9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I was under the impression that was his brother.  I do expect there will be more spending for sure, I just don't know that we are looking at a Stearns situation either.

Yes his brother, but always assumed they have similar philosophies

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I was under the impression that was his brother.  I do expect there will be more spending for sure, I just don't know that we are looking at a Stearns situation either.

Justin is a minority owner of the Suns with brother Mat being majority owner.  I believe brother Mat is expected to be a minority owner of the White Sox.  In other words, the reverse of the Suns ownership.  I'm not sure how that works as far as using their combined fortunes to operate the team and how that currently works in Phoenix.  

Just like the 2025 Sox were almost certainly going to be an improvement over the 121 loss team, the Sox under the Ishbias are almost certainly going to be bigger spenders that the Sox under JR - not just on major league payroll, but on the organization as a whole.  In other words, it's a very low bar to clear for the incoming ownership.

In the end though, if the Sox are to become consistent top-tier, big-market spenders, the new owners - even if they're billionaires - will want to improve revenue streams for the franchise.  That's why Justin Ishbia is telling the Pope about his intentions for a new stadium and why he'll likely pay for most of it privately if that's what it takes to get one built.  

Edited November 20, 2025Nov 20 by 77 Hitmen

It’s kinda wild that our owners are telling the pope of future white sox plans, lmao.  I’m not a religious fella but I understand the meaning and importance of the pope and having one with a direct connection to Chicago is crazy, and to see the overall reaction to him has been equally as crazy.  

14 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

We will see when he is the guy writing the checks.  It is an easy thing to say now.

I see your point but he is businessman not some guy spouting off on a fan forum.  He knows the risk reward of what he is saying.  My guess is he is more aggressive than Ricketts and there is something in the works either renovating New Comiskey or moving somewhere in the Loop area.  If the Bears pay off the bonds a 40K seat venue to replace Soldier Field would be ideal.  Some form of Chicago leadership to replace Soldier Field with something that could compete with the Bears venue in Arlington Heights while the Sox are main tenant.

35 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

I see your point but he is businessman not some guy spouting off on a fan forum.  He knows the risk reward of what he is saying.  My guess is he is more aggressive than Ricketts and there is something in the works either renovating New Comiskey or moving somewhere in the Loop area.  If the Bears pay off the bonds a 40K seat venue to replace Soldier Field would be ideal.  Some form of Chicago leadership to replace Soldier Field with something that could compete with the Bears venue in Arlington Heights while the Sox are main tenant.

There is no way they are gonna put a Sox stadium on the soldier field site.   Bonds or no bonds.  And honestly they need to just concentrate on it being a historical building/site, have some international soccer games there, have their high school football games and playoffs there, and college football.  Chicago Park district can f*** off, they wanted to control it all, now they can.  I don’t want the Sox to be involved in that at all

2 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

I see your point but he is businessman not some guy spouting off on a fan forum.  He knows the risk reward of what he is saying.  My guess is he is more aggressive than Ricketts and there is something in the works either renovating New Comiskey or moving somewhere in the Loop area.  If the Bears pay off the bonds a 40K seat venue to replace Soldier Field would be ideal.  Some form of Chicago leadership to replace Soldier Field with something that could compete with the Bears venue in Arlington Heights while the Sox are main tenant.

Soldier Field is in an AWFUL location. It can't be overstated how bad the experience is getting in and out of there. 

Yeah, I can't see anything else bigger ever being done on that site.  If anything they tear down the Bears monstrosity and restore it to it's historic self.

Hard to really say someone's spending tendencies in the NBA since it's a capped league. There's some stuff on the fringe (how nice is the team plane, etc.) and every now and then a team is good enough that owner has to make tough decisions about staying above the apron. But the aggressive moves after Mat Ishbia took over the Suns just looked like management being aggressive and not ownership shelling out money. Had it worked out better, we might have learned about Ishbia's tolerance for paying cap penalties.

2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

There is no way they are gonna put a Sox stadium on the soldier field site.   Bonds or no bonds.  And honestly they need to just concentrate on it being a historical building/site, have some international soccer games there, have their high school football games and playoffs there, and college football.  Chicago Park district can f*** off, they wanted to control it all, now they can.  I don’t want the Sox to be involved in that at all

I don't think they would. Ishbia is going to want to own the new stadium. Working with the Friends of the Park is nothing but a disaster.

29 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

Soldier Field is in an AWFUL location. It can't be overstated how bad the experience is getting in and out of there. 

Bingo.  That'd be a terrible location for a Sox stadium.   I'm not sure why it keeps getting suggested as a new Sox home.  It would be a traffic nightmare and it's a 20 minute walk to the nearest L stop.  They'd also need to put at least a retractable roof on the thing with those ice-cold winds blowing right off the lake in the early part of the season.  That could add a few hundred million to the price of the structure.  Not much night life around it and the Friends of the Park would never allow an entertainment district to be built next to it either. 

They'd be much better off staying at 35th & Shields than moving to the Soldier Field site.  If Ishbia is really going to bankroll a new stadium, it's either going to be at the 78 or on the site of Old Comiskey Park with an entertainment district around it.  

If he's really going to privately finance a new stadium, I'd have to think the 78 site would be his first choice.  But we'll see, it's not my money.

