ptatc Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 6 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: True... but all we know (for now) is that Nashville is a much smaller market, that the Mayor and others have already said public funds for a new stadium will not be available and MLB wants an expansion team there because they could get about 2 billion dollars in expansion fees (according to Sports Illustrated) and would not favor relocating a team. Based on the above I don't see how that would qualify as being in Ishbia's best interest or a better opportunity. Time will tell. The market size would depend on the split with the Cubs. Nashville would have no MLB competition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 8 minutes ago, ptatc said: The market size would depend on the split with the Cubs. Nashville would have no MLB competition. Hardly. The money is with national TV deals. The split doesn't matter much there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, Green Line said: I have a friend of a friend on the ISFA, and he said in negotiations Ishiba is threatening a move to Nashville, not Reinsdorf. 3 hours ago, fathom said: Fantastic….ugh The only thing I’ve heard is that the chance they move to Nashville is more possible than anyone thinks If true, it's probably a negotiating tactic and I'm hoping not a serious threat. If not for a new stadium then at least for the next stadium lease. Or maybe even development of the land (parking lots) ISFA owns around the current ballpark? It doesn't sound like Nashville is spending public money on a ballpark either, but crazier things have happened. One thing I'm pretty sure of - the Ishbias aren't spending close to $2B for a franchise only to keep the unsuccessful status quo with the current ballpark (without major renovations) surround by parking lots for the next 30 years when just about every other MLB team is moving away from that model and the Cubs are becoming more and more dominant in this market. Edited October 1 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 13 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: If true, it's probably a negotiating tactic and I'm hoping not a serious threat. If not for a new stadium then at least for the next stadium lease. Or maybe even development of the land (parking lots) ISFA owns around the current ballpark? It doesn't sound like Nashville is spending public money on a ballpark either, but crazier things have happened. One thing I'm pretty sure of - the Ishbias aren't spending close to $2B for a franchise only to keep the unsuccessful status quo with the current ballpark (without major renovations) surround by parking lots for the next 30 years when just about every other MLB team is moving away from that model and the Cubs are becoming more and more dominant in this market. JR and Ishbia want nothing to do with the current location Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 1 hour ago, Buehrle>Wood said: Hardly. The money is with national TV deals. The split doesn't matter much there. Trying to carve out the regional deals is important as well. Listen to Boyer discussion about payroll and the lack of regional deal and the new CHSN app. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 1 hour ago, fathom said: JR and Ishbia want nothing to do with the current location Then their options are going to be very limited it would seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: True... but all we know (for now) is that Nashville is a much smaller market, that the Mayor and others have already said public funds for a new stadium will not be available and MLB wants an expansion team there because they could get about 2 billion dollars in expansion fees (according to Sports Illustrated) and would not favor relocating a team. Based on the above I don't see how that would qualify as being in Ishbia's best interest or a better opportunity. Time will tell. It's smaller, but it would be all theirs. Nashville does support their teams too. Plus if they can squeeze money out for a stadium that they can't get in Chicago that changes things too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NO!!MARY!!! Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 If it is true that Ishbia is threatening the move, then they’re as good as gone. Nashville was first floated in 2023, before he was part of the equation, so he was either behind the scenes much earlier, or he’s jumping on the threat bandwagon. I find it hilarious and infuriating at the same time when fans who live a thousand miles outside of Chicago say “good riddance, I hope they move.” 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 4 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: If it is true that Ishbia is threatening the move, then they’re as good as gone. Nashville was first floated in 2023, before he was part of the equation, so he was either behind the scenes much earlier, or he’s jumping on the threat bandwagon. I find it hilarious and infuriating at the same time when fans who live a thousand miles outside of Chicago say “good riddance, I hope they move.” Nashville was 100% a Dave Stewart/TLR joint. Has that since changed? