Jump to content

Ishbia taking control by 2029?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, tray said:

Hopefully, anyone can see that there are issues of transparency when PE money comes in ...just like the nebulous 5 year Ishbia option presents.   Ask yourself some questions about how this option was structured. What has been Ishbias role in 2025, and what will it be in 2026, 2027, 2028 ? Will Ishbia even exercise the option he has in 2029? It really is an option correct? Does he have any role in negotiating a new Lease with the ISFA beyond his voice at Board meetings as a minority shareholder?

My man, I’m a fan of a sports team. The only question I’m really asking is when will they be good again?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snopek said:

My man, I’m a fan of a sports team. The only question I’m really asking is when will they be good again?

Why won't they spend big being the only big market team in their division?

According to tray, we're just supposed to be happy we have a team, regardless of how shitty the organization has been lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Wait, is this all because 2 private entities had private negotiations, and came together on a private agreement?  

Wild.

As usual your responses are reflexive and often wrong or in this case, promulgating a half-truth. Reconsider your comment knowing that the ISFA that owns Rate field and the surrounding real estate, is not a private entity. Also, as you know, the WSox need to decide whether or not they will sign a  new lease in 2009 with the State agency. Further, if the WSox decide to seek TIF funding for a new stadium anywhere, that involves tax payer money. I am sure you won't apologize, but anyway, proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Why won't they spend big being the only big market team in their division?

According to tray, we're just supposed to be happy we have a team, regardless of how shitty the organization has been lol

I never said any such thing, but OK, proceed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tray said:

As usual your responses are reflexive and often wrong or in this case, promulgating a half-truth. Reconsider your comment knowing that the ISFA that owns Rate field and the surrounding real estate, is not a private entity. Also, as you know, the WSox need to decide whether or not they will sign a  new lease in 2009 with the State agency. Further, if the WSox decide to seek TIF funding for a new stadium anywhere, that involves tax payer money. I am sure you won't apologize, but anyway, proceed.

The ISFA has zero to do with ownership transfers.  I know you are smarter than that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

I am a GREAT googler tyvm

 

tell me tray, are Sox fans supposed to have a seat at the table for this negotiation?   Are we to be privy to the deal?  Is this common with other organizations?  Seems like you believe that this “behind closed doors negotiation” is nefarious and because you weren’t called to approve it, it’s now to be doubted.  Jerry made this deal, no?  
 

maybe you should be mad at him 

I am Kyle. Read the post you are responding to. Reinsdorf was selfish and wrong for not just selling the team and walking away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The ISFA has zero to do with ownership transfers.  I know you are smarter than that.

OF COURSE they do, but you are raising a different issue. OF course the ISFA / IL and Chgo taxpayers have a vested interest in the Lease and any possible plans concerning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tray said:

OF COURSE they do, but you are raising a different issue. OF course the ISFA / IL and Chgo taxpayers have a vested interest in the Lease and any possible plans concerning it.

Actually you went from ranting about the White Sox future ownership and ownership structure back to the lease when you got challenged with the absurdity of your arguments.

I think you missed that if the new owner pays for a new stadium, we don't need to worry about the ISFA anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2025 at 1:16 PM, southsider2k5 said:

Actually you went from ranting about the White Sox future ownership and ownership structure back to the lease when you got challenged with the absurdity of your arguments.

I think you missed that if the new owner pays for a new stadium, we don't need to worry about the ISFA anyway.

LOL. You should go back to school and learn a few things, including how to engage in a respectful dialogue with others.

YOU don't need to worry about the ISFA if that entity, owned by Illinois taxpayers, no longer obtains income from the Rate and the WSox and has to demolish it or sell it for scrap? Are you a fool.  Just stop with your anger and reflexive posts filled with unwarranted personal attacks and anger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tray said:

LOL. You should go back to school and learn a few things, including how to engage in a respectful dialogue with others.

YOU don't need to worry about the ISFA if that entity, owned by Illinois taxpayers, no longer obtains income from the Rate and the WSox and has to demolish it or sell it for scrap? Are you a fool.  Just stop with your anger and reflexive posts filled with unwarranted personal attacks and anger. 