12 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Bingo.  That'd be a terrible location for a Sox stadium.   I'm not sure why it keeps getting suggested as a new Sox home.  It would be a traffic nightmare and it's a 20 minute walk to the nearest L stop.  They'd also need to put at least a retractable roof on the thing with those ice-cold winds blowing right off the lake in the early part of the season.  That could add a few hundred million to the price of the structure.  Not much night life around it and the Friends of the Park would never allow an entertainment district to be built next to it either. 

They'd be much better off staying at 35th & Shields than moving to the Soldier Field site.  If Ishbia is really going to bankroll a new stadium, it's either going to be at the 78 or on the site of Old Comiskey Park with an entertainment district around it.  

If he's really going to privately finance a new stadium, I'd have to think the 78 site would be his first choice.  But we'll see, it's not my money.

100% agree here.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/11/20/chicago-bears-poll-stadium/

20 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Actually his brother is the majority owner of the Suns but he is involved. And yes, they made the moves to get guys like Beal and Durant to go along with Booker.

It didn't work out but they at least tried

At least they tried. Ok. I’m sure if that happened here fans would say “at least they tried.”

3 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

At least they tried. Ok. I’m sure if that happened here fans would say “at least they tried.”

Considering JR doesn't even do that any more, realistically trying to win would be met with open arms by the fan base in my opinion.  It's not like the Suns were signing stiffs and has-been's.

It simply didn't work out. 

7 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

There is no way they are gonna put a Sox stadium on the soldier field site.   Bonds or no bonds.  And honestly they need to just concentrate on it being a historical building/site, have some international soccer games there, have their high school football games and playoffs there, and college football.  Chicago Park district can f*** off, they wanted to control it all, now they can.  I don’t want the Sox to be involved in that at all

Its a very interesting notion puting the Sox on the site of Soldier Field, but it's very cold and windy right on the lakeshore. Didn't the indians play on the shore of lake Erie in Memorial Stadium? It was not a popular spot.

1 hour ago, soxrwhite said:

Its a very interesting notion puting the Sox on the site of Soldier Field, but it's very cold and windy right on the lakeshore. Didn't the indians play on the shore of lake Erie in Memorial Stadium? It was not a popular spot.

8 to 10 times a season is fine to go to Soldier Field. The Sox season ticket base would get hammered harder than 121 loss seasons if they played 81 games there.

2 hours ago, soxrwhite said:

Its a very interesting notion puting the Sox on the site of Soldier Field, but it's very cold and windy right on the lakeshore. Didn't the indians play on the shore of lake Erie in Memorial Stadium? It was not a popular spot.

Candlestick Park as well. 

The Mistake by the Lake that CLE stadium was universally referred to... 

On 11/20/2025 at 11:11 AM, southsider2k5 said:

100% agree here.

I seriously can't think of any viable options for the Sox other than the current site or the 78.  Anything else would be a step down from 35th & Shields. The Soldier Field and Michael Reese sites are NOT better locations than the current site.

I know some fans will insist that they should move to the suburbs - Arlington Park (w/ the Bears) or somewhere SW like Tinley Park, but I really don't see that as a successful option even if it would be more convenient for a segment of the fan base.  I will be shocked if Ishbia decides to pour $1B into a stadium way out in the suburbs.

 

A lot of people in the know don't think 2 stadiums on the 78 is feasable from a space perspective, especially with all the add ons requred for a new place today.

25 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I seriously can't think of any viable options for the Sox other than the current site or the 78.  Anything else would be a step down from 35th & Shields. The Soldier Field and Michael Reese sites are NOT better locations than the current site.

I know some fans will insist that they should move to the suburbs - Arlington Park (w/ the Bears) or somewhere SW like Tinley Park, but I really don't see that as a successful option even if it would be more convenient for a segment of the fan base.  I will be shocked if Ishbia decides to pour $1B into a stadium way out in the suburbs.

 

Rosemont would be the only suburb where a new stadium would do well.

6 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Rosemont would be the only suburb where a new stadium would do well.

Why

6 hours ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Why

Because fans want to go to an MLB stadium where loud jets fly overhead every few minutes?

Edited November 22, 2025Nov 22 by 77 Hitmen

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

Rosemont would be the only suburb where a new stadium would do well.

The is the complete opposite area of the White Sox fan base.

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

A lot of people in the know don't think 2 stadiums on the 78 is feasable from a space perspective, especially with all the add ons requred for a new place today.

Who are the people in the know?  City officials?  Land developers? 

I'm not questioning your info, but I'm curious because the Sox sure seem to be still talking as if they still have aspirations for a stadium at the 78.  I think it was Brooks Boyer who said so in a press release this summer. The soccer stadium will take up about 10 acres and some other MLB parks take up about 15 acres.  Of course, as you said, there are other things that need to go around such facilities, so it's not as simple as adding up acreage until you get to 62 (the total acres at the 78 site).   

Edited November 21, 2025Nov 21 by 77 Hitmen

29 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Who are the people in the know?  City officials?  Land developers? 

I'm not questioning your info, but I'm curious because the Sox sure seem to be still talking as if they still have aspirations for a stadium at the 78.  I think it was Brooks Boyer who said so in a press release this summer. The soccer stadium will take up about 10 acres and some other MLB parks take up about 15 acres.  Of course, as you said, there are other things that need to go around such facilities, so it's not as simple as adding up acreage until you get to 62 (the total acres at the 78 site).   

I've seen 2 developers, a politician, and Our Chuck just mentioned it the other day, but said he was then told it could work.