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 16 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: If it is true that Ishbia is threatening the move, then they’re as good as gone. Nashville was first floated in 2023, before he was part of the equation, so he was either behind the scenes much earlier, or he’s jumping on the threat bandwagon. I find it hilarious and infuriating at the same time when fans who live a thousand miles outside of Chicago say “good riddance, I hope they move.” I grew up in Chicago and have been a fan for 65 years, my earliest memories of the Sox start in 1960 when I was five years old. I find it hilarious and infuriating that this organization has been incompetent, dysfunctional and inept for so long that the possibility of moving is even being brought up. This isn't the mid 1970's remember when John Allyn was flat broke. I don't want them to move at all but given the situation if they try to extort another stadium and given the disastrous results on the field especially since 2007 then piss on them. With the garbage they have been putting out and the profits that JR has been making for a long time they don't deserve s^&* in my opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/sources-big-ten-in-discussions-regarding-2-billion-private-capital-investment-into-conference-205711352.html Private equity wins again!!! $2 billion injection into G10 conference would provide massive upfront payouts to all 18 teams Edited October 2 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoctor Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 moving the team is the only leverage ishbia/jr have in trying to get a favorable new stadium deal. makes complete sense they’d play that card. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 27 minutes ago, thedoctor said: moving the team is the only leverage ishbia/jr have in trying to get a favorable new stadium deal. makes complete sense they’d play that card. Time will tell how it will be received. They are taking a dangerous gamble in my opinion given that MLB wants expansion money above all. And it's clear how the state/local politicians feel given the cool reception JR got. Again we'll see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 30 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/sources-big-ten-in-discussions-regarding-2-billion-private-capital-investment-into-conference-205711352.html Private equity wins again!!! $2 billion injection into G10 conference would provide massive upfront payouts to all 18 teams And some house members are putting together a proposal to make into law that college athletics will start to negotiate broadcast deals as a unit and not as conferences. Much like the NFL, and that all money will be shared equally. As part of the proposal colleges will no longer be allowed to "stream" games but will have to use cable systems and over the air stations in order to reach the most fans (in theory this will increase rights fees and provide more money to make sure women's sports and Olympic sports don't go under in smaller leagues). Interesting concept although I don't think it will go anywhere but who knows. You're seeing that big Texas Tech donor buying spots during broadcasts arguing for the same thing and apparently some politicians have noticed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) 4 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: If true, it's probably a negotiating tactic and I'm hoping not a serious threat. If not for a new stadium then at least for the next stadium lease. Or maybe even development of the land (parking lots) ISFA owns around the current ballpark? It doesn't sound like Nashville is spending public money on a ballpark either, but crazier things have happened. One thing I'm pretty sure of - the Ishbias aren't spending close to $2B for a franchise only to keep the unsuccessful status quo with the current ballpark (without major renovations) surround by parking lots for the next 30 years when just about every other MLB team is moving away from that model and the Cubs are becoming more and more dominant in this market. This point is frankly outdated. The savvy owner doesn't even want public money outside of grants (free money). All of these billionaire bozos aren't doing private financing out of the kindness of their own hearts. They just want to reap all of the profits and not have to share in it. These ventures actually make money nowadays compared to 30 or 40 years ago. The public return on investment is generally good, although it depends how the project is done. It shouldn't be viewed as a 'public subsidy' but rather as an investment that derives more tax revenue than is spent. I'm skeptical about the Fire deal because it seems like the alderpeople are not even thinking about the TIF investment for a soccer team that nobody watches. I suspect once they figure it out, it will halt construction. There is actual tax revenue to be derived from these projects, we talk about it with the 'ballpark village' concept. Many cities are reaping benefits from it. JP Morgan et al is a better source of financing for these billionaires because JP Morgan doesn't demand democratic oversight or ask for non-profitable concessions like a PUD might. Private financiers demand a return on their investment but not in the way the public does. They don't take an ownership stake in the facilities like the City/State might. The Royals totally bungled their past stadium proposal because their owners follow in an outdated mode of thinking unlike the Braves ownership. Braves stadium public funding never went to a vote but received public funds in a roundabout way akin to TIF. The Fire are hoping to follow in this path I reckon, I hope alderpeople are savvy enough to see through it. So far they are not. I already wrote a letter to my alder about it, but she strikes me as already not stupid in this regard. The Fire stadium is such a bad idea and it'll be a miracle if it actually gets built. I guess that makes me a NIMBY. Edited October 2 by nrockway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: True... but all we know (for now) is that Nashville is a much smaller market, that the Mayor and others have already said public funds for a new stadium will not be available and MLB wants an expansion team there because they could get about 2 billion dollars in expansion fees (according to Sports Illustrated) and would not favor relocating a team. Based on the above I don't see how that