Ownership breakdown: ishbias 35%, Reinsdorfs 50%

[southsider2k5]

9 minutes ago, tray said:

Another intentional lie.

Your lie about having MNPI you are putting on a message board, or the near-universally held belief amongst MLB fans that this stadium is considered one of the worst in baseball?

[tray]

7 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

This was a two second Google search…

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2024/03/09/mlb-stadium-rankings-baseball-30-ballparks-2024/72873951007/

https://www.menshealth.com/trending-news/g39641978/top-major-league-baseball-stadiums-ranked/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=mgu_ga_mnh_md_pmx_hybd_mix_us_17889802313&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17883554872&gbraid=0AAAAACrVUPmHVsawRHi9Ovp60sroHEcB-&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI89z0ur_9jAMVmBitBh2-NCM2EAAYASAAEgJpsPD_BwE

Cool down. The lie was his allegation that I claimed to have inside information.

[Chicago White Sox]

31 minutes ago, tray said:

Dude, the Related development proposals were absurd and are now dead. Move on.

It’s absolutely wild how you have created a false set of realities to cope with the org’s desire to build a new stadium at the 78 site.  It’s totally ok if it upsets you, but to outright lie and build a fake narrative that you continually tell others to believe is the definition of insanity.

[WhiteSox2023]

22 minutes ago, tray said:

Cool down. The lie was his allegation that I claimed to have inside information.

Nah, I’m good.  I don’t need to cool down.  Your response was vague.  Thanks for clarifying.

[tray]

7 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Nah, I’m good.  I don’t need to cool down.  Your response was vague.  Thanks for clarifying.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the WSox nor the ISFA have recently expressed any desire to develop land at the 78 or any other land not owned by the ISFA/Illinois taxpayers. 

The 78 site ?  Once again, that site is essentially land locked with no reasonable/cost effective solution to provide ingress /egress along Roosevelt, Clark, LaSalle or through Ping Tom. The Developer apparently wants an anchor Tenant to pay for all that*, and sign a long term land lease. (* Related has done almost nothing to begin work on said access routes for years).  It is a bridge too far and may well have been one of the reasons why other potential tenants including Amazon, nixed plans to locate there. It is why the site has remained vacant for over 100 years.

An extension of the Lease with ISFA would not preclude building a new ballpark at 35th street or prevent a future sale to a new owner.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, tray said:

Dude, the Related development proposals were absurd and are now dead. Move on.

 

15 minutes ago, tray said:

To the best of my knowledge, neither the WSox nor the ISFA have recently expressed any desire to develop land at the 78 or any other land not owned by the ISFA/Illinois taxpayers. 

The 78 site ?  Once again, that site is essentially land locked with no reasonable/cost effective solution to provide ingress /egress along Roosevelt, Clark, LaSalle or through Ping Tom. The Developer apparently wants an anchor Tenant to pay for all that*, and sign a long term land lease. (* Related has done almost nothing to begin work on said access routes for years).  It is a bridge too far and may well have been one of the reasons why other potential tenants including Amazon, nixed plans to locate there. It is why the site has remained vacant for over 100 years.

An extension of the Lease with ISFA would not preclude building a new ballpark at 35th street or prevent a future sale to a new owner.

Boy that is two completely different posts.  Almost like the first one was an intentional.  Remind me of something a poster once said...

 

[Tnetennba]

[tray]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Boy that is two completely different posts.  Almost like the first one was an intentional.  Remind me of something a poster once said...

 

The post you quoted was my opinion of a published article. I am entitled to that to as long as an American flag flies over our country and the First Amendment is honored by the Courts.

Please stop responding here but if you insist, have the last word.  It is obvious you are responding to me reflexively and possibly with a grudge of some sort instead of thoughtfully.

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, tray said:

The post you quoted was my opinion of a published article. I am entitled to that to as long as an American flag flies over our country and the First Amendment is honored by the Courts.

Please stop responding here but if you insist, have the last word.  It is obvious you are responding to me reflexively and possibly with a grudge of some sort instead of thoughtfully.

Nah,  as long as you want to run around as judge, jury, and executioner, you will have people respond to your nonsense.  When you present something as fact, that is indeed your opinion, that will also do it.  Also when you get into personal attacks as a way of overcompensating for when you are caught in said misrepresentations, you will also get a response.

