Lightly Folded Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said: Holy overreacting Batman! I forgot about the infringement thing. I think the cubs could certainly veto and I’m sure they certainly would in this fictional suggestion of an expansion team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 3 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: I forgot about the infringement thing. I think the cubs could certainly veto and I’m sure they certainly would in this fictional suggestion of an expansion team. Not if MLB makes it a condition of the White Sox moving, but sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 43 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: It’s wild how more insane these posts are actually getting day by day. Like using government funds and agencies for exactly what they are intended to do is the biggest fraud in the history of fraud. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: In a metro area of 10 million people, even a third of that market place is MUCH bigger than most of the expansion areas being talked about. Nashville metro is about 2 million. Salt Lake City is 1.2 million. Portland is 2.5 million. Charlotte is 2.7 million. If you were to rank 1/3 of Chicago as it's own market, there is no bigger metro area in the US which doesn't already have a MLB team. 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? 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Not if MLB makes it a condition of the White Sox moving, but sure. I see. MLB could tell the cubs to buzz off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Why is Jerry Reinsdorf spending millions buying up parking lots around the United Center? Reporting by Tim Novak and Robert Herguth, Chicago Sun-Times Buying lots: As Chicago White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf seeks $1 billion in taxpayer funding for a new ballpark in a planned mixed-use district in the South Loop, his associates have spent millions of dollars buying out parking lots run by his competitors to build what could be a similar district around the United Center. Spending big: Over the past 19 months, a Reinsdorf-connected company has spent $44.7 million buying vacant lots from two politically connected families that over the years have offered discounted parking deals to fans of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks, the Sun-Times has learned. A third family has refused to sell its parking lots. The connections: More than half of that money has been paid to family-owned companies connected to longtime Bridgeport businessman Joseph Feldman Sr., whose late sister headed the political campaign fund for former Mayor Richard M. Daley. Key context: Reinsdorf, who is also chairman of the Bulls, and the Wirtz family, which owns the Blackhawks, co-own the United Center, which they built 30 years ago without any public financing. Both teams have since built practice facilities near the arena, which is a major catalyst for economic development on the West Side. Bottom line: Four of Chicago’s professional sports teams — the Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and White Sox — are working on plans to redevelop or move their stadium sites. Read our full Watchdogs report here or click the button below. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NO!!MARY!!! Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) 3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: Holy overreacting Batman! Not at all. Just giving the reasons an expansion team won’t happen if the Sox leave. Plus I’m a little peeved by people who are already packing the moving vans and sending them to Nashville, when they haven’t even started negotiating yet. Plus there’s a social media page where a lot of Sox fans are being gleefully nasty about it. Edited February 27 by NO!!MARY!!! Moving vans, not fans 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 41 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: 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? I am sure that is what MLB wants, but at the same time, if Jerry found a better deal somewhere, someone else would love to be Chicago's team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27 Author Share Posted February 27 5 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: Not at all. Just giving the reasons an expansion team won’t happen if the Sox leave. Plus I’m a little peeved by people who are already packing the moving fans and sending them to Nashville, when they haven’t even started negotiating yet. Plus there’s a social media page where a lot of Sox fans are being gleefully nasty about it. Most of it is so over the top. MLB would control the move, including conditions of the move. If they wanted to hold open to territorial rights, they would make it part of the move conditions. The rest of it is some weird overreaction to fans being fans. At the end of the day, Sox park in Chicago provides a better market place than a new ballpark most other places. The rest of that is just hysterics. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) 9 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: Not at all. Just giving the reasons an expansion team won’t happen if the Sox leave. Plus I’m a little peeved by people who are already packing the moving fans and sending them to Nashville, when they haven’t even started negotiating yet. Plus there’s a social media page where a lot of Sox fans are being gleefully nasty about it. In sure there are a good number of cub fans posing as Sox fan whom are haven’t a great time piling on. Edited February 27 by Lightly Folded Having a good time 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/02/26/its-time-to-stop-the-stadium-money-train-bears-sox-reinsdorf-mccaskey-sports-telander 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 The United Center is home to the Reinsdorf-controlled Bulls and the Wirtz family-owned Blackhawks. Reinsdorf and the Wirtzes co-own the building, and the purchasing of parking lots nearby only can mean arena expansion and development of the area are in the works. ‘‘It would be premature to discuss specifics at this time,’’ a spokesman for the parking-lot venture told Novak and Herguth. You’ve gotta salute the corpo-speak, but, if you have a brain, you know what’s up. Never forget that Reinsdorf made his fortune in real estate and the Wirtzes in alcohol distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Very simple solution: the state should eminent domain the White Sox and The 78, making them publicly owned assets. Then it makes perfect sense to publicly finance it! More seriously, I thought there were a number of studies done 10-20 years ago that found pretty conclusively that sports stadiums don't really end up generating new growth, tourism, tax revenue, and employment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuban_sammiches Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 25 minutes ago, StrangeSox said: Very simple solution: the state should eminent domain the White Sox and The 78, making them publicly owned assets. Then it makes perfect sense to publicly finance it! More seriously, I thought there were a number of studies done 10-20 years ago that found pretty conclusively that sports stadiums don't really end up generating new growth, tourism, tax revenue, and employment. You are right. Even current studies show this. And governments continue to do it (i.e. Tennessee, Las Vegas, Buffalo). There may be short term benefits for employing thousands of workers but the long term benefits are negligible. I think some intangible factors may explain it - civic pride, politicians not wanting to be the person that made a team leave and politicians happily spending other people's money. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 31 minutes ago, StrangeSox said: More seriously, I thought there were a number of studies done 10-20 years ago that found pretty conclusively that sports stadiums don't really end up generating new growth, tourism, tax revenue, and employment. Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know if those aforementioned studies were done on broader-scope developments like The 78 (or projects like Truist Park)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 16 minutes ago, JoeC said: Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know if those aforementioned studies were done on broader-scope developments like The 78 (or projects like Truist Park)? The jist of it is money spent there isn't new money, it's money that would have been spent elsewhere. Economic impact is minimal at best. It really doesn't matter the project. This will have a hotel. People staying at that hotel won't be staying at one on Michigan Ave. It will have apartments. People renting there won't be renting higher end apartments elsewhere. People eating at the restaurants and drinking at the bars in the 78 won't be eating at the restaurants and drinking at the bars in other neighborhoods. It' doesn't increase spending. It just shifts it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuban_sammiches Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 26 minutes ago, JoeC said: Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know if those aforementioned studies were done on broader-scope developments like The 78 (or projects like Truist Park)? This Axios story from 2 years ago reports that taxpayers are losing money on the Truist deal. https://www.axios.com/local/atlanta/2022/03/10/cobb-taxpayers-braves-stadium 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurtCG Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 16 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: 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? Convoluted indeed. Next to zero chance something like that happens. JR threatening to move the team is 100% a bluff. His threat to move worked last time. It won't work again. Time for the one trick pony to learn a new act. Or he can just be grateful that he had a seat at the table. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 40 minutes ago, cuban_sammiches said: This Axios story from 2 years ago reports that taxpayers are losing money on the Truist deal. https://www.axios.com/local/atlanta/2022/03/10/cobb-taxpayers-braves-stadium Thanks - figured that was still the case, but wanted to see a more comparable case study myself (without having to go through the effort to Google it... who can be bothered with THAT s%*#?) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Pritzker made it clear that credible taxpayer benefits would have to be evident before any state aid would be on the table. A question Pritzker also could have also been asked is does he see any taxpayer benefits from the current deal the Sox have with the state and how he’d feel about extending it past 2029. I believe the overwhelming view is that there is only benefits to the white sox ownership group and none to the taxpayer. Therefore how could there be any justification in extending that deal if it doesn’t benefit taxpayers. Jerry obviously isn’t going accept a lesser deal. . I suppose the bears are in the same situation regarding extending the hotel tax with it going to them for help building a new stadium. There is a possibility the Sox won’t have any home ballpark to play in after 2029 if Pritzker hold fast to his commitment to Illinois taxpayers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: Pritzker made it clear that credible taxpayer benefits would have to be evident before any state aid would be on the table. A question Pritzker also could have also been asked is does he see any taxpayer benefits from the current deal the Sox have with the state and how he’d feel about extending it past 2029. I believe the overwhelming view is that there is only benefits to the white sox ownership group and none to the taxpayer. Therefore how could there be any justification in extending that deal if it doesn’t benefit taxpayers. Jerry obviously isn’t going accept a lesser deal. . I suppose the bears are in the same situation regarding extending the hotel tax with it going to them for help building a new stadium. There is a possibility the Sox won’t have any home ballpark to play in after 2029 if Pritzker hold fast to his commitment to Illinois taxpayers. I worry about the Bears issue if it's not Arlington Heights. Large part of the allure was a domed stadium in Bear land where they build up a stadium park similar to LA Live with Staples, The Battery with the Braves, etc. If the Bears are not getting that, they don't get much benefit. If they don't get much benefit, then they're going to look for a sweeter deal from the city to make up on potentially lost revenue. Ultimately, it hits taxpayers again for a stadium, potentially, not so different from Soldier Field. At that point, just renovate Soldier again. Move the columns to an outside park potentially on the south lot. Put a retractable roof and touch up the bottom concourse. For the Sox, location and space make sense. Sweetheart deal where everyone else pays for it and gets no benefit from don't. Edited February 27 by nitetrain8601 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 43 minutes ago, Lightly Folded said: Pritzker made it clear that credible taxpayer benefits would have to be evident before any state aid would be on the table. A question Pritzker also could have also been asked is does he see any taxpayer benefits from the current deal the Sox have with the state and how he’d feel about extending it past 2029. I believe the overwhelming view is that there is only benefits to the white sox ownership group and none to the taxpayer. Therefore how could there be any justification in extending that deal if it doesn’t benefit taxpayers. Jerry obviously isn’t going accept a lesser deal. . I suppose the bears are in the same situation regarding extending the hotel tax with it going to them for help building a new stadium. There is a possibility the Sox won’t have any home ballpark to play in after 2029 if Pritzker hold fast to his commitment to Illinois taxpayers. Pritzker gave $181 million dollars recently to the illegal immigrants. Is he going to keep giving millions of dollars to the immigrants? It seems to me that there is no end game going that route. Is that a benefit to taxpayers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 16 minutes ago, WBWSF said: Pritzker gave $181 million dollars recently to the illegal immigrants. Is he going to keep giving millions of dollars to the immigrants? It seems to me that there is no end game going that route. Is that a benefit to taxpayers? And millions of dollars were given for Ukraines who fled Ukraine after Putin invaded, and whom were dispersed all over the U.S. along with a social security cards and work permits. Do you think the state should give Jerry another sweet deal when the current one runs out or put the property up for sale and gain a multimillion dollar return from the sale? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Oh come on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 19 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Oh come on. He started it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.