Ishbia wants to make the right moves but as a billionaire from Michigan he might benefit from what South side Sox fans have to say.

Never forget, Reinsdorf and Einhorn ignored any ideas for a new stadium, including Phillip Bess' Armor Square park. I would still be down with locating the stadium where the Armor field house is on 33rd across from Cork & Kerry.

1 hour ago, tray said:

Ishbia wants to make the right moves but as a billionaire from Michigan he might benefit from what South side Sox fans have to say.

Never forget, Reinsdorf and Einhorn ignored any ideas for a new stadium, including Phillip Bess' Armor Square park. I would still be down with locating the stadium where the Armor field house is on 33rd across from Cork & Kerry.

They have listened to Suns and Spartans fans a whole heckuva lot more than Jerry and Eddie ever listened to Sox fans.

JR would probably rather die than give in to something the fans want more than he does.

10 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Honestly we don't KNOW much about new ownership. We know that Ishbias opened a money spigot in Phoenix and at Michigan State. We know that they are seemingly investing billions in the pre-planning to make this park possible, and to make this area an earnings center independent of the stadiums. So far my educated guess would be that Ishbia spares no expense towards a new stadium, but we have no idea WHAT a world class stadium looks like in Ishbias eyes. He could envision something more like Jerry Jones Cowboys Stadium as a model. Maybe he wants to endear himself to Chicago with an Old Comiskey replica. Maybe none of these are accurate.

TLDR; We have no idea what Ishbia wants, why waste time nitpicking some irrelevant work?

The proposal published in Chicago Magazine looked more like a labor of love with no illusions that everything they imagined would end up in a new Sox Park. See the last 2 sentences in the Twitter post shared above: "It was a pleasure. We hope it makes a dent in the design."

I'm very eager to see renderings of what Ishbia has planned for a ballpark and stadium district for the entire Amtrak site and how that would blend in the Fire stadium and whatever is built on the south half of the 78. But it might be at least a year before we see anything official like that since they're looking 8-10 years out for a ballpark.

Between the Phoenix Suns & Mercury and now the Sox, the Ishbias probably will have spent close to $6B for those franchises. I can't imagine they'd then suddenly get frugal when it comes to a stadium development for the Sox. I agree that he's likely to spare no expense to get the next ballpark and its surroundings right.

As far as a retractable roof goes. Who knows? Maybe they'll invest in that because, though it's very expensive, they can then use the facility year round for concerts and other events. But a retractable roof would either block the view of the skyline or block the view of the river even if it opens up to one of those views. I don't think it can totally open up to both. I've been to the stadium in Arizona and it has a warehouse feel to it in a way. I've heard people make the same complaints about the new Rangers stadium. That's a risk if the new Sox stadium also has a roof.

Edited Saturday at 06:20 PM5 days by 77 Hitmen

Detailed story in the Tribune today breaking down the bears proposals and bringing up to date what is being offered or was offered with other stadiums in the area.

"Another lesson in taxpayer costs has come from the home of the Chicago White Sox baseball team, Rate Field. After the team threatened to move out of state, that stadium cost about $137 million to build when it opened in 1991. But after people were alarmed by the height of the upper deck, it cost another $118 million in renovations in the 2000s — all of it paid by taxpayers.

The public still owes another $45 million for the ball field — even as the White Sox are looking to build a new stadium again on a better site, closer to downtown."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/05/02/ghosts-of-stadiums-past-haunt-chicago-bears-quest-for-a-new-stadium-deal/

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Detailed story in the Tribune today breaking down the bears proposals and bringing up to date what is being offered or was offered with other stadiums in the area.

"Another lesson in taxpayer costs has come from the home of the Chicago White Sox baseball team, Rate Field. After the team threatened to move out of state, that stadium cost about $137 million to build when it opened in 1991. But after people were alarmed by the height of the upper deck, it cost another $118 million in renovations in the 2000s — all of it paid by taxpayers.

The public still owes another $45 million for the ball field — even as the White Sox are looking to build a new stadium again on a better site, closer to downtown."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/05/02/ghosts-of-stadiums-past-haunt-chicago-bears-quest-for-a-new-stadium-deal/

As most Sox fan know, the New Comiskey renovations were paid for by selling the naming rights to the stadium. That's how "Comiskey Park" became "US Cellular Field". So I question the veracity of the statement that "all of it" was paid by the taxpayers.

Also, while it's true that there's still a $45M debt on Sox Park, that'll likely be paid off by the time Ishbia moves the Sox to a new stadium. That amount is a fraction of what is still owed for Soldier Field.

What's really outrageous about the current ballpark, which is not mentioned in the article, is the lease terms which incentivizes low attendance numbers for Jerry Reinsdorf.

2 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

As most Sox fan know, the New Comiskey renovations were paid for by selling the naming rights to the stadium. That's how "Comiskey Park" became "US Cellular Field". So I question the veracity of the statement that "all of it" was paid by the taxpayers.

