113 Comments - Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:09 am: The past is prologue. The Bears have tried to move before and failed. There is a decent chance they fail again. - Save Ferris - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:09 am: Zero chance. SF is a terrible stadium and it’s limited to what the Bears can do with it. AH is ownership. And ownership also massively increases the enterprise value when the team is sold. - High Socks - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:12 am: The Bears organization can screw anything up. But it’s pretty clear from the hire of the new president that the plan is to move. The financial structure of the NFL pretty much demands a new stadium a la SoFi in LA. - Snowman61 - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:12 am: Voted that they will move. Why–It is all about the money!…and control …. and more money. They want to be movers and shakers!!! - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:13 am: The Bears are horrendous at understanding leverage, but they are quite smart making it impossible for Chicago to negotiate away a chance to leave. A corporate entity like the Bears doesn’t make that purchase for leverage, they make that purchase to move, and that’s the sole location… not St. Louis… or any other place of phony leverage. “They gone” They’re gone, and not one nickel to help them with that building, that leverage left the “racing stable” - Pius - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:14 am: Outta there. More seats, more concessions, more $$$. - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:14 am: The lease issue is a non-issue since it will take approximately 10 years to get the new facilities built and ready for use. There is very little I think the City can offer to keep the Bears in Chicago. They recently hired the former Big10 Commissioner to serve as team President and he indicated that getting this new stadium built is his number 1 priority. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:14 am: The AH plan is to put the team in the best position for when they have to sell it to new ownership. Which should be in the next decade, long before a shovel is in the ground at the new site. There is a chance new owners might work with the city to make improvements at Soldier Field. Small chance perhaps, but a chance. - H-W - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:15 am: I voted “they’re outta there.” My research background in sociology has focused on plant closings and layoff, and the effects upon displaced workers and communities. Indeed, the strikes in Decatur, IL are what led me here in the first place. I have published several studies. When corporations like Firestone, Maytag, the Bears, etc. say they are leaving, trust them. Mayors and politicians always dangle hope before the citizenry, suggesting they may be able to sway the decision through tax incentives to stay. But that never happens. Never is an accurate word (plus or minus 3%). Corporations project out decades, literally. In the Firestone case, they were finishing a new plant in SC when they announced they were leaving Decatur, IL. Maytag had already invested in off-shoring when they announced they were leaving Galesburg, IL. Now the Bears Corporation is investing in a new facility. The plans are already made, and the company is proceeding. They will move, and the mayor and the State will not prevent the move. However, as OW and others would say, there is no reason why the state should make that move more palatable. The corporation is moving within IL. They will be bound to Arlington Heights for a few decades. Tax them at the normal rate. Do not feed them incentives. The corporation is already prepared to pay the “going” rate. Let the do so. - Henry Francis - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:17 am: It’s a fait accompli. Virginia is not going to live forever. When she passes, the team will be sold. If the Bears don’t screw up the stadium and all that comes with it (naming rights, etc.), any dollar they put into the project will add more than a dollar to the value of the team when they sell. (Say they put $2B into building a state of the art stadium, it would increase the value of the team by more than $2B). - Candy Dogood - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:18 am: “Decent” isn’t a number but I think it is decent. Especially if the legislature and Governor do not warm to the idea of supporting the Bears move with public funds one way or another. It’s not construction costs, but the Bears still want taxpayers to be on the hook for making their team even more profitable than it already is. They bought 326 acres of land. There’s a lot you can do with 326 acres of land if you do build a stadium and are trying to convince the taxpayers of Chicago to let the team destroy whatever remains of Soldier Field, or let the Bears purchase it to do whatever they want with it. I suspect the Bears are just out to get as much money as possible from the public, one way or another. I don’t think they care too much for the specifics. If moving to Arlington Heights is such a great idea they don’t need public support to pay for it. - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:18 am: Lori Lightfoot will be forever known as the Mayor that lost the Bears. lol. - Homebody - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:18 am: The Bears get their share of the TV revenue no matter what. Building a new complex gives them even more revenue streams. They have zero reason to stay at Soldier Field unless they get a massive sweetheart deal from the city. There is just too much money in owning your own facility. They were always going to do it. - SouthSide Markie - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:20 am: Outta here. Nobody buys that much property as simply a negotiating tactic. - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:21 am: === I suspect the Bears are just out to get as much money as possible from the public, one way or another. I don’t think they care too much for the specifics. If moving to Arlington Heights is such a great idea they don’t need public support to pay for it. === The Bears have already issued a statement that they are ready to build the stadium without public funds. - Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:21 am: They’re moving. Fans will travel to see them. It’s always about ‘follow the money.’ Oh, and the choice should be, “Otta der.” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:22 am: ===issued a statement that they are ready to build the stadium without public funds=== That’s a disingenuous cherry pick. - Save Ferris - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:24 am: “in the next decade, long before a shovel is in the ground at the new site.” They’ll be digging within the calendar year. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:25 am: ===The Bears have already issued a statement that they are ready to build the stadium without public funds.=== That was for Lightfoot and Chicago specifically The Gillespie Bears Bailout Bill, as - Lucky Pierre - told us, is about the Bears maximizing the revenue, not curtailing any costs. It’s a fun lil sport, if you will, watching Bears PR wholly misunderstand… “timing” You issue that release they issued to hurt Lightfoot, not Bigfoot the governor needed to sign the Bears Bailout The governmental affairs crew either are pulling their hair out, or don’t know enough to be “angered” at the timing. - TNR - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:25 am: Sorry, couldn’t vote for either. There’s a chance they’ll stay, but it feels like more of an “outside chance” than a “decent chance.” I just can’t see a scenario where the Bears’ proposed PILOT gets approved in Springfield. So the first question that has to be answered is: will they build in Arlington Heights without it? - Curious citizen - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:26 am: I don’t care what the Bears do as long as no state money is involved. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the White Sox have never repaid a dime of the “loan” they got in the 80s to keep them from moving, have they? - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:27 am: They’re outta there. The value of the Chicago Bears in increased by moving the team to Arlington Heights. Owning the stadium, is in the McCaskey families best financial interest. Whether it remains a family business, or there’s an exit strategy, the move will only enhance the value of the franchise. Which is why tax payers should not be expected to provide any assistance or inducements to make this happen. - lake county democrat - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:28 am: I voted “decent chance” but to me that means at least 10%. I think the “infrastructure” needs are immense and involve uprooting more people from their homes than people think. North Shore and south suburban fans are going to have a nightmare getting there even with improvements. And -if- the city made a decent counteroffer, it’s not like the property they bought is worthless. So…a decent chance, but very unlikely. - Concerned Observer - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:30 am: I don’t know Hannibal Lecter above, but I’m gonna defend him. It’s not a cherry pick. Thr Bears will build this stadium without public money if they have to, I’m convinced. It’s the prize plum for them - because it’s not just the stadium, it’s the “entertainment complex”. They get to build a Wrigleyville, or better yet a Ballpark Village for you Cardinals fans. They will own the restaurants, the gaming parlor, the outdoor mall that inevitably opens up, etc. They would rather have public money, and they’re gonna fight to get it tooth and nail - personally I think the best they should get is a 50/50 split on the road upgrades that will have to happen - but they will borrow money from the NFL and its teams, and they will get it done. - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:32 am: === That’s a disingenuous cherry pick. === I don’t agree, but I have learned not to argue with the owner of the blog. What I will say is this - The Bears have already committed to building the stadium. They are not holding out on building the stadium until they get public funds. It is going to happen. I believe what is at issue now is whether tax subsidies can be used to develop the areas surrounding the stadium. I don’t think qualifies as “just being out to get as much money as possible from the public, one way or another”, but I suppose you could interpret it that way. At the end of the day, however, the Bears are moving with or without public funds. - The Truth - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:34 am: They’re eventually gone, and it’s fine. Nine other NFL teams don’t play their home games within the city limits of their namesakes, and they’re doing just fine. - Wensicia - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:35 am: They’re moving to Arlington, it’s inevitable. I expect once the mayoral election is over, nobody will be talking about trying to keep them in SF. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:38 am: =The Bears have already issued a statement that they are ready to build the stadium without public funds.