As a part of the prior, I would also hope your government teacher taught you that the first amendment applies to the Government, hence why the 1st Amendment states in it's very first word that CONGRESS, aka the government shall make no laws...., and not anything about what people have listen to in their private lives.  Be better, as you like to say so much.

[Tnetennba]

11 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Nah,  as long as you want to run around as judge, jury, and executioner, you will have people respond to your nonsense.  When you present something as fact, that is indeed your opinion, that will also do it.  Also when you get into personal attacks as a way of overcompensating for when you are caught in said misrepresentations, you will also get a response.

As a part of the prior, I would also hope your government teacher taught you that the first amendment applies to the Government, hence why the 1st Amendment states in it's very first word that CONGRESS, aka the government shall make no laws...., and not anything about what people have listen to in their private lives.  Be better, as you like to say so much.

The 1st Amendment also doesn't protect an individual from the consequence of their own statements, be it in the workplace or on an internet forum. It also doesn't give one permission to lie with impunity nor does it entitle one to to expect their lies and mistatements to be taken at face value or as fact.

[Kyyle23]

Nobody is threatening first amendment rights here, ffs

[DoUEvenShift]

I didn't have constitutional debate on my SoxTalk bingo card today

[caulfield12]

21 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said:

I didn't have constitutional debate on my SoxTalk bingo card today

That's what people used to say at WSI as well...not sure they really "won" ultimately by restricting the rights to any counter opinions, but private message boards are not public green spaces either. Regardless of how profitable they may or mostly may not be.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, Kyyle23 said:

Nobody is threatening first amendment rights here, ffs

You say this and then take away the Laugh emoji!  I’m constitutionally allowed to laugh at trey’s batshit crazy posts and you can’t stop me!

[Kyyle23]

8 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

You say this and then take away the Laugh emoji!  I’m constitutionally allowed to laugh at trey’s batshit crazy posts and you can’t stop me!

What!?  WHO TOOK THAT AWAY I WILL SPEAK TO THEM 

[almagest]

11 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

What!?  WHO TOOK THAT AWAY I WILL SPEAK TO THEM 

Don't take away the laugh emoji it's all I have

[Kyyle23]

My takeaway here is maybe we should monetize the laugh emoji?

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

My takeaway here is maybe we should monetize the laugh emoji?

I'm listening.

[caulfield12]

But what would John Roberts...err, Jesus do/say?

(What about Scalia and Thomas?)

We're talking historical precdents at SoxTalk these days, Sullivan vs. NY Times, etc.

 

Tray is one of us....

[nrockway]

14 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Sox locked into a bad location in one of the worst rated stadiums in baseball would be a win for the Sox.  I won't even touch on your pretending to have inside information to a set of negotiations which you aren't privy to.

yikes. you know people think this exclusively because it's on the south side of chicago, right, and the dummies think they'll die or whatever if they walk around on a street with a number in the name. strange to see you write this. it isn't a bad location, it's the perfect location for a ballpark. very easily accessible for the entire region regardless of your mode of transportation (I typically walk). the surrounding neighborhood is a 'safe' one, albeit a little bit boring if you're a drunken baseball fan. I generally dislike the parking lots, but you'd find that the residents of the area prefer it. Not everyone wants their neighborhood to be infested by drunk frat boys the way Lakeview is. 

who "rates" it as bad? racists? it's a great ballpark to watch a game, I've been to a bunch of them, there isn't a bad seat in the house and the tickets are cheap to boot. way better experience at SoxPark than Wrigley for 1000 reasons.

what would be "bad and dumb" is if the city and state supported a move that completely contradicted their previous financial investments in the south and west sides of chicago in order to move a major south side employer to the loop. one might call it hypocritical and anti-democratic; and I imagine taxpayers wouldn't be too happy about about their taxes funding projects that undermine things their tax dollars funded less than a decade previous. one might call it stupid governance.

the related site is a fucking boondoggle anyway and will be harder to get to and will waste even more of your tax dollars on an entertainment facility. I can't believe people entertain that terrible idea to begin with (including the unelected bridgeport alderman), turn the site into a park and be done with it.

