Lip Man 1 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Story has a number of financial details (some of which frankly I don't understand) and of course the spokesperson for the developer makes things sound rosy and bright: https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/03/04/white-sox-bears-stadium-south-loop-soldier-field-financing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: Story has a number of financial details (some of which frankly I don't understand) and of course the spokesperson for the developer makes things sound rosy and bright: https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/03/04/white-sox-bears-stadium-south-loop-soldier-field-financing I mean, that is their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, Quin said: I mean, that is their job. True enough, valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) We can't even afford two consecutive Zack Wheeler deals...let alone a new stadium and urban development projects. Just sell to someone who will actually commit to ONE $100+ million contract, JR. Edited March 5 by caulfield12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 9 hours ago, Lightly Folded said: The hotel tax thing isn’t going to be extended to help the Sox. If it were extended it would be to help the bears. My bet is that the hotel tax won’t be extended. Helping a billionaire by using or extending a tax is political suicide. Do you believe Reinsdorf is going to accept anything less than what he already has? 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. 7 hours ago, Dick Allen said: JR already threw his son under the bus. He's not going to move the team, but when his son sells, the entity he once called a public trust that should be run like a charity, is available to the highest bidder even if it means they are moving. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) On 3/4/2024 at 3:31 PM, Sleepy Harold said: On 3/4/2024 at 3:48 PM, Lip Man 1 said: Story has a number of financial details (some of which frankly I don't understand) and of course the spokesperson for the developer makes things sound rosy and bright: https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/03/04/white-sox-bears-stadium-south-loop-soldier-field-financing 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. Edited March 6 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralChamps21 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 12 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: 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 drop. 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. My assumption is that if they Bears build a new lakefront stadium, the old one gets converted to an entertainment district. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 37 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said: My assumption is that if they Bears build a new lakefront stadium, the old one gets converted to an entertainment district. The Bears will not be building a lakefront stadium. No way. They will be in AH. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 46 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said: My assumption is that if they Bears build a new lakefront stadium, the old one gets converted to an entertainment district. No, not going to happen. https://news.wttw.com/2023/12/08/friends-parks-says-no-way-chicago-bears-building-new-stadium-lakefront 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Here is what I don't understand about the Bears- The reason they would want to move to Arlington Heights is because they would own their own stadium and surrounding land and be able to profit off of the new development surrounding the park (hotels, bars, etc.). Let's say they do build a stadium next door on the existing parking lot.... they remain merely a tenant and there can't be any new commercial development on the lakefront site. What's the upside? Spending a billion dollars for a domed stadium with a little more seating capacity that you use a dozen times a year (at most)? If the new stadium hosts a Super Bowl or has more events, why would the Bears care? They aren't making anything off of that, right? The current soldier field is only 20 years old and seems fine to me every time I go. That isn't even taking the fans' complaints about difficulty of getting to the stadium into account... those issues would still exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 Just now, Nardiwashere said: Here is what I don't understand about the Bears- The reason they would want to move to Arlington Heights is because they would own their own stadium and surrounding land and be able to profit off of the new development surrounding the park (hotels, bars, etc.). Let's say they do build a stadium next door on the existing parking lot.... they remain merely a tenant and there can't be any new commercial development on the lakefront site. What's the upside? Spending a billion dollars for a domed stadium with a little more seating capacity that you use a dozen times a year (at most)? If the new stadium hosts a Super Bowl or has more events, why would the Bears care? They aren't making anything off of that, right? The current soldier field is only 20 years old and seems fine to me every time I go. That isn't even taking the fans' complaints about difficulty of getting to the stadium into account... those issues would still exist. The upside may well be is that they don't get ISFA money to move out of Chicago as a significant portion of that board is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: The upside may well be is that they don't get ISFA money to move out of Chicago as a significant portion of that board is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago. So you're saying they originally planned to get ISFA money to help build at the racetrack but since a significant portion of the board is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago, they would not get those funds unless they stayed within the city limits? Were they unaware of this when they purchased the Arlington site? Still.... if you're only moving next door and not getting new revenue streams, why bother building a new stadium at all? Seems like a waste of time and resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 9 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said: So you're saying they originally planned to get ISFA money to help build at the racetrack but since a significant portion of the board is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago, they would not get those funds unless they stayed within the city limits? Were they unaware of this when they purchased the Arlington