Drop the tropes.  You have lost your mind for months now on anyone who isn't Pro-JR and/or Pro-35th.  If you want respectful and not angry/reflexive dialogue, start it your damned self.  This tone is entirely set by you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2025 at 5:15 PM, Dick Allen said:

You just gave a lecture stating you don’t lecture.

If that's the case we are all lecturing if giving our opinions is a lecture. Nothing more worthless than opinions critiquing someone else stance just for having that stance without any valid reasons about why you disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vasil bonehead balk. 

Pretty apparent a pick off play was on with men on 1st and 2nd. So Vasil steps off the rubber and fakes a throw to 1st which is an automatic balk. If he had done the same thing towards 2nd base where Montgomery was sneaking in behind the runner it wouldn't have been a balk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This isn't stadium related, so I decided to post it here.   I found this encouraging from the Greenberg article about Ishbia's meeting with the Pope:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6820934/2025/11/19/pope-leo-justin-ishbia-white-sox-invite/

“I have met with, except for one, every Major League Baseball owner,” he said, declining to name the lone holdout. “Before I was fortunate enough to have this deal with Jerry come together, one of my goals — and I’m a goals nerd — in calendar year ’23 and calendar year ’24 was to, either in person or via Zoom, meet with every Major League Baseball owner just so I could learn and get to know them a little bit over a period of time. And so, I accomplished that goal, except for one. Yeah, I’m in listening mode.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

This isn't stadium related, so I decided to post it here.   I found this encouraging from the Greenberg article about Ishbia's meeting with the Pope:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6820934/2025/11/19/pope-leo-justin-ishbia-white-sox-invite/

“I have met with, except for one, every Major League Baseball owner,” he said, declining to name the lone holdout. “Before I was fortunate enough to have this deal with Jerry come together, one of my goals — and I’m a goals nerd — in calendar year ’23 and calendar year ’24 was to, either in person or via Zoom, meet with every Major League Baseball owner just so I could learn and get to know them a little bit over a period of time. And so, I accomplished that goal, except for one. Yeah, I’m in listening mode.”

That steward of the franchise and not the owner is the same BS Reinsdorf was spewing when he first got the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

That steward of the franchise and not the owner is the same BS Reinsdorf was spewing when he first got the team.

I'd be willing to wager the difference between the two and how they will approach ownership, winning and making money will be completely different.

And there were "warning signs" about JR and EE going back to the beginning when he and Einhorn bought the club.

The "insult" to the Veeck family at the first press conference and this "Jerry Reinsdorf was a “source of intrigue” and in the future could become a “source of controversy.” –From a story by reporter Linda Kay, Chicago Tribune January 30, 1981.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

This isn't stadium related, so I decided to post it here.   I found this encouraging from the Greenberg article about Ishbia's meeting with the Pope:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6820934/2025/11/19/pope-leo-justin-ishbia-white-sox-invite/

“I have met with, except for one, every Major League Baseball owner,” he said, declining to name the lone holdout. “Before I was fortunate enough to have this deal with Jerry come together, one of my goals — and I’m a goals nerd — in calendar year ’23 and calendar year ’24 was to, either in person or via Zoom, meet with every Major League Baseball owner just so I could learn and get to know them a little bit over a period of time. And so, I accomplished that goal, except for one. Yeah, I’m in listening mode.”

If he is in listening mode let's hope Jerry isn't talking to him

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well there's always this ownership risk

 

"Ballmer has also ruled the Clippers according to the one thing we know about him — that he is one of the richest men in the world. He was supposed to be a breath of fresh air, a fun-loving personality who cared about fielding a contender. Instead, Ballmer has steered them right back to where they started, as a joke.

The Clippers are under investigation by the league office for allegations of salary-cap circumvention. That seems like a big deal, and it is, as Ballmer allegedly funded a corporate sponsor, Aspiration, which then paid Kawhi Leonard roughly $50 million for a "no-show" job, according to noted finder-outer Pablo Torre.

Chris Paul left the organization in 2017, pushing for a trade to the Houston Rockets, and ever since Ballmer has collected every big-name player he could get his hands on, no matter the risk. In one fell swoop, he signed Leonard and traded for Paul George, sending out Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and every available draft pick in the process. When a partnership of oft-injured stars yielded three playoff series victories in five years, Ballmer turned to James Harden, who has made the Clippers his latest vanity project. Not in a good way."

yahoo sports

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...