Edited April 30 by nrockway

[southsider2k5]

9 hours ago, nrockway said:

yikes. you know people think this exclusively because it's on the south side of chicago, right, and the dummies think they'll die or whatever if they walk around on a street with a number in the name. strange to see you write this. it isn't a bad location, it's the perfect location for a ballpark. very easily accessible for the entire region regardless of your mode of transportation (I typically walk). the surrounding neighborhood is a 'safe' one, albeit a little bit boring if you're a drunken baseball fan. I generally dislike the parking lots, but you'd find that the residents of the area prefer it. Not everyone wants their neighborhood to be infested by drunk frat boys the way Lakeview is. 

who "rates" it as bad? racists? it's a great ballpark to watch a game, I've been to a bunch of them, there isn't a bad seat in the house and the tickets are cheap to boot. way better experience at SoxPark than Wrigley for 1000 reasons.

what would be "bad and dumb" is if the city and state supported a move that completely contradicted their previous financial investments in the south and west sides of chicago in order to move a major south side employer to the loop. one might call it hypocritical and anti-democratic; and I imagine taxpayers wouldn't be too happy about about their taxes funding projects that undermine things their tax dollars funded less than a decade previous. one might call it stupid governance.

the related site is a fucking boondoggle anyway and will be harder to get to and will waste even more of your tax dollars on an entertainment facility. I can't believe people entertain that terrible idea to begin with (including the unelected bridgeport alderman), turn the site into a park and be done with it.

A downtown ballpark is infinitely more accessible by  ALL  transportation lines.  This location is dead.  Nothing happens here.  You options are come and leave.  There is no experience.  There is no excitement after a game.  It is get and your car and leave, because you can't stay here.  There is no making a day of it.  You speak of employment,  but it would be way better for "employment " to have more jobs connected to the Sox, right?  So how about a ballpark complex which could add thousands of jobs?  We are talking about a few extra train stops (or walking for someone who digs it)for anyone who lives in the area AND they don't have to put up with the negative externalities that you tell me the hate so much.  Win-Win!  More jobs, less traffic and drunks!  So much more walkability yeah!

I am impressed you managed to call all of the neutral ballpark reviewers who routinely and consistently rate this park as one of the absolute worst in baseball, racists. I don't think you have been to many other ballparks if that is your first thought.  Besides if the residents are that bothered by the fans, there is one really obvious fix.

 It is reviewed as generic, large scale, and completely lacks and personality on pretty much every list that exists. Because of it, we see near zero baseball tourism like other major markets see, and no attendance boost from the daily experience.  Sox fans go when the team is good, and that's it.  That's not me, that's it's national reputation.   If you are content with that because it keeps tickets cheap, cool.  I would like more out of this franchise and fixing the biggest mistakes of this ballpark would be a step in the right direction. 

[hogan873]

25 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

A downtown ballpark is infinitely more accessible by  ALL  transportation lines.  This location is dead.  Nothing happens here.  You options are come and leave.  There is no experience.  There is no excitement after a game.  It is get and your car and leave, because you can't stay here.  There is no making a day of it.  You speak of employment,  but it would be way better for "employment " to have more jobs connected to the Sox, right?  So how about a ballpark complex which could add thousands of jobs?  We are talking about a few extra train stops (or walking for someone who digs it)for anyone who lives in the area AND they don't have to put up with the negative externalities that you tell me the hate so much.  Win-Win!  More jobs, less traffic and drunks!  So much more walkability yeah!

I am impressed you managed to call all of the neutral ballpark reviewers who routinely and consistently rate this park as one of the absolute worst in baseball, racists. I don't think you have been to many other ballparks if that is your first thought.  Besides if the residents are that bothered by the fans, there is one really obvious fix.

 It is reviewed as generic, large scale, and completely lacks and personality on pretty much every list that exists. Because of it, we see near zero baseball tourism like other major markets see, and no attendance boost from the daily experience.  Sox fans go when the team is good, and that's it.  That's not me, that's it's national reputation.   If you are content with that because it keeps tickets cheap, cool.  I would like more out of this franchise and fixing the biggest mistakes of this ballpark would be a step in the right direction. 

Wrigley is very accessible via public transportation, and there are countless bars and restaurants around the park that are packed before and after games.  I went to PNC park last summer, and it's another park in downtown that has easy access via light rail (which added stops when the park was built).  And there are plenty of places to grab food and drink before and after games.  The Sox can have the same thing with a downtown ballpark.  The park would attract businesses and create more jobs.  Let's hope the Ishbias bring us a new park.

