25 minutes ago, nrockway said:

No one has said anything like that. You guys read what you want.

Uh, are we reading the same thread?

25 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Uh, are we reading the same thread?

I can assume who he's talking about and that's not the point being made, that "Reinsdorf is benevolent" or that Ishbia is "uniquely diabolical". Talk about a saccharine, overly-editorialized post that completely misses the point despite being well-written.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by nrockway

1 minute ago, nrockway said:

I can assume who he's talking about and that's not the point being made, that "Reinsdorf is benevolent" or that Ishbia is "uniquely diabolical". Talk about a saccharine, overly-editorialized post that completely misses the point despite being well-written.

Maybe not the 1st part, but the latter is exactly what is being said. 100%, no doubt about it.

I think somewhere in all this Tray mentioned losses during 2007-2009...whether related to the stock market or the mortgage/lending industry.

Would have to go back and find it, but there's definitely a story there.

That said, almost all of the mortgage lenders except for notable ones like Countrywide escaped pretty much unscathed under that "too big to fail" escape hatch the government decided upon...which was a quintessential "socialistic/interventionist" solution at the time.

Didn't one candidate back in the day (Bain) even argue they should have all been allowed to fail (big banks and loan originators), essentially so that capitalism/PE could swoop in and buy up all the distressed debt for pennies on the dollar?

At any rate, maybe going back to a refresher course with Matt Damon's "Inside Job" would help to pinpoint some more of the real bad guys, like risk-taking banks and "entrepreneurs" in Iceland, Ireland and across northern Europe...not to mention the litany of US oversight and credit ratings agencies that failed to protect consumers. OFC this goes all the way back to Clinton/Frank/Summers/Greenspan through the Bush administration and Obama as well.

Nobody ultimately emerged with "clean" hands...except for the majority of Wall Street.

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Maybe not the 1st part, but the latter is exactly what is being said. 100%, no doubt about it.

There's good reason to be skeptical of these types. The default point of view should be "this guy will be exactly the same as Reinsdorf" but many among us think there are going to be radical changes to the organization that will benefit the local fanbase. Perhaps that will happen, but I doubt it. I think the guy wants to make money the same as the rest of the owners. I'd be nervous about the team moving with any new ownership group. There are probably better geographic opportunities for a baseball team if the City and State are unwilling to play ball on an eventual new stadium; which I think they should. I think it's totally fair to be optimistic about anyone who isn't Reinsdorf though, things 'could' get better, but standard logic shouldn't completely go out the window. A guy who made his fortune by fucking people over on their mortgages is not some benevolent figure. He's not some lifelong Chicagoan, diehard Sox fan, he's a person from no where.

Frankly, more than baseball, I'm more concerned about that land deal this guy did with Trump's administration that completely skirted the standard democratic process for taking ownership over public land. And considering the source of his wealth, I think he's a special kind of slimeball. I think if I was a Mets fan, I'd be just as critical of their criminal owner whose existence is predicated on fucking over the rest of us. I actually kinda like the Mets but it's very funny to see Cohen fail and it'd be even better if he went to prison for his various frauds.

My own expectation is that it will be business as usual for the Chicago White Sox regardless of the owner. The team is what it is, its location is where it is, our team is not the Cubs; to quote our friend James Fegan, the club is an "indie rock one". Which I think is a good thing. The vibes of the fanbase are much better (even if everyone who posts on SoxTalk is bitter and rude). It's objectively a sexier and cooler fanbase than the Cubs. I think it's goofy and unreasonable for people on this forum to be like "you must just be jealous of how rich Ishbia is". I understand the hate for Reinsdorf runs deep especially for fans here that have being dealing with his bullshit for longer than I have been alive, I just wouldn't be so trusting that the grass is going to be greener on the other side. Yes, I did drink three beers before posting this.

2 minutes ago, nrockway said:

There's good reason to be skeptical of these types. The default point of view should be "this guy will be exactly the same as Reinsdorf" but many among us think there are going to be radical changes to the organization that will benefit the local fanbase. Perhaps that will happen, but I doubt it. I think the guy wants to make money the same as the rest of the owners. I'd be nervous about the team moving with any new ownership group. There are probably better geographic opportunities for a baseball team if the City and State are unwilling to play ball on an eventual new stadium; which I think they should. I think it's totally fair to be optimistic about anyone who isn't Reinsdorf though, things 'could' get better, but standard logic shouldn't completely go out the window. A guy who made his fortune by fucking people over on their mortgages is not some benevolent figure. He's not some lifelong Chicagoan, diehard Sox fan, he's a person from no where.