= I want the readers of Cap Fax to be the first to hear this. I too am ready to build my next residence without public funds. I will do so on re-developed land and will incur the cost necessary to provide the access that I and my guests require - you’re welcome. My only expectation is that in the name of “civic pride” I should not be expected to pay my fair share of property taxes. - Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:39 am: Gone. =ownership also massively increases the enterprise value when the team is sold.= I think that Kevin Warren was a massive hire for the Bears on the business end. He pushed the BIG TEN through a period of expansion and growth and this is the Bears once in a generation chance at the same thing. New business leadership, perhaps a stadium complex under team control, and its the best chance in a while as a team to build a playoff contender for the next 5-7 years. They will be playing football in AH by 2027. The family will sell the team by 2030. The city and lakefront will be just fine without the Bears. - James the Intolerant - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:40 am: They will try to gt any help they can. AH may help out some. The state will not. Then they will have to choose. Bears ownership is team wealthy, but I would imagine they can use that to get the money they need for construction. - MisterJayEm - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:43 am: Point of order: Is “nope no way never ever gonna happen” a decent chance? – MrJM - Original Anon - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:43 am: Short of Arlington Heights nixing a stadium, the Bears are gone. The financial benefit from owning the stadium is too great for Chicago to match. And the Bears seem to have financing ready. Whether the Bears build the planned development is less clear since it depends - like all large developments - on tax concessions. - The Doc - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:48 am: The hiring of Kevin Warren should leave no doubt that building a new stadium is happening. - Save Ferris - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:57 am: “The family will sell the team by 2030.” Guess here is that the team is sold within three tax years of Virginia passing away. - Torco Sign - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:58 am: There was a lot of attention paid to the food Lightfoot served at her Super Bowl party and not enough to the fact she was wearing a generic “Super Bowl” shirt instead of Bears clothes. Nobody does that as the mayor of the home city, during an election no less, unless they’re running for mayor of a city that won’t be home to said team. - Nick - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:03 am: They’re gone and it’s probably a good thing for all involved. Just don’t give them any money for it. - Stumble - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:05 am: Rich is going to admonish me but I’d urge a third option: too soon to tell. The team painted itself into a corner on this “we don’t need money but we kinda do” vibe. - rtov - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:05 am: There are a variety of reasons that will cause the Bears to leave Solider Field for greener pastures (horse racing pun). One of the many is the fact that Soldier Field is not up to the current standards for NFL Stadiums and some of those most important amenities Soldier Field is lacking can’t realistically be added at its present location. For instance, across all sports, franchises are embracing the concept of the “stadium village”. Solder Field’s location is not compatible with that design. If Arlington Park (one of the nicest race tracks in the world) is really gone for good, at least it has the chance to be replaced by a state of the art professional sports stadium and campus. - Annonin' - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:06 am: Let’s be honest the chances of McCaskeyDome being built is nearly zero. Tool around the areas AP and count the number of empty retail and commercial spaces. Region has plenty. The new Bears president apparently did no research to learn family management takes wrong way on a one way street. Let’s reopen the race track under a state commission and call the guys in Jacksonville. - DuPage Guy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:08 am: They’re gone. The Bears aren’t betting on just the stadium; they’re betting on owning a 200+ acre mixed-use development right off a Metra stop in the suburbs. The revenue from residential and commercial rents will be a nice profit every year. - Gravitas - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:12 am: There are too many financial benefits for the Chicago Bears if the team relocates to Arlington Heights. Barring a miracle, Chicago cannot possibly compete to retain the team. The Chicago Park District can fight to hold the Bears to the stadium lease, but eventually the lease is going to expire or the Bears will be able to buy out the remainder of the term. - Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:14 am: I think they’re gone. The bought the new site. I think there probably is an incentive structure out there that could convince them to stay, but the city/state just aren’t really interested in putting it together (which I think is to their credit). - Gravitas - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:16 am: The Metra train that once serviced Arlington Park Racetrack is already in place. That is much better than the one and half mile hike from the nearest train station in the vicinity of Soldier Field. - Jerry - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:26 am: How about the RogersDome? - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:35 am: ==The team painted itself into a corner on this “we don’t need money but we kinda do” vibe.