Dick Allen Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: For the record, the Braves said that their original ballpark needed hundreds of millions (~$350m) in improvements to be viable for the team in the future, and short of that got the county and local authority to issue them hundreds of millions of bonds, of which they are going to pay back a fraction of them for the new stadium itself. They also got captured transportation taxes and millions of dollars from their specially formed taxing district. They started the surrounding projects later in phases after the stadium anchor was established. Sound familiar? No. JR wants more than the Braves ever got, and isn’t planning on paying back one cent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 3 hours ago, WBWSF said: I talked to somebody today who is close to the franchise. He said the new stadium in the South Loop will definitely happen. We shall see. 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Anything is possible but unless or until JR says the franchise is going to contribute a fair amount to build it, I simply can not see the political will to make it happen. The governor appears to be dead set against it and he isn't going anywhere and I can't see many other politicos sticking their necks out under the current circumstances. The blowback has already been significant. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 34 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: 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. I'd drop any of my objections if (when?) JR comes out and says, "We are contributing _____ million dollars towards this project." We'll see if that ever happens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 3 hours ago, scotty22hotty said: Gov. Pritzker announces plans to demolish, rebuild Stateville and Logan prisons The governor's office estimated construction costs at $805 million to $935 million to tear down and rebuild the two prisons. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/jb-pritzker-stateville-logan-prisons-demolition-reconstruction/ "my number-one concern is prioritizing the dollars and making sure the taxpayers are getting a return on their investment." 🤣 Not to get political here, but you didn't quote this part of the article which is the driving factor, though would need to see if these savings are ultimately realized. Quote Pritzker's office estimated the projects would save the state $34 million a year in operating costs in the long-term, by cutting down on overtime, maintenance, and utilities costs. The project also is expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance, after decades of neglect at both facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 (edited) Gotta love J.B. If anyone knows how to cut costs, it’s him! https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654201077/illinois-gov-candidate-removed-mansions-toilets-to-dodge-taxes-report-finds A true man of the people. 🤣 He truly knows the struggles of the average Illinois taxpayer. Edited March 16 by WhiteSox2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 https://southsideweekly.com/stadium-shenanigans-chicago-white-sox-reinsdorf-billions-public-dollars-new-stadium/ The numbers below don't include significant interest payments paid on behalf of bonds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightly Folded Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 12 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said: https://southsideweekly.com/stadium-shenanigans-chicago-white-sox-reinsdorf-billions-public-dollars-new-stadium/ The numbers below don't include significant interest payments paid on behalf of bonds. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-chicago-white-sox-78-moving-guaranteed-rate-field-20240122-4czd3eyv3fe6voqgxdtwgo432e-story.html/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2024/03/22/chicago-bears-lakefront-stadium-museum-campus-hotel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 On 3/15/2024 at 5:44 PM, Lip Man 1 said: I'd drop any of my objections if (when?) JR comes out and says, "We are contributing _____ million dollars towards this project." We'll see if that ever happens. 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. 15 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2024/03/22/chicago-bears-lakefront-stadium-museum-campus-hotel 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 An interesting and detailed story on how difficult it is to move a baseball franchise vis a vis Sox threats of going to Nashville: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/25/could-the-chicago-white-sox-really-move-to-nashville-its-complicated/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: An interesting and detailed story on how difficult it is to move a baseball franchise vis a vis Sox threats of going to Nashville: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/25/could-the-chicago-white-sox-really-move-to-nashville-its-complicated/ 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. Edited March 25 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 11 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: 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. During the league relocation approval process, the league has the right to stipulate a fee of owners vote on one. A $300M relocation fee was part of the 30-0 owner approval vote for the pending A’s move. However, the agreement provides a provision to waive the fee entirely if an acceptable to MLB taxpayer shakedown occurs. Apparently the $380M approved by the Nevada State Legislature is deemed an acceptable taxpayer shakedown. They still haven’t publicly disclosed where the remaining stadium or project funding will come from beyond a promised portion directly from A’s ownership. https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/mlb/oakland-athletics/as-news/mlb-owners-waiving-as-relocation-fee-conditional-on-key-factor/1506569/ Quote “The commissioner of baseball has at least suggested that if the state of Nevada can get a public-private partnership that is acceptable to Major League Baseball, to everyone, that the relocation fee that would be traditionally provided from a team moving to one location to another would potentially be waived,” Aguero said. In other words, the relocation fee being waived for the A’s "potentially" is conditional upon approval of the $380 million public funding package. