Jump to content

Is “The 78” Dead? Or even more alive? Fire announce plans for SSS


soxfan18

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Harry Chappas said:

So if the Colts are only seeing game day revenue there is no issue with events shifting from Indy to NW Indiana to the Colts and the NFL.  

Lucas Oil lease is up in 2038.  Would they share the new stadium with the Bears...

 

They really won't.  They are two distinct markets.  People in The Region go to Chicago for events.  People in the Central third of Indiana go to Indy.  I know we are in "Indiana", but we aren't really that close, and share no real connects to the Indy market.  Every concert that goes through the big outdoor venues of Chicago (such as a Taylor Swift type at Solider Field) ends up at Lucas Oil a night or two later (or earlier).  Indy hits the NCAAs hard, and I don't think that would change either.  They host a Final Four regularly, and they also are home to the NCAA for basketball, so I doubt that would change.  Maybe Chicago/NWI hits the rotation of Final Four cities with a decent domed stadium, but they won't take it from Indy.

When it get to the point that Lucas Oil lease is up, they will either renegotiate and put money into upgrades, or they will build them another new stadium.  Indy won't let the Colts leave Indy.  Too much political power there too on the state level for it to happen.  And honestly, the Bears get a good deal up here, it means the Colts HAVE to get a good deal down there, because they will NOT allow them to flee to another market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Letting a profession sports team as popular as the Bears leave your state would be a colossal failure. 

Indiana officials would love nothing more than to poke Illinois in the eye by stealing the Bears from Illinois.  IMO, they'd be happy to back up a dump truck full of money to the McCaskeys to make it happen.   

I still think a deal gets done for Arlington Park, though.  The site is just too attractive to the Bears and I don't think money is the only factor in their decision.  But Indiana could definitely happen if IL officials keep saying they won't even consider a legislative package for the Bears.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other stadium news, the Royals have ruled out Overland Park, KS as a location for their new stadium.  With North Kansas City, MO already eliminated, it looks like downtown KC would be the only remaining viable option. 

I suppose they could remain at Kaufmann long-term, but based on everything the team has said, I don't see that happening.  

https://frontofficesports.com/royals-stadium-plans-hit-suburban-dead-end-push-back-downtown/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of room between 33rd and 39th for the White Sox and Bears. Instead of using SoFi/Sci Fi futuristic architecture as a design predicate, use classic Chicago to inform the new design...i.e., use a border like the colonnade from Soldier field and take design clues from the Museum campus as well as from the original Comiskey park. 

Think outside the box or your own box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

When it get to the point that Lucas Oil lease is up, they will either renegotiate and put money into upgrades, or they will build them another new stadium.  Indy won't let the Colts leave Indy.  Too much political power there too on the state level for it to happen.  And honestly, the Bears get a good deal up here, it means the Colts HAVE to get a good deal down there, because they will NOT allow them to flee to another market.

I wonder when the insanity of NFL stadiums "needing" to be replaced every 25-30 years is going to end?  The turnover seems to be much worse than in MLB where the only 1992 or later stadiums that were replaced were Turner Field and Globe Life Park....and they each had their own unique problems.  Otherwise, I can't think of an MLB stadium in the post-Camden era (which is now into its 34th year) where there's any hint of replacement.  Renovations, yes, but not outright abandonment. 

At least Arrowhead and Highmark are over 50 years old, but lots of other NFL teams are really pushing to replace their late 90s/early 00s stadiums. 

Edited by 77 Hitmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I wonder when the insanity of NFL stadiums "needing" to be replaced every 25-30 years is going to end?  The turnover seems to be much worse than in MLB where the only 1992 or later stadiums that were replaced were Turner Field and Globe Life Park....and they each had their own unique problems.  Otherwise, I can't think of an MLB stadium in the post-Camden era (which is now into its 34th year) where there's any hint of replacement.  Renovations, yes, but not outright abandonment. 

At least Arrowhead and Highmark are over 50 years old, but lots of other NFL teams are really pushing to replace their late 90s/early 00s stadiums. 

What's the old saying?  "Because they can"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2026 at 11:01 AM, Harry Chappas said:

So if the Colts are only seeing game day revenue there is no issue with events shifting from Indy to NW Indiana to the Colts and the NFL.  

Lucas Oil lease is up in 2038.  Would they share the new stadium with the Bears...

 

I hope this was a joke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

I wonder where the down on their luck Reinsdorfs, who need the state to build them another baseball park, are coming up with their share of the $7 billion 1901 project cost.

Probably from the Bulls revenue. He's always said that the family should sell the Sox shares and keep the Bulls as with the NBA cap and revenue its a much better environment and investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

Probably from the Bulls revenue. He's always said that the family should sell the Sox shares and keep the Bulls as with the NBA cap and revenue its a much better environment and investment.

That would crazy.  Jerry isn't going to pay for a new stadium. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

Probably from the Bulls revenue. He's always said that the family should sell the Sox shares and keep the Bulls as with the NBA cap and revenue its a much better environment and investment.