== I think you over estimate how many state lawmakers are going to put up a major fight over giving them any state dollars or tax incentives to build a new stadium in a few years. - ZC - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:47 am: I kind of wish they’d already left and built the thing because then that facility might have been used to host the World Cup in Summer 2024 (instead Chicago got bypassed, because we don’t have a FIFA-worthy stadium nearby). Now that I would have driven to Arlington for. - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:55 am: ==- ZC - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:47 am:== Super wishful thinking there. Also the World Cup is in 2026. - ChicagoBars - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:06 pm: Voted decent chance they stay (at least until 2033). If there was ever a team that will celebrate a stadium deal and prematurely spike the ball while still only on the 15 yard line it’s the Bears ownership. - Cubs Win - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:09 pm: I understand why the city doesn’t want them to leave and why Da Bears want a new stadium as it’s about revenue on both sides. I think they’re moving and would hate to see the city waste money on a suit or some other frivolous tactic to delay the inevitable. Negotiate their early exit and use that money to make Soldier Field more desirable for other events. - regular democrat - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:10 pm: Even the Bears cant “blanK this up. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:13 pm: ===(at least until 2033)=== My caveat is the lease with the city… then this. - Huh? - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:17 pm: The bears are at soldier field until the new stadium is ready. Then they’re out of Chicago. The cost of breaking the soldier field lease is chump change in a multi-billion dollar development. A domed stadium with parking could be built on the existing horse track. The rest of the property can be the mixed use development. - Roman - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:18 pm: == one and half mile hike from the nearest train station in the vicinity of Soldier Field. == Wrong. There is a Metra station literally across the street from the south parking lot of Soldier Field. - Benjamin - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:22 pm: Yeah, they’re gone. Shame, really, but billionaires gonna billionaire. As little as I like Lightfoot, it isn’t reasonable to lay this at her feet. Even if we went back in time to 2017 and made Mike Ditka the mayor, the team would probably have wanted to leave regardless. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:25 pm: I will never forgive the Bears for demanding we completely sacrifice Soldier Field and build it to their specifications, only for them now to complain it doesn’t meet their needs. Let them go. They’re losers anyways. - Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:32 pm: ==The Metra train that once serviced Arlington Park Racetrack is already in place.== Which…isn’t nearly enough. But that won’t stop them. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:38 pm: While I think the Bears could stay in Chicago, the Mayor’s unhinged statements obviously hurt her in the court of public opinion. It is just one of the dozens of examples of self owns that have left her in the position she finds herself. - West Sider - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:44 pm: There are collateral costs to any major business relocation. The payoff on remaining years on the SF lease after AH opening, is simply a cost of doing business. - Jerry - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 12:48 pm: @Roman….you are correct. That is also where the Pedway is located and the CTA is accessible (Green line gets you to Oglive and Blue line to Union Station). I’d be shocked if it’s open on the weekends. Like they say, the devil is in the details. - Amalia - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:09 pm: they purchased…put money on the line. they are gone. the new place will have a hotel, restaurants, and will have concerts and more. other big Chicago area venues look out. - TNR - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:10 pm: == I think you over estimate how many state lawmakers are going to put up a major fight over giving them any state dollars or tax incentives == I dunno. Back of the envelop math here, but there are about 43 or 44 G.A. members who live in the city and another eight or nine who live in the ‘burbs but represent parts of Chicago. I don’t see more than a small handful of them voting for a bill to incentivize a company to move out of Chicago. Then add to the mix the Republican “no-on-everything” caucus and suburban members who don’t like the idea of subsidizing billionaires and it gets hard to count your way to a roll call with 60 and 30. - Flying Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:41 pm: They are gone. You don’t do what they have already done simply as a bluff. Because, it that bluff is called you can never use it again. - Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:43 pm: == I think you over estimate how many state lawmakers are going to put up a major fight over giving them any state dollars or tax incentives == That’s the wrong way to frame it, though. I mean, the status quo is that they don’t get any state dollars or tax incentives, so its the ones who want those incentives that have to fight, and I just don’t know who really has the stomach for that. Even the sponsor of the only bill out there right now, her heart’s not really in it. - Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:45 pm: Since between all the planning, lawsuits and posturing it will probably take nearly 10 years to build a new stadium, it seems like my vote that they will be outta there is a no-brainer. Plenty of room for parking personal vehicles and chartered busses, even tailgating. The rest of the plan with housing, shopping and other amenities will fall into place, including property tax issues. The NFL these days seems geared up for this. The only question left is how many of the naysayers will show up to the ribbon cutting and games played there when it finally opens. Still no guarantees of any quality football being played by the home team when it all finally comes together and opens. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:53 pm: ===Then add to the mix the Republican “no-on-everything” caucus and suburban members who don’t like the idea of subsidizing billionaires and it gets hard to count your way to a roll call with 60 and 30.=== The selling of the Gillespie Bears Bailout Bill hinges on ONE thing… one thing only. As - Lucky Pierre - made clear… … the bailout bill is so the Bears can maximize revenues. That’s it. Maximize. Now, if you’re a legislator willing to bailout a billion dollar corporation totally able to fund the project, then that legislator is purposely hurting Arlington Heights (schools, for a direct example) The Bears could, should move. “Why not” But not one nickel to it. Infrastructure/Roads, Sewer/Water only outside the footprint, you won’t find a bigger advocate for that than me… but ANY relief or dollars aiding this… 60/30… a gubernatorial signature… for a project that in 20-25 will be revisited with a 40 year hurt on AH… The Bears will go, Godspeed, but on their dime… legislators aiding and abetting this… whew. - fs - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:55 pm: ==Nine other NFL teams don’t play their home games within the city limits of their namesakes, and they’re doing just fine.== 10 by my count (Dallas, SF, LA, LA, NY, NY, Miami, Washington DC, Las Vegas, Buffalo). Most of those 10 being the biggest metro areas. There are also a few others who play in the suburbs but used to play in their city and have regional names (Arizona, New England). Detroit, while they’re in the city now, played in Pontiac for decades. The Bears playing in their “city” are an outlier, not the norm. They gone. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:56 pm: - Louis G Atsaves - Just curious, do you support the Gillespie Bears Bailout Bill, and to that, is that where you vote to them moving in 10 years? Just wondering how Bullish (or “Bearish”) - northsider (the original) - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:01 pm: Arlington Park got about a 2 million per year real estate tax credit for about 20 years. Bears ought to get the same. - Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:11 pm: @Oswego Willy, I don’t see that bill going anywhere right now. The cries of no public funding ever will have to be tempered by the costs of a new exit ramp from Rt. 51 and maybe 90, stop lights and other matters. There is a METRA stop there that may need some upgrading in case more than a handful elect to ride it for games and potential added ridership depending upon what else gets built on the property. Saw an NFL game in Cincinnati a few years back. All the local hotels ran courtesy buses back and forth. The new place still will not have the view of Soldier Field, but the dropping of a modern stadium inside the old one ruined a lot of views of the surrounding area. With all the bellyaching of the field condition being too slippery at the just concluded SuperBowl game, makes me wonder again why the Chicago Park District struggled to grow grass all those years. - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:22 pm: == the status quo is that they don’t get any state dollars or tax incentives== I don’t think that status quo will last long when it is reframed as a question of when they move rather than a question of if they will move. ==Back of the envelop math here== Tell me how many of those members are dying on that hill? It’s popular in the city to take a hardline against the Bears’ move but I doubt there much substance there, only rhetoric that plays well in the district. In the next election or two no incumbent is going to lose over voting to give the Bears money to build a new stadium. Voters won’t like it, but it won’t be what is a deciding factor in their votes. ==suburban members who don’t like the idea of subsidizing billionaires== They like talking about jobs and economic growth more than they don’t like the idea of subsidizing billionaires. - Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:28 pm: =Arlington Park got= Times change. Two wrongs don’t make a right. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:36 pm: =They’ll be digging within the calendar year.= =They will be playing football in AH by 2027. The family will sell the team by 2030.= Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think they’ll break ground until at least 2025 given everything that has to be done between now and then. That maybe puts them in the stadium for the 2027 season but more likely 2028. Someone up above said they’d sell within three (tax) years of Virginia passing. I think that’s right. Yes, they are very, very wealthy, but relative to most of the other owners (Mark Davis excluded), they’re cash poor and there’s a whole host of Halas/McCaskey’s taking from that pie - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:38 pm: ===there’s a whole host of Halas/McCaskey’s taking from that pie=== I believe it was covered here, 13 grandkids, roughly between $110-380+ million… each. No bake sales necessary - Stumble - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:45 pm: I’m with TNR. Gillespie had to be dragged hard into filing the PILOT legislation, and her district arguably stands to benefit the most. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:51 pm: =No bake sales necessary= Agreed! Now do cash on hand plus the estate tax after VM goes belly up. They’re cash poor. All of that money is tied up in the value of the team. I’ll eat my hat in the middle of the corner of Michigan and Randolph (and let Rich film it) if this ownership can pay the $6 billion the entire development will cost without taking on major equity partners or selling at least 30% of the team (19% is already in other hands). Rumblings are that several of the grandchildren already want out. I personally think they’ll sell out entirely and can’t wait until they do. - Union Thug Gramma - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:54 pm: Here to Bears want both the town and the state to give welfare payments to build everything. I don’t know how well that’s gonna be a big mountain to get over since no one past Arlington is going to get a paycheck over this (yes, there may be more state sales tax and possibly property tax, but how much is that state revenue? How much of that revenue would just be changed from Chicago–which doesn’t need tax welfare–to Arlington Heights–after they have their citizens pay higher taxes go build the stadium and outer entertainment regions?)> - Flapdoodle - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 2:59 pm: The Bears will move to AH. That seems a pretty done deal. What remains unknown is the circumstances of their move, how it is financed, how quickly a new stadium can be ready along with supporting facilities and infrastructure. Here the bottom line should be firmly drawn well in advance: If the Bears want a new playground, let them pay for it. All of it. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:01 pm: ===Voters won’t like it, but it won’t be what is a deciding factor in their votes=== True, but that ain’t a reason to vote for the bill. As far as I can see, there are no reasons at all for Chicago legislators, or anyone else, to vote for the bill. And this ain’t the old days when Madigan and Cullerton could work something out and jam it through. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:06 pm: ===Now do cash on hand=== Are you worried that the 13 Halas/McCaskey heirs are scrambling to rub 2 nickels together… to eat? I mean, lol, it’s such a worry, to be waiting on $110-380+ million… Oh, don’t concern yourself with “estate tax” problems, it’s likely not a problem since the wealth first skipped the parents, and you want to believe the McCaskey/Halas family haven’t figured out “family wealth planning”? Seriously? ===if this ownership can pay the $6 billion the entire development will cost without taking on major equity partners or selling…=== According to Forbes, the Bears have 2% debt, can borrow off the owned property to build, put a $100 million down payment on naming rights alone. The NFL, if need be will back the note, so there’s that too. ===Rumblings are that several of the grandchildren already want out.=== “0.001% Problems” The problem they would have is if they weren’t one of the 13 grandkids. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:09 pm: =Are you worried that the 13 Halas/McCaskey heirs are scrambling to rub 2 nickels together… to eat?= Dude, I don’t know what your damage is. I’m not freaking defending these people. I’m just laying out facts that they are cash-poor by NFL standards and don’t have the cash on hand to build a stadium. I didn’t say jack about them not being able to eat or any of the other crap you said. But you be you, keep yelling and shaking your fist at that cloud. You’ll get it one day (banned punctuation) - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:10 pm: Facts: Virginia is t-27th in wealth among NFL owners https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-richest-owners-net-worth-ranked/ - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:14 pm: - Louis G Atsaves - Thanks, bud. Also, happy new year, hope you’re well. OW ===In the next election or two no incumbent is going to lose over voting to give the Bears money to build a new stadium=== “A”, you got polling to back that up, because I’d like to see that. “2”, it’s the primary election, that’s where it might be bad, gotta get through either a far right GOP primary, or a left leaning Dem primary that has the incumbent supporting monies either for a billionaire or “giving tax dollars away” And “D”, the Cubs and the Bulls/Blackhawks have done stadium financing for themselves. Only takes a smart ad to remind voters, in a primary, about how “sweetheart” of a deal the Bears got. The QOTD was “will they”… yes, I believe. The worry to heirs, billionaires, financing, this corporation has as its business model “cash television revenues in March to cover expenses” The new building is to generate greater revenues, nothing more, so they’ll move. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:16 pm: ===Facts: Virginia is t-27th in wealth === Am I suppose to feel *sorry* for the least wealthy… billionaire? Your damage appears to be thinking being “cash poor” is the Halas/McCaskey kin trying to live off Illinois lottery tickets to keep the heat on. Their lottery ticket was birth, lol - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:16 pm: =Are you worried that the 13 Halas/McCaskey heirs are scrambling to rub 2 nickels together… to eat?= Did I say that? No? No. =I mean, lol, it’s such a worry, to be waiting on $110-380+ million…= Did I say I was worried about them? I didn’t? oh, then why would you frame it so disingenuously like I did? ===Oh, don’t concern yourself with “estate tax” problems, it’s likely not a problem since the wealth first skipped the parents, and you want to believe the McCaskey/Halas family haven’t figured out “family wealth planning”? Seriously?