Lip Man 1 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2024/04/24/bears-lakefront-domed-stadium-design-mayor-johnson-kevin-warren-lee-bey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 3 hours ago, Green Line said: I fully support my tax dollars going to new stadiums for both teams. Take my money. With $141 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and several members of my family being teachers, I’d rather their retirement be figured out instead of taxpayer funded stadiums. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 https://www.yahoo.com/sports/column-taxpayers-tire-handouts-billionaires-100018660.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 15 hours ago, The Beast said: But what happens if the hotel tax revenue is short and the Sox and or Bears stadium relies on that revenue? I have to think taxes will be coming from the infrastructure that would be needed unless that came from the capital projects law Pritzker signed. 14 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: According to the Sun-Times, the Bears proposal would still leave enough money from the hotel tax to fund a new Sox ballpark. So, I don't see this as the Bears beating the Sox to that funding source. https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2024/04/23/bears-new-stadium-dome-lakefront-soldier-field See what The Beast said. I do think there will be some time of unexpected expense (that's how it always works), which is why I think they beat the Sox to the punch. Because if you're funding the Sox stadium with the same revenue stream, your budgets have to be tight and you have to be in cost cutting mode if you're short at that point. But once shovels go in the ground (which Kevin Warren is aiming for this spring), then they're not going to stop. 13 hours ago, Rusty said: “No new taxes” is a disgusting marketing term. It’s a 40 year extension of the existing hotel tax that is currently funding state financing that is $600+ million in the hole still from GRF and the SF renovations. It's not. It's already something that's in place. It was set to expire, but if you've followed state or city politics, you should know that it was never going to go away. It was just going to be repurposed for something else, even if it's not a new stadium. See Illinois Tollway for example. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 I don't understand the Bears proposal at all. The current stadium is 20 years old. Its fine. They play there 9 times a year. A very small minority of fans attend more than one game a year anyway. Now you have beautiful views of the city and lake. Summertime concerts at the outdoor stadium are fun. People complaints about Soldier Field always center around difficulty getting to and from games. This doesn't change any of that. Its going to be the same thing except now they'll have some generic boring eyesore dome that doesn't even take advantage of being next to the lake and located within a beautiful park. That stadium in the renderings can be put anywhere. I don't want it on the lakefront. I understand wanting to move to Arlington. There, the stadium can be surrounded by hotels and bars etc. that would result in additional revenue for the team. That seems like such a waste for billions of dollars. How does it improve the fan experience? Nicer bathrooms? A little more capacity for tickets? Who cares if Chicago gets to host a Super Bowl or a Final Four? I can't imagine the Bears making money off of that as tenants. And if they do, it still seems insignificant when compared to the cost. I still think they end up moving to Arlington Heights. I think they are just using our idiot mayor for leverage. At least the Sox proposal is a clear upgrade for ownership and the fans. Improved location, nicer looking building, more lively atmosphere, easier to get to weekday night games for people working in the loop... More revenue possibilities for the team. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenericUserName Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 There are a lot of questions about the Bears stadium. The $900m will come from the hotel tax. It will also cover the refinancing of the current debt and a liquidity fund. They say it will work because its for 40 years and only assumes a 4% annual hotel revenue growth. But as others have said, what happens if it doesn't cover the debt payments? The liquidity fund is supposed to cover it and seems to suggest the Bears don't want to cover it. But recently the tax hasn't been covering it, so do we really feel good about having to have 4% annual growth for 4 decades? What is the worst case scenario for this? But that's not even all the money the team needs. The nice parks between the colonnades and all the other amenities are supposed to cost another $1.5b, more than $300m of which is required right at the start. That amount isn't covered by the ISFA bonds. How would the City be expected to pay for that? Then there is the almost completely unaddressed questions of rent, lease termination terms, and other event revenue split. Are we basically renting it out at cost? Or could that be a source of revenue to borrow against for the infrastructure costs? Is the lease tied in any way to paying off the debt, or could we be in another situation in 20 years where the Bears want a new stadium and we're stuck with hundreds of millions in debt from the old one? And if there is such an appetite for all sorts of events at this nice new stadium, does the City get any cut of the revenue or just the normal amusement tax revenue? It seems like the Governor and most state legislators are against the proposal as it currently stands, so these questions might be areas of negotiations that could potentially take this to the point of actually being good for both the taxpayers and the Bears. