate before 2029. So likely, this goes nowhere. What is the ISFA going to do, look for another tenant? There is none.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) What are the terms under which the lease can be "reevaluated"? Yeah exactly. The two key questions are... 1. When does the current lease agreement end? 2. What does the lease say about renegotiation or changes during the period that the lease is still in force?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) Hey, look at that, Preckwinkle asking for MORE fee hikes and taxes... http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10...x-increase-part Like I've said all along -- the Bush tax cuts simply moved from the feds to the locals...our taxes did nothing but go UP, UP and UP again DESPITE federal taxes being "low". I know this won't go over well, but here goes... I've been watching what Preckwinkle, and also Emmanuel have been doing, pretty closely. And I have to say, just as I was with Rahm, I'm OK with Preckwinkle adding more fees. Why you ask? Because they have both been making real, actual cuts, and taking real, actual action to clean up the budget of the city and county. I know we're all so jaded that it is hard to believe that, but if you keep up on what they are doing, amazingly enough, they are doing what they said they would do. So I'm OK with them saying, look, we cut all these hundreds or millions, and in the case of Preckwinkle she also cut back another chunk of the Stroger tax and has on the books to eliminate it by 2013. But we're in such a hole that we still need to fill part of it, and here is the least painful way to do so. I'd be ecstatic of the people at the state level were taking it as seriously as the city and county are right now.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) I realize Frasor sucked but his historical pedigree says that $3.75 M for him is worth it, especially now we'll be an arm short in the pen with Sale going to the rotation next year. I'd be shocked if they didn't pick that up, actually... They're looking to shave money, and try to re-sign MB or extend Danks (but not both probably). And they think - and I agree - that Reed is likely to be just as effective, for the rookie minimum. I doubt they pick up his option.

I'm guessing they will protect Leesman, Danks, Kuhn and Short. Kuhn and Leesman may very well end up on the big squad in 2012. Greene they may leave unprotected.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) Do you not live in a jurisdiction that does yearly assessments for the purpose of property taxes? I know that appraisals and assessments are two different things, but in most places they do tend to trend similarly. I haven't gotten any appraisals done, but I know what the county assessments have done in the last 4 years and can reasonably estimate what an appraisal would be based on that. Those government appraisals for the purpose of taxation are pretty useless in terms of actual value. One way to get a decent idea cheaply, is a site like Zillow, where you give it your property info and it gives you a quick and dirty appraisal based on local sales and sale prices. Won't be perfect, but it will give you a decent idea.