=== It’s amusing that you think they’re incompetent owners but very competent in wealth planning. No, I don’t. Stop spreading disinfo. You’re as bad as LP when you argue. But you are really good at building strawmen out of lies apparently - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:26 pm: ==Am I suppose to feel *sorry* for the least wealthy… billionaire?= Was that my argument? Nope. Mine was they won’t be able to build a stadium themselves. More of you being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. But maybe you don’t have the capacity to be intellectually honest. I’ll go with that. And I’ll bet you don’t have the stones to address the substance of this comment - your intellectual dishonesty - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:34 pm: ==As far as I can see, there are no reasons at all for Chicago legislators, or anyone else, to vote for the bill.== I guess we will see if the groups that stand to benefit make a convincing argument, they might not be able to succeed. The Bears’ owners aren’t the only ones who will benefit from a project of this size moving forward. I am not buying into the Chicago lawmakers won’t vote in favor subsidizes because of Chicago loyalty. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:35 pm: === But maybe you don’t have the capacity to be intellectually honest. I’ll go with that. And I’ll bet you don’t have the stones to address the substance of this comment - your intellectual dishonesty=== First, read for comprehension. I’ve stated how the financing can be done, as others have done, and it could/would be backed by the NFL, which also has been done. If you can’t read, it’s over your head, or your seemingly odd concern about the McCaskey family wealth and family planning to inheritance, like I said, no bake sales necessary Naming rights, skyboxes, PSLs, parking, corporate “partners and sponsors”, and the NFL backing the note. The grandkids appreciate your concern. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:36 pm: === I am not buying into the Chicago lawmakers won’t vote in favor subsidizes because of Chicago loyalty.=== Ask the Ricketts how things went with them. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:36 pm: =Tell me how many of those members are dying on that hill?= You’re looking at this wrong. It’s not how many members are opposed, it’s how many are in favor. Not so much dying on a hill as it is climbing one. As Rich noted there’s no one in leadership to ram it through and I’m not really seeing much of a coalition, if any, to get behind it. That’s probably because there’s little upside in supporting very wealthy but unpopular ownership. Maybe the McCaskeys can commiserate with the Ricketts. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:40 pm: =I’m just laying out facts that they are cash-poor by NFL standards and don’t have the cash on hand to build a stadium.= Which might be persuasive if your audience was other NFL owners. But by taxpayer standards, the only ones that really count, they aren’t poor at all. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:44 pm: =First, read for comprehension.= Rich advice considering you completely mischaracterized my comments I asked you to address that intellectual dishonesty and posited you didn’t have the guts to do so. I was right. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:44 pm: === It’s amusing that you think they’re incompetent owners but very competent in wealth planning. No, I don’t.=== Tell me you never met a family with real generational wealth, without telling me you never met a family with real generational wealth. You can be awful at picking QBs (or the people hired to *pick* QBs) but ridiculously wealthy people seem to always stay… ridiculously wealthy. Maybe that why you’re worried, the squandering of the inheritances, lol No bake sales necessary. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:45 pm: =The grandkids appreciate your concern.= Did I say I was concerned about them jerk? No I didn’t. If you can’t argue like an adult and have to engage in intellectual dishonesty, just shut up old man - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:47 pm: === Rich advice considering you completely mischaracterized my comments=== “Dude”, you’re worried about the McCaskey grandkids and a cash poor billionaire family… You don’t think the Bears ownership can get adequate financing or advice to financing an NFL building? Now who’s delusional - yinn - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:47 pm: I said stay put (for now). Not because they don’t want to go, but because the new owners will need to deal with three governments, not just AH. Right across the street is Rolling Meadows and a state courthouse complex, meaning shared infrastructure and intergovernmental agreements to navigate and rework (e.g., Rolling Meadows’ providing fire protection to part of AH, including the park). - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:50 pm: === Did I say I was concerned about them=== Hm ===Rumblings are that several of the grandchildren already want out.=== So… why even concern yourself with the family dynamic? Building and moving to AH, that will make the family more money by the mere new streamS of revenue they don’t have at Soldier Field… naming rights alone … $100 million, 12 years… doable. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:51 pm: =“Dude”, you’re worried about the McCaskey grandkids and a cash poor billionaire family…= Point out where I said I was worried or shut up, grass bowl - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:52 pm: ==Ask the Ricketts how things went with them.