Also, while it's true that there's still a $45M debt on Sox Park, that'll likely be paid off by the time Ishbia moves the Sox to a new stadium. That amount is a fraction of what is still owed for Soldier Field.

What's really outrageous about the current ballpark, which is not mentioned in the article, is the lease terms which incentivizes low attendance numbers for Jerry Reinsdorf.

He gets a better tax rate with low attendance right? What a clause.

3 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

He gets a better tax rate with low attendance right? What a clause.

I thought it was that he doesn't have to pay as much for upkeep AND the state has to 'purchase' tickets to bring the number for the year up to minimum numbers before they would get a bigger cut.

It's an incredible deal for JR and I can't believe the person who negotiated it for the state wasn't fired.

3 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I thought it was that he doesn't have to pay as much for upkeep AND the state has to 'purchase' tickets to bring the number for the year up to minimum numbers before they would get a bigger cut.

It's an incredible deal for JR and I can't believe the person who negotiated it for the state wasn't fired.

Pretty sure the first part change with the 2003 agreement.

The ISFA (owned by us as IL taxpayers) owns the Rate including acres of surrounding property. Not sure why they are not negotiating a favorable lease extension to keep the Sox in Bridgeport or in a new stadium at Armor Park....or maybe they have been but those negotiations have been kept private. Certainly the mere threat to move to a new location would greatly impact any negotiations between the White Sox and the ISFA.

14 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

He gets a better tax rate with low attendance right? What a clause.

Direct subsidy from State if tickets sold go under 800,000...or maybe it was renegotiated up to to 1.2 million?

It hasn't ever happened.

Then I think just once they paid a tax on selling TOO many tickets....which would have happened in the 2006-2012 time period under KW and certainly not recently.

1.93 million

Under the current agreement with the Illinois Sports Authority, the White Sox must pay a fee on each ticket sold over 1.93 million in paid attendance, a total the White Sox have not reached for 13 consecutive seasons (not counting the COVID-shortened 2020 campaign.)

3 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Direct subsidy from State if tickets sold go under 800,000...or maybe it was renegotiated up to to 1.2 million?

It hasn't ever happened.

Then I think just once they paid a tax on selling TOO many tickets....which would have happened in the 2006-2012 time period under KW and certainly not recently.

1.93 million

Under the current agreement with the Illinois Sports Authority, the White Sox must pay a fee on each ticket sold over 1.93 million in paid attendance, a total the White Sox have not reached for 13 consecutive seasons (not counting the COVID-shortened 2020 campaign.)

The Sox drew 2,009,000 in 2022.

Edited Sunday at 01:58 PM5 days by The Mighty Mite

1 hour ago, The Mighty Mite said:

The Sox drew 2,009,000 in 2022.

79000 tickets

but maybe those were comped/giveaways to sponsors or schools, etc.

11 hours ago, tray said:

The ISFA (owned by us as IL taxpayers) owns the Rate including acres of surrounding property. Not sure why they are not negotiating a favorable lease extension to keep the Sox in Bridgeport or in a new stadium at Armor Park....or maybe they have been but those negotiations have been kept private. Certainly the mere threat to move to a new location would greatly impact any negotiations between the White Sox and the ISFA.

Because they don’t want to be in Bridgeport.

Hope that helps.

25 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Because they don’t want to be in Bridgeport.

Hope that helps.

Yep. They don't want to stay in the current ballpark long-term, either. The only lease extension would be for a few years to bridge the gap between the end of the current lease and when a new ballpark gets built since that apparently is 8-10 years down the road in Ishbia's plans for the Amtrak land redevelopment.

Any new Sox ballpark, no matter where it's built, won't be owned by ISFA because we the IL taxpayers will NOT support paying for another ballpark.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Because they don’t want to be in Bridgeport.

Hope that helps.

That's exactly right. Even though the area is safer than it's ever been. The easiest stadium for the masses to get to in the city, JR can't admit the reason people dont show up is his fault. Nope, it's the neighborhood.

Edited Sunday at 05:01 PM4 days by Dick Allen

6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

That's exactly right. Even though the area is safer than it's ever been. The easiest stadium for the masses to get to in the city, JR can't admit the reason people dont show up is his fault. Nope, it's the neighborhood.

I dont think Jerry even cares if people show up.

6 hours ago, Green Line said:

I dont think Jerry even cares if people show up.

Not if it means actually spending his own money

6 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

That's exactly right. Even though the area is safer than it's ever been. The easiest stadium for the masses to get to in the city, JR can't admit the reason people dont show up is his fault. Nope, it's the neighborhood.

100% False. Bridgeport has been gentrified to the East where most residential is located. The parking areas are secured and safe. There would be safety concerns for fans if they walked around the South Loop at night. There are no "safe" areas downtown, even down the mag mile/ Water Tower shopping area.

Most of those who complain about the stadium don't go to many games now and probably never will. It is quite possible that relocating Sox Park will become inconvenient for South suburban Sox fans and end up reducing attendance.