Frankly, more than baseball, I'm more concerned about that land deal this guy did with Trump's administration that completely skirted the standard democratic process for taking ownership over public land. And considering the source of his wealth, I think he's a special kind of slimeball. I think if I was a Mets fan, I'd be just as critical of their criminal owner whose existence is predicated on fucking over the rest of us. I actually kinda like the Mets but it's very funny to see Cohen fail and it'd be even better if he went to prison for his various frauds.

My own expectation is that it will be business as usual for the Chicago White Sox regardless of the owner. The team is what it is, its location is where it is, our team is not the Cubs; to quote our friend James Fegan, the club is an "indie rock one". Which I think is a good thing. The vibes of the fanbase are much better (even if everyone who posts on SoxTalk is bitter and rude). It's objectively a sexier and cooler fanbase than the Cubs. I think it's goofy and unreasonable for people on this forum to be like "you must just be jealous of how rich Ishbia is". I understand the hate for Reinsdorf runs deep especially for fans here that have being dealing with his bullshit for longer than I have been alive, I just wouldn't be so trusting that the grass is going to be greener on the other side. Yes, I did drink three beers before posting this.

Speaking of things that no one said...

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Speaking of things that no one said...

oy vey dude

22 minutes ago, nrockway said:

oy vey dude

You should look much more carefully into Justin's well diversified portfolio...it's hardly more than 10% UWMC related, for good reason.

A simple google search of Forbes will tell you what you need.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by caulfield12

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

You should look much more carefully into Justin's well diversified portfolio...it's hardly more than 10% UWMC related, for good reason.

A simple google search of Forbes will tell you what you need.

I'm sure actual intelligent people tell him the best practices to preserve and grow his wealth and I bet he listens. What happens when those same savvy people tell him his baseball team is more profitable somewhere else than the South Side of Chicago?

4 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I'm sure actual intelligent people tell him the best practices to preserve and grow his wealth and I bet he listens. What happens when those same savvy people tell him his baseball team is more profitable somewhere else than the South Side of Chicago?

Chicago is a big market already. Where would this be?

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by WhiteSox2023

3 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Chicago is a big market already. Where would this be?

One that they don't share with a much more popular team and wealthier fanbase, with a city/state that will give them money to build a new park with. Definitely Nashville (I'd move there if there was a job, I looked) but it could be Montreal, Louisville, Vancouver, Salt Lake City, Orlando, a bunch of places. Not saying this is actually better business than staying in Chicago, I have no clue, but it really seems to me that our team's fanbase and payroll could be replicated pretty much anywhere with a market size around 2mil and a friendlier local government. The current fucking alderman can't wait for the Sox to leave (I think, she never replies to my emails, she supported that 78 deal hours after the team hinted at it despite it taking jobs and tax revenue out of her district), the state will give them nothing because it's a popular idea to voters who are stuck in the 1970s regardless of whether or not it's a financially savvy public investment.

2 minutes ago, nrockway said:

One that they don't share with a much more popular team and wealthier fanbase, with a city/state that will give them money to build a new park with. Definitely Nashville (I'd move there if there was a job, I looked) but it could be Montreal, Louisville, Vancouver, Salt Lake City, Orlando, a bunch of places. Not saying this is actually better business than staying in Chicago, I have no clue, but it really seems to me that our team's fanbase and payroll could be replicated pretty much anywhere with a market size around 2mil and a friendlier local government. The current fucking alderman can't wait for the Sox to leave (I think, she never replies to my emails, she supported that 78 deal hours after the team hinted at it despite it taking jobs and tax revenue out of her district), the state will give them nothing because it's a popular idea to voters who are stuck in the 1970s regardless of whether or not it's a financially savvy public investment.

I’m still curious if Nashville would actually be a bigger money maker than Chicago, even with the Cubs around. I definitely don’t agree with the other cities you mentioned.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by WhiteSox2023

Nashville doesn't have the the public financing required/or any real $$$ committed for that matter.

