DailyHerald.com -

Illinois' ownership of U.S. Cellular Field should be re-examined as part of a plan to help solve the state's budget problems by selling surplus property, according to a legislator seeking re-election.

 

Democratic state Sen. Michael Bond made the suggestion about the state-owned home of the Chicago White Sox in response to a Daily Herald candidate questionnaire.

 

When asked what should be done to solve the Illinois' budget crisis, Bond replied that one avenue the state should explore is selling surplus property at fair-market prices. In some cases, he said, a property sale would bring a financial return to the state and eliminate budget expenses.

 

"We should ... re-examine the ownership stake that the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority has in U.S. Cellular Field," said Bond, 40, of Grayslake.

 

Bond separately added that a partial sale could be worth investigating to make sure the state is receiving a fair return on the stadium investment. He said "at the very least" a renegotiation of lease terms with the White Sox should be explored.

 

U.S. Cellular Field is owned and operated by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. The authority was funded in 2009 mostly by $33.4 million in hotel taxes, along with $2.7 million from the White Sox.

 

Bond is facing Republican Suzi Schmidt, the Lake County Board's chairwoman, in the Nov. 2 election. The 31st District Senate seat they are seeking covers nearly all of northern Lake County.

 

Bond and Schmidt said they don't support tax hikes to boost the budget, but offered different solutions.

 

Schmidt, 59, of Lake Villa, said money could be saved by eliminating the lieutenant governor's job and streamlining the treasurer's and comptroller's offices.

 

She also suggests eliminating programs and departments that are unnecessary to the state's constitutional requirements.

 

"The state needs to cut spending before any (tax) increase is discussed," Schmidt said.

 

Bond was elected to his first four-year term in 2006, defeating Republican Warren Township Supervisor Suzanne Simpson.

 

I wasnt sure if I should Filibuster this or not, but since it involves the home field of the White Sox, this seemed like an ok place to put it.

Edited September 27, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Is Reinsdorf's group even interested, or are we talking Chinese ownership like the toll roads?

 

The building is already 20 years old. It may have another 20 before people start b****ing about a new park.

I'd have to hear how much money we are talking about. I'd also be interested to hear how much time we have on the lease there.

I don't understand what this means to the team or the fans. Can someone fill in the blanks?

I don't understand what this means to the team or the fans. Can someone fill in the blanks?

A new owner could require a lease extension before buying the facility to make sure they recoup their investment. The current lease expires in 2025. Or they could raise rent. (I dont know how much, if any, the Sox currently pay) Future improvements to the park could be hampered.

Edited September 27, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

A new owner could require a lease extension before buying the facility to make sure they recoup their investment. The current lease expires in 2025. Or they could raise rent. (I dont know how much, if any, the Sox currently pay) Future improvements to the park could be hampered.

They can't raise the rent before 2025 unless one of these things is true:

 

1. The ISFA or the senior owner of the stadium goes through a bankruptcy

 

2. The contract itself has an allowance for a one-sided raise in rent (which is very, very unlikely)

 

So, I wouldn't worry too much, unless someone buys it and then goes under.

 

They can't raise the rent before 2025 unless one of these things is true:

 

1. The ISFA or the senior owner of the stadium goes through a bankruptcy

 

2. The contract itself has an allowance for a one-sided raise in rent (which is very, very unlikely)

 

So, I wouldn't worry too much, unless someone buys it and then goes under.

What's a "one-sided raise in rent"? And do you know who much the Sox currently pay?

What's a "one-sided raise in rent"? And do you know who much the Sox currently pay?

Meaning one side in the contract could raise the rent without agreement from the other side.

 

I have no idea what they currently pay.

 

By the way, its possible that the buyer of the stadium could be the Sox themselves.

 

Meaning one side in the contract could raise the rent without agreement from the other side.

 

I have no idea what they currently pay.

 

By the way, its possible that the buyer of the stadium could be the Sox themselves.

And I hope the Sox consider buying it themselves. It could give them a lot of flexibility.

 

The greedy person in me wants them to leave in 2025 and move to the West or NW suburbs. But I know that wont happen. Although, by then I'll be living in Iowa or Florida, so it's a moot point really.

Edited September 27, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Considering the White Sox sweetheart deal, they have great terms and all the power, I just wonder who would want to buy it. Why would buying it really appeal to anyone except maybe the White Sox if it were for pennies on the dollar.