Sometimes choosing the easiest most sensible alternative is the hardest thing to do. The last rendering that I believe was reportedly connected to Ishbia and his PIE firm did not appear to have much thought behind it. (i.e., a retro stadium next to the modern Fire stadium design, walking across elevated RR bridge to get to the stadium, or relocating numerous RR tracks only to be located next to the BNSF rail bone yard.

The limited hangout road, so to speak, is for the White Sox and JR to sign a lease extension and kick the stadium relocation matter down the road for 5 or 10 years. Let's see how the "78" and Fire stadium works out during that time period.

3 minutes ago, tray said:

100% False. Bridgeport has been gentrified to the East where most residential is located. The parking areas are secured and safe. There would be safety concerns for fans if they walked around the South Loop at night. There are no "safe" areas downtown, even down the mag mile/ Water Tower shopping area.

Most of those who complain about the stadium don't go to many games now and probably never will. It is quite possible that relocating Sox Park will become inconvenient for South suburban Sox fans and end up reducing attendance.

Sometimes choosing the easiest most sensible alternative is the hardest thing to do. The last rendering that I believe was reportedly connected to Ishbia and his PIE firm did not appear to have much thought behind it. (i.e., a retro stadium next to the modern Fire stadium design, walking across elevated RR bridge to get to the stadium, or relocating numerous RR tracks only to be located next to the BNSF rail bone yard.

The limited hangout road, so to speak, is for the White Sox and JR to sign a lease extension and kick the stadium relocation matter down the road for 5 or 10 years. Let's see how the "78" and Fire stadium works out during that time period.

It's two miles. Why are you acting like they are moving to Egypt? I won't even get into the veiled tropes.

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's two miles. Why are you acting like they are moving to Egypt? I won't even get into the veiled tropes.

"Veiled trope." Make me laugh 😂laugh. You mean trying to disabuse a poster of the notion that Rate field is in an unsafe neighborhood or the suggestion that the South Loop is more "safe?"

"Even though the area is safer than it's ever been. The easiest stadium for the masses to get to in the city, JR can't admit the reason people don't show up is his fault. Nope, it's the neighborhood."

Edited Monday at 03:29 AM4 days by tray

where is there a more boring surrounnding baseball neighborhood in all of MLB?

KC Arrowhead parking lots will be gone

Oakland gone

TB will be gone

Billionaires don't do boring.

Not in thair DNA.

35th and Shields will fade into history books as a foot note to ownership greed and abusing public largesse

Illinois won't be held hostage twice

Edited Monday at 03:34 AM4 days by caulfield12

6 hours ago, tray said:

"Veiled trope." Make me laugh 😂laugh. You mean trying to disabuse a poster of the notion that Rate field is in an unsafe neighborhood or the suggestion that the South Loop is more "safe?"

"Even though the area is safer than it's ever been. The easiest stadium for the masses to get to in the city, JR can't admit the reason people don't show up is his fault. Nope, it's the neighborhood."

I'm lost, I think Dick Allen agrees with you, yet you're getting all bent out of shape because you're too dense to interpret his words.

"Nope, it's the neighborhood" was sarcasm (the reason people don't go is Jerry/team sucks).

Edited Monday at 09:51 AM4 days by soxfan18

2 hours ago, soxfan18 said:

I'm lost, I think Dick Allen agrees with you, yet you're getting all bent out of shape because you're too dense to interpret his words.

"Nope, it's the neighborhood" was sarcasm (the reason people don't go is Jerry/team sucks).

Exactly.

10 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

where is there a more boring surrounnding baseball neighborhood in all of MLB?

KC Arrowhead parking lots will be gone

Oakland gone

TB will be gone

Billionaires don't do boring.

Not in thair DNA.

35th and Shields will fade into history books as a foot note to ownership greed and abusing public largesse

Illinois won't be held hostage twice

Milwaukee, LA and Anaheim? Though, in Anaheim the Ducks are having a massive entertainment district built that'll be near Angel Stadium.

The Dodgers can get away with it because they're the Dodgers. The White Sox can't just ride on the coattails of their brand's immense star power like the Dodgers can.

6 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Milwaukee, LA and Anaheim? Though, in Anaheim the Ducks are having a massive entertainment district built that'll be near Angel Stadium.

The Dodgers can get away with it because they're the Dodgers. The White Sox can't just ride on the coattails of their brand's immense star power like the Dodgers can.

And Jerry has already started the same process on the west side near the UC. This is OBVIOUSLY something they want, and something they feel won't work in Bridgeport, for whatever reason. It is also hard to argue with the fact that they have been there for 125 years, and nothing is currently there to any extent around the park.

And the whole, "walk five blocks and find this bar" thing isn't what I am talking about.

The most successful model is of a sports arena as an anchor tenant in a mall of entertainment. With the White Sox dead last in MLB in revenue, of course they are looking at ways to expand that number appreciably in the future.