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/11/20/oakland-as-relocation-discussions In addition, Fisher will have 20% of the team’s purchase price confiscated by The MLB, split among the remaining 29 owners in the event Fisher sells the A’s before NYD 2029, 10% if he sells in during 2029, and decreasing percentages between 2030-2033. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Warren said the Bears are having continuing “productive conversations” about seeking joint public funding with the White Sox, who are exploring the potential for a new South Loop stadium. Warren said he is “energized and excited” about the Sox project. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/26/chicago-bears-stadium-kevin-warren/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Warren said the Bears are having continuing “productive conversations” about seeking joint public funding with the White Sox, who are exploring the potential for a new South Loop stadium. Warren said he is “energized and excited” about the Sox project. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/26/chicago-bears-stadium-kevin-warren/ I am excited about this - cause I can squint and see a future where new ownership is in place for the Sox with a state of the art stadium and finally I can have a positive view of this franchise again - at the same time - Bears should also have a state of the art franchise and are hopefully in the middle of an amazing run led by Caleb, Poles and company. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Former Gov. Quinn says "Put it on the ballot..." (Which could be the end for either stadium): https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/03/26/bears-sox-new-stadiums-public-funding-taxpayers-city-council-ballot-referendum-quinn-poll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Former Gov. Quinn says "Put it on the ballot..." (Which could be the end for either stadium): https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/03/26/bears-sox-new-stadiums-public-funding-taxpayers-city-council-ballot-referendum-quinn-poll The Bears will be far more effective blocking that from ever reaching the ballot than they are blocking NFL defenses. Also, no way Johnson will ever permit this, especially after voters rejected his real estate tax referendum on the ballot last week. That was for a mere $100m estimated revenue. Chicago and State taxpayers will possibly face over $10B in total costs across both projects between upfront costs of $3B-$5B plus a far greater sum in bond interest payments over generations (minimal 30-40 years of interests payments, plus unpaid debt like the ISFA faces over 35 years after its creation). Quote Another hurdle, however, is that Mayor Brandon Johnson could ask allies to shoot down or crowd out the stadium referendum, fearing voters will give a thumbs-down to public funding even as he negotiates with the Sox and the Bears, who want to build new stadiums in the South Loop (Sox) and along the lakefront (Bears). But Quinn said Johnson should "want what the people of Chicago want." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Contrary to the title of the posting, the Sox are not and have not been looking to relocate to the South loop. The plan and promotion of that concept was generated by a developer who owns land and have (unsuccessfully) sought numerous ways and means to develop it for a few decades. The 78 thing is the latest pipe dream of Related development for many reasons including those mentioned by SSHM above. IMO, the Bears and the Sox would likely consider moving if and only if they were to relocate on land they own and have control over, including to some extent, development of surrounding land and revenue generated from it. The only way I see the Sox entering into another lease (if that is the way they choose to go) would be with the cooperation of the ISFA, the Governor, Mayor and respective legislatures on all matters. In the political climate we are now in, that seems unlikely. No public funding, especially for unnecessary projects. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 5 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said: The Bears will be far more effective blocking that from ever reaching the ballot than they are blocking NFL defenses. Also, no way Johnson will ever permit this, especially after voters rejected his real estate tax referendum on the ballot last week. That was for a mere $100m estimated revenue. Chicago and State taxpayers will possibly face over $10B in total costs across both projects between upfront costs of $3B-$5B plus a far greater sum in bond interest payments over generations (minimal 30-40 years of interests payments, plus unpaid debt like the ISFA faces over 35 years after its creation). The Bears will be in Arlington Heights. This is just a play to squeeze every dollar they can from the schools in that suburb. Friends of the Park will never let something like a football stadium be built without a huge fight if they wouldn't allow a museum which would have catered to far more people. Plus, the Bears own the site in Arlington Heights. Why would they contribute $2 billion to a stadium they wouldn't own, when they have a blank canvas to build their own and have everything they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 7 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said: The Bears will be far more effective blocking that from ever reaching the ballot than they are blocking NFL defenses. Also, no way Johnson will ever permit this, especially after voters rejected his real estate tax referendum on the ballot last week. That was for a mere $100m estimated revenue. Chicago and State taxpayers will possibly face over $10B in total costs across both projects between upfront costs of $3B-$5B plus a far greater sum in bond interest payments over generations (minimal 30-40 years of interests payments, plus unpaid debt like the ISFA faces over 35 years after its creation). Does the majority of hotel taxes get paid by Chicago & Illinois taxpayers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Dick Allen said: The Bears will be in Arlington Heights. This is just a play to squeeze every dollar they can from the schools in that suburb. Friends of the Park will never let something like a football stadium be built without a huge fight if they wouldn't allow a museum which would have catered to far more people. Plus, the Bears own the site in Arlington Heights. Why would they contribute $2 billion to a stadium they wouldn't own, when they have a blank canvas to build their own and have everything they want? Stadiums are an expense to be shifted/minimized. Development around the stadium (hotels, bars, restaurants, residential real estate) is what create long term profits for teams, especially if the can reduce or eliminate associated sales tax, real estate tax, other taxes their competitors must pay. Johnson will give them a blank canvas. He is the scheme’s Pedro Grifol in terms of being a junior partner, having little final say, and being well beyond his element in any aspect of his job. Pritzker might end up being an obstacle, but hopefully he will remain firm. Friends of the Parks will certainly be an obstacle. Meadowlands II and the new Los Angeles stadium are the lone two privately owned NFL stadiums. Both have significant events being in by far the largest metro areas. Also, Los Angeles County / City isn’t handing out free stadiums like our politicians, and also received significant infrastructure subsidies. East Rutherford gave the Giants/Jets a sweetheart lease in terms of property taxes, land (they profit on parking for all events and other uses year round), and also state subsidies for hosting events like the upcoming World Cup. If either had government offering billions with little rights lost in the process the teams would have snapped those up faster than Billy Hamilton. Arlington Heights, they won’t have the same drawing power in terms of musical acts and other events LA and NYC can pull off. Will also be hard to staff beyond the 10 Bears games due to lack of demand for low income jobs and lack of transportation or proximity to low income workers. The city holds this advantage over any other location, plus existing transportation infrastructure the entire region can access to reach downtown. Arlington Heights has a single Metra line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Does the majority of hotel taxes get paid by Chicago & Illinois taxpayers? A portion does, as do a significant portion norm by businesses who pay for lodging for visiting out of area employees and customers. Also hurts the ability of convention business with Chicago losing significant events over the decades in part due to higher costs here including taxes. City and State taxpayers are also paying for all the shortfalls in the bullshit tax revenue projections used to sell these schemes. Tens of millions each year and growing. Also on the hook for what are permanent taxes (like the toll booth which were supposed to be short term - yeah right), and are on the hook for the half billion plus in unpaid debt, since these taxes are not even covering interest only payments Plus all property tax payers subsidize these two entities who pay zero property taxes. So to answer your question yes, city and state taxpayers shoulder a significant burden even before the shortfalls based on lies used to sell these billionaire welfare handouts fall short. Your city was also sold a bag of lies with their NFL deal, and you and your community will continue to pay the price as long as you live in Nashville, regardless of whether you go to games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 6 hours ago, tray said: Contrary to the title of the posting, the Sox are not and have not been looking to relocate to the South loop. The plan and promotion of that concept was generated by a developer who owns land and have (unsuccessfully) sought numerous ways and means to develop it for a few decades. The 78 thing is the latest pipe dream of Related development for many reasons including those mentioned by SSHM above. IMO, the Bears and the Sox would likely consider moving if and only if they were to relocate on land they own and have control over, including to some extent, development of surrounding land and revenue generated from it. The only way I see the Sox entering into another lease (if that is the way they choose to go) would be with the cooperation of the ISFA, the Governor, Mayor and respective legislatures on all matters. In the political climate we are now in, that seems unlikely. No public funding, especially for unnecessary projects. I honestly don’t mean to be a dick, but please take a break from this website and discuss this subject with some real life people. You are struggling to accept the reality of this situation and now are just continually repeating your own made up narrative to appease your personal desires. Jerry Reinsdorf 100% wants to relocate to the south loop full stop…that was confirmed when he went to Springfield to make his case and when the team’s PR people started discussing their plans publicly. I do apologize for the hostility of my past interactions on this subject because I assumed you were just trolling, but at this point it seems like your inability to grasp the situation stems from something much deeper rooted and will require help from non SoxTalk posters to overcome. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said: A portion does, as do a significant portion norm by businesses who pay for lodging for visiting out of area employees and customers. Also hurts the ability of convention business with Chicago losing significant events over the decades in part due to higher costs here including taxes. City and State taxpayers are also paying for all the shortfalls in the bullshit tax revenue projections used to sell these schemes. Tens of millions each year and growing. Also on the hook for what are permanent taxes (like the toll booth which were supposed to be short term - yeah right), and are on the hook for the half billion plus in unpaid debt, since these taxes are not even covering interest only payments Plus all property tax payers subsidize these two entities who pay zero property taxes. So to answer your question yes, city and state taxpayers shoulder a significant burden even before the shortfalls based on lies used to sell these billionaire welfare handouts fall short. Your city was also sold a bag of lies with their NFL deal, and you and your community will continue to pay the price as long as you live in Nashville, regardless of whether you go to games. I moved back to Chicago 😁 But I personally don’t see much of a burden for Chicago & Illinois taxpayers. I don’t think a few % point of taxes on hotels has much meaning on travel considerations for tourists or conventioners for that matter. And subsidizing property taxes for major sports organizations that provide the area with jobs and other forms of tax revenue doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me. Honestly, I don’t think the state funding these stadiums via a hotel tax has any noticeable impact on the quality of any of our lives. But it would provide us with two much better stadiums / areas to watch and experience Chicago sports in for generations to come. To me, funding these are a no-brainer if they can agree to terms that are a bit more friendly to Illinois taxpayers than the past ones (for example, no free rent when attendance sucks). I’m less concerned about the billionaires receiving handouts because frankly that’s the status quo and I’m not drawing the line with my franchise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 43 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said: Stadiums are an expense to be shifted/minimized. Development around the stadium (hotels, bars, restaurants, residential real estate) is what create long term profits for teams, especially if the can reduce or eliminate associated sales tax, real estate tax, other taxes their competitors must pay. Johnson will give them a blank canvas. He is the scheme’s Pedro Grifol in terms of being a junior partner, having little final say, and being well beyond his element in any aspect of his job. Pritzker might end up being an obstacle, but hopefully he will remain firm. Friends of the Parks will certainly be an obstacle. Meadowlands II and the new Los Angeles stadium are the lone two privately owned NFL stadiums. Both have significant events being in by far the largest metro areas. Also, Los Angeles County / City isn’t handing out free stadiums like our politicians, and also received significant infrastructure subsidies. East Rutherford gave the Giants/Jets a sweetheart lease in terms of property taxes, land (they profit on parking for all events and other uses year round), and also state subsidies for hosting events like the upcoming World Cup. If either had government offering billions with little rights lost in the process the teams would have snapped those up faster than Billy Hamilton. Arlington Heights, they won’t have the same drawing power in terms of musical acts and other events LA and NYC can pull off. Will also be hard to staff beyond the 10 Bears games due to lack of demand for low income jobs and lack of transportation or proximity to low income workers. The city holds this advantage over any other location, plus existing transportation infrastructure the entire region can access to reach downtown. Arlington Heights has a single Metra line. Yes, but the race track was there, it's got some infrastructure, will need more. The Metra line with already a stop is nice. As for acts that need that kind of capacity, if it gets built in AH, chances are, Soldier Field as we know it will cease to exist, and if an act wants to play Chicago, they will go to AH. They go to Tinley Park, they used to go to to Poplar Creek. I love how Warren is borrowing from JR and saying they need the new stadium in order to be successful. Edited March 27 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said: I moved back to Chicago 😁 But I personally don’t see much of a burden for Chicago & Illinois taxpayers. I don’t think a few % point of taxes on hotels has much meaning on travel considerations for tourists or conventioners for that matter. And subsidizing property taxes for major sports organizations that provide the area with jobs and other forms of tax revenue doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me. Honestly, I don’t think the state funding these stadiums via a hotel tax has any noticeable impact on the quality of any of our lives. But it would provide us with two much better stadiums / areas to watch and experience Chicago sports in for generations to come. To me, funding these are a no-brainer if they can agree to terms that are a bit more friendly to Illinois taxpayers than the past ones (for example, no free rent when attendance sucks). I’m less concerned about the billionaires receiving handouts because frankly that’s the status quo and I’m not drawing the line with my franchise. Well put. 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.