That was another Dave Stewart/TLR-headed venture, anyway.

Everything goes to/went to the Titans' new facilty and UT-Knoxville in that state.

Media markets won't matter as much if there's going to be a shared MLB split across 30 teams by MLB TV/ESPN/Disney.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by caulfield12

4 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

You should look much more carefully into Justin's well diversified portfolio...it's hardly more than 10% UWMC related, for good reason.

A simple google search of Forbes will tell you what you need.

But it’s much easier to simply call him a mortgage slimeball than have any knowledge of his background

2 hours ago, nrockway said:

I'm sure actual intelligent people tell him the best practices to preserve and grow his wealth and I bet he listens. What happens when those same savvy people tell him his baseball team is more profitable somewhere else than the South Side of Chicago?

I really hate loud uninformed people and my god are you one of them. Dude is literally spending millions upon millions of dollars buying real estate in the south loop for a future stadium and yet you still post this garbage.

2 hours ago, nrockway said:

One that they don't share with a much more popular team and wealthier fanbase, with a city/state that will give them money to build a new park with. Definitely Nashville (I'd move there if there was a job, I looked) but it could be Montreal, Louisville, Vancouver, Salt Lake City, Orlando, a bunch of places. Not saying this is actually better business than staying in Chicago, I have no clue, but it really seems to me that our team's fanbase and payroll could be replicated pretty much anywhere with a market size around 2mil and a friendlier local government. The current fucking alderman can't wait for the Sox to leave (I think, she never replies to my emails, she supported that 78 deal hours after the team hinted at it despite it taking jobs and tax revenue out of her district), the state will give them nothing because it's a popular idea to voters who are stuck in the 1970s regardless of whether or not it's a financially savvy public investment.

🤣🤣🤣

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

I’m still curious if Nashville would actually be a bigger money maker than Chicago, even with the Cubs around. I definitely don’t agree with the other cities you mentioned.

It wouldn’t…Nashville is tiny. I know this cause I lived there. And Nashville isn’t going to pay for a baseball stadium, so it’s a fucking moot point always.

31 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

It wouldn’t…Nashville is tiny. I know this cause I lived there. And Nashville isn’t going to pay for a baseball stadium, so it’s a fucking moot point always.

Agreed, and I remember when you moved there. I was just giving @nrockway a chance, but his takes are usually misguided at best. No actual proof or evidence of why any of the cities he named could potentially be more profitable than Chicago, even with the Cubs around.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by WhiteSox2023

37 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I really hate loud uninformed people and my god are you one of them. Dude is literally spending millions upon millions of dollars buying real estate in the south loop for a future stadium and yet you still post this garbage.

He dropped the Twins' bid specifically to be an integral part of a/the new stadium project...that stadium isn't great in the Twin Cities (too much concrete) but it's far from old enough to replace again.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by caulfield12

3 hours ago, nrockway said:

One that they don't share with a much more popular team and wealthier fanbase, with a city/state that will give them money to build a new park with. Definitely Nashville (I'd move there if there was a job, I looked) but it could be Montreal, Louisville, Vancouver, Salt Lake City, Orlando, a bunch of places. Not saying this is actually better business than staying in Chicago, I have no clue, but it really seems to me that our team's fanbase and payroll could be replicated pretty much anywhere with a market size around 2mil and a friendlier local government. The current fucking alderman can't wait for the Sox to leave (I think, she never replies to my emails, she supported that 78 deal hours after the team hinted at it despite it taking jobs and tax revenue out of her district), the state will give them nothing because it's a popular idea to voters who are stuck in the 1970s regardless of whether or not it's a financially savvy public investment.

You were right with the first statement. You have no clue.

@Chicago White Sox alredy covered Nashville, considering he lived there.

Louisville? Are you serious? Compete with Reds, Cubs, and Cardinals fans? That’s a horrible location.

Salt Lake City? Mormons care more about gaining wives and having children than worrying about baseball.

No, the cities you suggested would not be more profitable than Chicago, even with the Cubs around.

Quite frankly, some of your takes are so hilariously outlandish that an admin should ban you for simply sharing them. It seems like you are intentionally trolling, especially with this post. If you aren’t, lord help you…

Edited 16 minutes ago16 min by WhiteSox2023