While risky, a Sox move to Arlington Heights might push them ahead of the Cubs finally. Or destroy them

What's a "one-sided raise in rent"? And do you know who much the Sox currently pay?

 

They pay rent based on attendance. I don't know the breakdown anymore, but I would imagine it is somewhere around the internets.

While risky, a Sox move to Arlington Heights might push them ahead of the Cubs finally. Or destroy them

I think that would be an awful move, they'd alienate their south side core of fans in a big way.

 

I think that would be an awful move, they'd alienate their south side core of fans in a big way.

Wasnt there a survey done that shows a lot of Sox fans are in the western suburbs?

Edited September 28, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Wasnt there a survey done that shows a lot of Sox fans are in the western suburbs?

Arlington Heights is not a western suburb. That's well north of center.

 

Plus, a suburban location means everyone has to drive. So what benefit is there really for suburban fans, unless they are in one of the few suburbs closest to the park? They'd have a traffic-filled drive either way.

 

That would be a lose-lose situation, moving to a NW suburb.

 

Arlington Heights is not a western suburb. That's well north of center.

 

Plus, a suburban location means everyone has to drive. So what benefit is there really for suburban fans, unless they are in one of the few suburbs closest to the park? They'd have a traffic-filled drive either way.

 

That would be a lose-lose situation, moving to a NW suburb.

I didnt mean to imply AH was a western burb. As a life long Schaumburg resident, I'm well aware of that.

I'm just saying that I thought I had read, or heard, that a large portion of the fan base is not necessarily in the "south side".

 

Personally, I think it would be smart of AH to make a play for the Sox, Cubs, or Bears in about 10-15 years. Horse racing is a dying sport and I dont think Arlington Race Track is going to live for very long. That would make a great location for a sports complex.

Since the lease is signed until 2025 I see very little behind the senators statement. It sounds more like political talk than any real action. The lease is a contract that binds the two parties to the terms, there is very little that can be done to change the agreement. You can just say lets take a look at making some changes cuz we want to now, that's the point of signing the contract, so you cant do that. Silly politicians.

Since the lease is signed until 2025 I see very little behind the senators statement. It sounds more like political talk than any real action. The lease is a contract that binds the two parties to the terms, there is very little that can be done to change the agreement. You can just say lets take a look at making some changes cuz we want to now, that's the point of signing the contract, so you cant do that. Silly politicians.

This isn't really the case. ISFA can sell any property it wants, including the Cell - the contract, unless it states that per se, does not prevent that. What would happen is, if they sell the stadium, then the contractual obligations go with it. So the buying party inherets it, and has to follow it, again unless either of the the two conditions I mentioned earlier are true.

 

Just like when one company buys a business unit from another.

 

as long as they keep the stadium in the same location.. the only reason i travel further south than Madison street is to go to White Sox games.

The only place the Sox could move to and succeed would be the Lakefront, but even then, they lose their great transportation spot.

The only place the Sox could move to and succeed would be the Lakefront, but even then, they lose their great transportation spot.

Can I ask a question of ignorance here?

What percentage of game attendees use the L or city buses to get to the Cell?

Edited September 29, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Can I ask a question of ignorance here?

What percentage of game attendees use the L or city buses?

 

The driving to the lakefront is a pain in the ass and parking would be limited that is why where they are at is the best scenario access from all major highways leads there.

 

 

This isn't really the case. ISFA can sell any property it wants, including the Cell - the contract, unless it states that per se, does not prevent that. What would happen is, if they sell the stadium, then the contractual obligations go with it. So the buying party inherets it, and has to follow it, again unless either of the the two conditions I mentioned earlier are true.

 

Just like when one company buys a business unit from another.

 

Ok well then selling the Cell makes no significant changes to the White Sox since it doesnt change their terms of the lease or contract.

Ok well then selling the Cell makes no significant changes to the White Sox since it doesnt change their terms of the lease or contract.

Unless the Sox themselves buy it. Or if the buyer then goes bankrupt.

 

The State of Illinois should sell it. The Sox shouldn't offer to buy it, unless a third party gets involved to buy it. The article made mention that the Sox paid $2.7 million in 2009, so I am guessing thats the rent. Whether its dynamic (per seat sold) or not, I don't know. When its time for a new staduim, they should keep it in the city and probably just put it where the old one was. When they build the new one, they should have moved it north to the South Loop when land values weren't through the roof. I did like the concept of a new stadium being built on Northerly Island though that somebody posted a little while ago.