site? Still.... if you're only moving next door and not getting new revenue streams, why bother building a new stadium at all? Seems like a waste of time and resources. No, they thought they were going to get some huge break to move out of the city, that didn't happen, so now they are doubling back to the lakefront if they can get a better deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: No, they thought they were going to get some huge break to move out of the city, that didn't happen, so now they are doubling back to the lakefront if they can get a better deal. They will adjust the board if they have to. ISFA is a state thing, not city thing. The Bears will be in Arlington Heights. The I stands for Illinois. Edited March 5 by Dick Allen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 36 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: They will adjust the board if they have to. ISFA is a state thing, not city thing. The Bears will be in Arlington Heights. The I stands for Illinois. Chicago has 3 appointees, as does the governor. The Gov does get to appoint the chairman, but only at the consent of the Mayor of Chicago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 15 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: 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. Most likely they will stay at GRF, then at some point the 78 project will gain momentum. They need a personality to head the project. Say a retired governor eg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurtCG Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Nardiwashere said: So you're saying they originally planned to get ISFA money to help build at the racetrack but since a significant portion of the board is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago, they would not get those funds unless they stayed within the city limits? Were they unaware of this when they purchased the Arlington site? Still.... if you're only moving next door and not getting new revenue streams, why bother building a new stadium at all? Seems like a waste of time and resources. The Bears will happily move into a new stadium next door if they don't have to pay for it. Both organizations want the taxpayers of Illinois to foot bearly the entire bill for constructing these new stadiums. They simply do not want to pay their fair share. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said: Chicago has 3 appointees, as does the governor. The Gov does get to appoint the chairman, but only at the consent of the Mayor of Chicago. Again, if the buildings get built, the make up of the board really won't matter too much, and who gets to appoint what could be changed. Since it is a state run thing, they probably would want Arlington Heights to have some power. Edited March 5 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 38 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Again, if the buildings get built, the make up of the board really won't matter too much, and who gets to appoint what could be changed. Since it is a state run thing, they probably would want Arlington Heights to have some power. With the Bears already getting a legitimate tax bill in AH, they are already back here sniffing around and being told to work with the Sox. They wanted AH because they thought they wouldn't get a property tax bill. Then they found out they would and the math changed. The didn't get the valuation they wanted (AH came back $100 million higher than their proposal) and they also got hit at 25% occupied rate, instead of 10% vacant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: With the Bears already getting a legitimate tax bill in AH, they are already back here sniffing around and being told to work with the Sox. They wanted AH because they thought they wouldn't get a property tax bill. Then they found out they would and the math changed. The didn't get the valuation they wanted (AH came back $100 million higher than their proposal) and they also got hit at 25% occupied rate, instead of 10% vacant. And they have no place to build in Chicago. They will go to Arlington Heights. It the grand scheme of things, the difference is $17 million a year, which normally is a lot, but not enough to kill the project. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREEDY Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 I'm not sure that the average Sox fan understands that when "these greedy billionaires" ask for "money", they are usually asking for a partial sales, property and use tax rebate (often times upfront) that the stadium will generate. This is common with tons of new construction. Guys that build even the most innocuous projects want incentives. A suburb gave me free land and a 30 year property tax abatement to build my business there. They approached me with the idea. They aren't filming half of the television content in Chicago because Hollywood likes deep dish. Just a heads up, not saying Jerry isn't an asshole, but this is standard operating procedure, especially when you don't even want a new stadium, just a new lease on the current stadium. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 6 Author Share Posted March 6 12 minutes ago, GREEDY said: I'm not sure that the average Sox fan understands that when "these greedy billionaires" ask for "money", they are usually asking for a partial sales, property and use tax rebate (often times upfront) that the stadium will generate. This is common with tons of new construction. Guys that build even the most innocuous projects want incentives. A suburb gave me free land and a 30 year property tax abatement to build my business there. They approached me with the idea. They aren't filming half of the television content in Chicago because Hollywood likes deep dish. Just a heads up, not saying Jerry isn't an asshole, but this is standard operating procedure, especially when you don't even want a new stadium, just a new lease on the current stadium. This happens everywhere in the US every single day, people just don't pay attention to it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 20 hours ago, pcq said: Most likely they will stay at GRF, then at some point the 78 project will gain momentum. They need a personality to head the project. Say a retired governor eg. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: This happens everywhere in the US every single day, people just don't pay attention to it. It doesn't make it right. The only ones who will make money on this would be the Reinsdorfs and Related. Again, if the stadium is a must, and the develpment nothing but a cash register, why don't they built it themselves. 1 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.