would qualify as being in Ishbia's best interest or a better opportunity. Time will tell. But both Portland and Salt Lake City have both said they (or rather those states) would pay $800M and 900M in public money, respectively, for a MLB ballpark. I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario, but why wouldn't MLB just let the Sox move to Nashville and then award the 2 expansion teams to Portland and SLC? The league gets their expansion fees and 2 nice taxpayer-funded stadiums. Again, I'm not saying a Sox move is imminent. But I could see it playing out this way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoctor Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 15 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: Time will tell how it will be received. They are taking a dangerous gamble in my opinion given that MLB wants expansion money above all. And it's clear how the state/local politicians feel given the cool reception JR got. Again we'll see what happens. my guess Is they’ll be told to get bent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 47 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: But both Portland and Salt Lake City have both said they (or rather those states) would pay $800M and 900M in public money, respectively, for a MLB ballpark. I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario, but why wouldn't MLB just let the Sox move to Nashville and then award the 2 expansion teams to Portland and SLC? The league gets their expansion fees and 2 nice taxpayer-funded stadiums. Again, I'm not saying a Sox move is imminent. But I could see it playing out this way. I agree with you. What I don't like about this new stadium situation is the complete silence from the White Sox owner/new owner, It seems to me that something is going on and we're not hearing anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 1 minute ago, WBWSF said: I agree with you. What I don't like about this new stadium situation is the complete silence from the White Sox owner/new owner, It seems to me that something is going on and we're not hearing anything about it. The new owner has very little say on anything right now, from all accounts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: I grew up in Chicago and have been a fan for 65 years, my earliest memories of the Sox start in 1960 when I was five years old. I find it hilarious and infuriating that this organization has been incompetent, dysfunctional and inept for so long that the possibility of moving is even being brought up. This isn't the mid 1970's remember when John Allyn was flat broke. I don't want them to move at all but given the situation if they try to extort another stadium and given the disastrous results on the field especially since 2007 then piss on them. With the garbage they have been putting out and the profits that JR has been making for a long time they don't deserve s^&* in my opinion. This organization has talked about moving literally since the 1960s. They were all but moved in the 80s too. Between the Milwaukee games, the story of Charlie Finley and the franchise swaps, and the St Pete Sox, this is nothing new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 53 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: But both Portland and Salt Lake City have both said they (or rather those states) would pay $800M and 900M in public money, respectively, for a MLB ballpark. I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario, but why wouldn't MLB just let the Sox move to Nashville and then award the 2 expansion teams to Portland and SLC? The league gets their expansion fees and 2 nice taxpayer-funded stadiums. Again, I'm not saying a Sox move is imminent. But I could see it playing out this way. Someone would pay 2 billion dollars to be Chicago's 2nd team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Someone would pay 2 billion dollars to be Chicago's 2nd team. Let's just hope that someone is Justin Ishbia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 4 minutes ago, fathom said: The new owner has very little say on anything right now, from all accounts I would think the new owner has alot to say about the new stadium. It appears as if he's going to have to pay for the new stadium not JR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) 9 hours ago, Green Line said: I have a friend of a friend on the ISFA, and he said in negotiations Ishiba is threatening a move to Nashville, not Reinsdorf. 8 hours ago, fathom said: Fantastic….ugh The only thing I’ve heard is that the chance they move to Nashville is more possible than anyone thinks But isn't it up to the Legislature and Governor to decide if public funds would be spent on a new stadium? Who are the Sox negotiating with? Edited October 2 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said: But both Portland and Salt Lake City have both said they (or rather those states) would pay $800M and 900M in public money, respectively, for a MLB ballpark. I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario, but why wouldn't MLB just let the Sox move to Nashville and then award the 2 expansion teams to Portland and SLC? The league gets their expansion fees and 2 nice taxpayer-funded stadiums. Again, I'm not saying a Sox move is imminent. But I could see it playing out this way. I live a few hours north of SLC and just my opinion they could not in any way, shape or form support a MLB team for 81 dates. Not a big enough population to draw from. Have been to Portland many times (Portland State is in the conference) and I'd say the same thing not enough people for 81 games. Basically you are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to jam a MLB team in there. Charlotte and Montreal are much better options in my opinion. 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.