[southsider2k5]

21 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

Wrigley is very accessible via public transportation, and there are countless bars and restaurants around the park that are packed before and after games.  I went to PNC park last summer, and it's another park in downtown that has easy access via light rail (which added stops when the park was built).  And there are plenty of places to grab food and drink before and after games.  The Sox can have the same thing with a downtown ballpark.  The park would attract businesses and create more jobs.  Let's hope the Ishbias bring us a new park.

As someone who has been to somewhere around 20 different ballparks over the years (some new parks in the same city over the years, I think only Tampa and Detroit came to mind as less to do around them, but I also haven't been to Detroit in like 15 years, and I do understand that since Ford Field was completed, the game day experience there is WAY better.  The original stadium in Detroit was literally the only place I ever refused to go anywhere but the ballpark because of the neighborhood.  Bridgeport is a dream compared to the old Tiger Stadium area.  Most everyone else seems to have this figured out to maximize the game day experience, both for the fans, and for jobs.

[DoUEvenShift]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am impressed you managed to call all of the neutral ballpark reviewers who routinely and consistently rate this park as one of the absolute worst in baseball, racists. I don't think you have been to many other ballparks if that is your first thought.  Besides if the residents are that bothered by the fans, there is one really obvious fix.

A funny point about this accusation is one of the rankings that was linked here literally took off points from Truist Park for objective racism (Tomahawk chant) and they still ranked Rate lower. (2nd to last)

[Tnetennba]

12 hours ago, nrockway said:

yikes. you know people think this exclusively because it's on the south side of chicago, right, and the dummies think they'll die or whatever if they walk around on a street with a number in the name. strange to see you write this. it isn't a bad location, it's the perfect location for a ballpark. very easily accessible for the entire region regardless of your mode of transportation (I typically walk). the surrounding neighborhood is a 'safe' one, albeit a little bit boring if you're a drunken baseball fan. I generally dislike the parking lots, but you'd find that the residents of the area prefer it. Not everyone wants their neighborhood to be infested by drunk frat boys the way Lakeview is. 

who "rates" it as bad? racists? it's a great ballpark to watch a game, I've been to a bunch of them, there isn't a bad seat in the house and the tickets are cheap to boot. way better experience at SoxPark than Wrigley for 1000 reasons.

what would be "bad and dumb" is if the city and state supported a move that completely contradicted their previous financial investments in the south and west sides of chicago in order to move a major south side employer to the loop. one might call it hypocritical and anti-democratic; and I imagine taxpayers wouldn't be too happy about about their taxes funding projects that undermine things their tax dollars funded less than a decade previous. one might call it stupid governance.

the related site is a fucking boondoggle anyway and will be harder to get to and will waste even more of your tax dollars on an entertainment facility. I can't believe people entertain that terrible idea to begin with (including the unelected bridgeport alderman), turn the site into a park and be done with it.

Whoooo boy. Where to even begin.

Fans want a game day experience nowadays, which is why the ballpark villiage concept is thriving. The fucking Cubs, who've enjoyed the benefits of the neighborhood for decades, even build their own. If that doesn't prove the point, I don't know what will.

I live in Bridgeport, and there is less to do here now than there has been in years past. I've always wanted to see the area around the park developed to give fans more of an experience right here, but that's just never going to happen at 35th & Shields. As for the sea of empty lots, almost ANYTHING would be a better use of the land, which sits empty except for a few hours, 81 days out of the year.

Nicole Lee was in fact elected after being appointed to finish out Patrick Daley Thompson's previous term. She was appointed by Lori Lightfoot in 2022, and won the 11th ward in the 2023 Chicago election.

The White Sox are a major employer on the Southside? For 81 games a year? Where in the f*** did you come up with that nonsense? 35th & Shields is a ghost town on off days, away games, and during the offseason. Not exactly feeding the local economy or providing gainful employement to any of the locals. Also, nothing stops the White Sox org from continuing any charitable work or investment in the Southside after moving a few miles north. We aren't talking about a major relocation that would sever ties to the Southside. 

I get that your whole bit is to be contrarian, but maybe get your facts straight and quit parroting the mistruths others post here.