JR and the front office has consistently said the revenue from one entity will not be used towards the other team that they own. Just FYI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is WTTW's interview with Indiana state rep Earl Harris about the stadium bill they're pushing through.  It passed the IN Senate 46-2.  Off to the IN House next, but with such a lopsided passage in the Senate, I can't imagine there'd be problems getting this through their House.

https://news.wttw.com/2026/02/04/indiana-lawmakers-continue-pushing-bears-stadium-let-s-get-it-moving

If IL officials want to keep thumbing their noses at the Bears, a deal between the team and Indiana could happen fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2026 at 10:19 AM, southsider2k5 said:

That would crazy.  Jerry isn't going to pay for a new stadium. 

I meant that was where the money for the 1901 project was coming from. It is in cooperation with the Wirtz family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Here is WTTW's interview with Indiana state rep Earl Harris about the stadium bill they're pushing through.  It passed the IN Senate 46-2.  Off to the IN House next, but with such a lopsided passage in the Senate, I can't imagine there'd be problems getting this through their House.

https://news.wttw.com/2026/02/04/indiana-lawmakers-continue-pushing-bears-stadium-let-s-get-it-moving

If IL officials want to keep thumbing their noses at the Bears, a deal between the team and Indiana could happen fast.

There is zero chance it doesn't pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2026 at 10:44 AM, Lip Man 1 said:

JR and the front office has consistently said the revenue from one entity will not be used towards the other team that they own. Just FYI.

Yes, that usbwhy the revenue from the Bulls would used to support the projects around the Unired Center.

They shouldn't blend the revenues from one to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I meant that was where the money for the 1901 project was coming from. It is in cooperation with the Wirtz family.

The Wirtz are at least in a cash based business,  but I sure with Jerry it was financed and OPM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody told me the Bears would pay $50 million dollars a year on the lease in Indiana for 35  years. That would still be alot cheaper than building a stadium in Arlington Heights. They would pay no property taxes in Indiana and  anywhere from $100 to $200 million dollars a year in property taxes  in Arlington Heights. Unless something changes it looks to me like Indiana will get the Bears. They're not going to pay those high property taxes in Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Somebody told me the Bears would pay $50 million dollars a year on the lease in Indiana for 35  years. That would still be alot cheaper than building a stadium in Arlington Heights. They would pay no property taxes in Indiana and  anywhere from $100 to $200 million dollars a year in property taxes  in Arlington Heights. Unless something changes it looks to me like Indiana will get the Bears. They're not going to pay those high property taxes in Illinois.

The mayor of Arlington Heights was on the radio discussing the issue. His comment was the only sticking point in Illinois is the property tax. The examples he used were Sofi in LA lays 8.5 million in taxes. The united center pays 6 million. When the race track in Arlington was active they paid 3 millions. The state currently charges the bears for the empty lot 16 million. The bears are afraid of what the state will charge for the stadium and surrounding area once it is built up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Somebody told me the Bears would pay $50 million dollars a year on the lease in Indiana for 35  years. That would still be alot cheaper than building a stadium in Arlington Heights. They would pay no property taxes in Indiana and  anywhere from $100 to $200 million dollars a year in property taxes  in Arlington Heights. Unless something changes it looks to me like Indiana will get the Bears. They're not going to pay those high property taxes in Illinois.

Then they should leave and live happily ever after. They'll still be the Chicago Bears and fans in the Chicago area still will make the trip to see them play. 

It is what it is.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

Yep.  Not really news that Indiana will bend over backwards to make itself attractive enough to lure a team there.  Undesirable places tend to have to do that.

Yeah, which is why Indiana's population is falling, and Chicago's is rising...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Then they should leave and live happily ever after. They'll still be the Chicago Bears and fans in the Chicago area still will make the trip to see them play. 

It is what it is.

Exactly. After all the blustering is over, Bears fans will sell out the new Indiana stadium and life will go on. The New York Giants and New York Jets have played in New Jersey for decades and their fans got over it a long time ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

The mayor of Arlington Heights was on the radio discussing the issue. His comment was the only sticking point in Illinois is the property tax. The examples he used were Sofi in LA lays 8.5 million in taxes. The united center pays 6 million. When the race track in Arlington was active they paid 3 millions. The state currently charges the bears for the empty lot 16 million. The bears are afraid of what the state will charge for the stadium and surrounding area once it is built up.

I think the pressure has shifted and is now on IL officials to get a deal done or at least to demonstrate that the Bears' request is completely unreasonable.   The highest any stadium pays in taxes as far as I know is SoFi stadium.  If IL is holding out to stick the Bears with a $100M property tax bill, they'll end up with nothing.   They aren't going to get $100M in taxes on that property when they carve it up to build a bunch of Costcos, car washes, apartment complexes, etc.

It's an election year and there will be a lot of egg on people's faces - including the Governor - if the Bears sign a deal to move to Indiana after they offered to pay $2B for the stadium itself here. The Hoosier State will have a field day saying it's another example of people fleeing IL's high taxes....and that's why IN politicians from both sides of the aisle are eager to pass this quickly.    

Edited by 77 Hitmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...