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 All things that could’ve been answered at the presser if this were actually a viable plan but it’s not. They are using the city and Johnson as a pawn to leverage Arlington and based on the enthusiasm is his speech yesterday I don’t think he’s intelligent enough to realize it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2024/04/25/bears-white-sox-stadium-deals-public-ownership-stake-taxpayer-funds-dave-roeder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Bears met with the Sun-Times editorial board and according to the story there were times when things got testy: https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/04/25/bears-new-stadium-lakefront-bonds-springfield-president-warren-lease-sox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 On 4/25/2024 at 9:39 AM, Nardiwashere said: I don't understand the Bears proposal at all. The current stadium is 20 years old. Its fine. They play there 9 times a year. A very small minority of fans attend more than one game a year anyway. Now you have beautiful views of the city and lake. Summertime concerts at the outdoor stadium are fun. People complaints about Soldier Field always center around difficulty getting to and from games. This doesn't change any of that. Its going to be the same thing except now they'll have some generic boring eyesore dome that doesn't even take advantage of being next to the lake and located within a beautiful park. That stadium in the renderings can be put anywhere. I don't want it on the lakefront. I understand wanting to move to Arlington. There, the stadium can be surrounded by hotels and bars etc. that would result in additional revenue for the team. That seems like such a waste for billions of dollars. How does it improve the fan experience? Nicer bathrooms? A little more capacity for tickets? Who cares if Chicago gets to host a Super Bowl or a Final Four? I can't imagine the Bears making money off of that as tenants. And if they do, it still seems insignificant when compared to the cost. I still think they end up moving to Arlington Heights. I think they are just using our idiot mayor for leverage. At least the Sox proposal is a clear upgrade for ownership and the fans. Improved location, nicer looking building, more lively atmosphere, easier to get to weekday night games for people working in the loop... More revenue possibilities for the team. I don't, unfortunately. AH was dead the second Warren stepped into Halas Hall. He wants nothing to do with moving the team out of the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 The Mayor of Chicago has said that the proposed Bears stadium is a public benefit. I hope he feels the same way about the proposed White Sox stadium. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 On 4/26/2024 at 8:41 AM, Lip Man 1 said: Bears met with the Sun-Times editorial board and according to the story there were times when things got testy: https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/04/25/bears-new-stadium-lakefront-bonds-springfield-president-warren-lease-sox I'll say it until I'm blue in the face but there's no logical reason that any American sports team should be privately owned. Are these guys taking on some kind of risk I'm unaware of owning the safest investment imaginable? I don't care if it sounds like communism, they should nationalize the MLB. The sport would be better off for it. The fan experience would be better. It's probably a good source of much needed, and hard to come by, public revenue. There literally is no risk in owning a professional sports franchise, it's one of the safest investments imaginable, yet the public still foots the bill for their capital costs and we don't get an ownership stake. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 3 hours ago, WBWSF said: The Mayor of Chicago has said that the proposed Bears stadium is a public benefit. I hope he feels the same way about the proposed White Sox stadium. Both are public benefits as long as the public doesn't have to pay to get them built. Let the billionaire owners take care of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) 19 hours ago, WBWSF said: The Mayor of Chicago has said that the proposed Bears stadium is a public benefit. I hope he feels the same way about the proposed White Sox stadium. The hysterical thing with the Mayor is if they approved this Bears thing, there would be no bonding authority left for the White Sox. The Bears would build their new stadium, get all the revenue from any event held there, and the extra park space Brandon “negotiated”: that’s the 3rd and final phase of the project, one that the Bears would have zero responsibility for. It would be up to th states to create that parkland,, and pay for it. It’s not going to happen. See you in Arlington Heights. Edited April 28 by Dick Allen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Private companies receive all sorts of government support to relocate or even stay in a town. Economic development agencies compete for "growth". Once we started down that path it was inevitable that the wealthy and powerful would find another way to take from the workers and give to themselves. But forgive student loans or anything directly to workers and whoa, that's socialism and unfair. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Train to 35th Posted Monday at 06:05 PM Share Posted Monday at 06:05 PM (edited) On 4/27/2024 at 1:19 PM, WBWSF said: The Mayor of Chicago has said that the proposed Bears stadium is a public benefit. I hope he feels the same way about the proposed White Sox stadium. Anyone catch the multiple hugs between Mayor Johnson and Warren.....Does anyone here think The Mayor would hug JR when and if they make their proposal public. I bet not, and if he did it would be awkward at best. Edited Monday at 06:35 PM by A-Train to 35th add pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Train to 35th Posted Monday at 06:11 PM Share Posted Monday at 06:11 PM (edited) On 4/28/2024 at 9:01 AM, Dick Allen said: The hysterical thing with the Mayor is if they approved this Bears thing, there would be no bonding authority left for the White Sox. The Bears would build their new stadium, get all the revenue from any event held there, and the extra park space Brandon “negotiated”: that’s the 3rd and final phase of the project, one that the Bears would have zero responsibility for. It would be up to th states to create that parkland,, and pay for it. It’s not going to happen. See you in Arlington Heights. EXACTLY, there's close to a billion for the three phases after the dome is built that's falls directly on the state and taxpayers. Phase 2 which is 500+ million includes the demolition of the existing stadium. If the state doesn't come up with the money for phase two we would have 2 stadiums on the lake and no parkland instead of just the new dome. Not happening, as you said," See you in Arlington Heights". Edited Monday at 06:26 PM by A-Train to 35th add 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamhock Posted Monday at 06:11 PM Share Posted Monday at 06:11 PM 4 minutes ago, A-Train to 35th said: Anyone catch the multiple hugs between Mayor Johnson and Warren.....Does anyone here think The Mayor would hug JR when and if they make their proposal public. I bet not, and if he did it would be awkward at best. I would give good money to see a "this guy right here" eight fingers/no thumbs two-handed shoulder slap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Train to 35th Posted Monday at 06:22 PM Share Posted Monday at 06:22 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Train to 35th Posted Monday at 06:54 PM Share Posted Monday at 06:54 PM See you in Nashville Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleAleSox Posted Monday at 07:09 PM Share Posted Monday at 07:09 PM 14 minutes ago, A-Train to 35th said: See you in Nashville Who the hell is this dork? 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Train to 35th Posted Monday at 07:33 PM Share Posted Monday at 07:33 PM (edited) 34 minutes ago, PaleAleSox said: Who the hell is this dork? I thought he made a lot of good points, unlike you who must think otherwise and resort to the use of offensive names to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts. Merriam-Webster definition of name-calling. Edited Monday at 07:44 PM by A-Train to 35th sp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Train to 35th Posted Monday at 07:41 PM Share Posted Monday at 07:41 PM (edited) 33 minutes ago, PaleAleSox said: Who the hell is this dork? Dork? Brodie Matthew Brazil (born April 3, 1981) is an American television broadcaster who has won 13 Regional Emmy Awards and nominated for 32. Edited Monday at 07:42 PM by A-Train to 35th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleAleSox Posted Monday at 07:41 PM Share Posted Monday at 07:41 PM 8 minutes ago, A-Train to 35th said: I thought he made a lot of good points, unlike you who must think otherwise and resort to the use of offensive names to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts. Merriam-Webster definition of name-calling. Okay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted Monday at 07:59 PM Author Share Posted Monday at 07:59 PM 51 minutes ago, PaleAleSox said: Who the hell is this dork? It's someone with a YouTube channel putting a 10 minute version of literally everything that has already been said negatively about the Sox and a new park since it came out that Jerry was looking for a new park. I guess it is more compelling because it is on YouTube instead of print form or something. Nothing like a video where someone states over and over again that they are "concerned", over the "facts", but you it is "up to you to decide" what you think from their one sided video. But be sure to subscribe so you can be concerned over more facts you can decide about in the future. I can sum it up quickly so no one has to watch. -The White Sox suck. -People aren't going to White Sox games. -New Comiskey was outdated when it opened and in a bad neighborhood. -Jerry wants a new stadium. -Jerry is asking for a lot of public money. -Public reps aren't thrilled with the request. Enjoy the rest of the 10 minutes I just saved you. 2 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.