== Given how they have bought up all the property surrounding Wrigley and put a bunch of small business out to make sure all the profits around them go directly to them I’m guessing they are doing fine. Unfortunately, they won’t respond to my invite to join me for weekly poker night so I can’t ask them. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:52 pm: =So… why even concern yourself with the family dynamic= Because I am a bears fan and as owners, I despise them. I can’t wait until they are resigned to the dustbin of Bears history. See, that’s how you answer a question. Not by casting aspersions or implying things were said that weren’t. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:53 pm: === Given how they have bought up all the property surrounding Wrigley and put a bunch of small business out to make sure all the profits around them go directly to them I’m guessing they are doing fine.=== How did it go with the city, state… === Point out where I said=== “Dude”, why even go down the “grandkids” road, it had to be a concern, since you brought up the family dynamic. You wrote it, think on your words, lol - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:57 pm: Kids, get back to the question at hand. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:57 pm: === Because I am a bears fan and as owners, I despise them. I can’t wait until they are resigned to the dustbin of Bears history.=== They likely won’t care how you feel, but if it makes you feel bad, and you’ll feel better that a bunch of folks cashing out around $250 million +/- $100 million won’t care… lol - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 3:58 pm: Apologies, Rich, my bad. That’s on me. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:01 pm: =Because I am a bears fan and as owners, I despise them. I can’t wait until they are resigned to the dustbin of Bears history.= With the purchase of Arlington Park they’re likely one step closer to an exit strategy. But you seem to be suggesting, maybe because of how much you despise them, that we “help them over the goal line” in an effort to put them on par with the other wealthy owners that make up their fraternity. Like a lot of fans, I’d love to see a more competitive team. But asking the taxpayers to fund that seems like a hail Mary too me. The McCaskeys much like the Ricketts are resigned to the same fate. They’ll make the investments necessary to turn a profitable enterprise into an even more profitable one. They might be unhappy billionaires, but they’ll be billionaires nonetheless. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:01 pm: Rich - my apologies as well, but please do read mine and OW’s comments so you can understand why it went like this. I never said any of the things they claimed - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:04 pm: =that we “help them over the goal line” = C’mon man, where did I say anything like that? I don’t want them to get one red cent. I haven’t said that in this thread but I’ve said it in plenty of others. Shoot, if I lived in AH I’d vote against anyone who voted to give them something in perpetuity - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:05 pm: ==How did it go with the city, state…== Hey now, since the 80s we have been increasing the amount of night games at Wrigley slowly but steadily. Who knows what the future will hold? Maybe one day we can over 50. - Benniefly2 - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:06 pm: They are definitely leaving. I am not aware of any parcel of available land large enough for Chicago to offer up as an alternative considering that they want a bunch of team owned businesses surrounding the stadium. I do want to say something to the people who complain about the current Soldier Field. It certainly has concourse issues, but have you been in one of the newer domes like the Cowboys and Vikings have? If not, get ready to pay more for your seat that is now at least 100 ft or more vertically farther from the field than your current one. The concourse and bathroom and vendor situation will be better in a new stadium, but there will also be another 25 to 30 thousand fans there that you will have to share the now larger concourses. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:07 pm: === Hey now, since the 80s we have been increasing the amount of night games=== No. With the Cubs and the Bulls/Blackhawks, how did it go with the city and state with what the Bears seemingly want with the bailout? - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:44 pm: ==With the Cubs and the Bulls/Blackhawks, how did it go with the city and state with what the Bears seemingly want with the bailout?== Given that this a response from me saying I don’t buy Chicago loyalty at legitimate excuse that Chicago lawmakers will vote no assumes lawmakers didn’t help “With the Cubs [Ricketts] and the Bulls/Blackhawks” because of Chicago loyalty. If you think their loyalty to the city was the deciding factor for those teams then I don’t have much else other than sarcasm to offer you. [Insert rhetorically vague question that doesn’t address the previous comment but validates what I already believe] - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 4:52 pm: ===If you think their loyalty to the city was the deciding factor for those teams then I don’t have much else other than sarcasm to offer you.=== The loyalty the Bears have is to the purchase they made in AH and maximizing all dollars they can get, be it in tax breaks or “help” from AH, the county, and the state. If the Bears Bailout Bill gets a committee hearing, the first to testify should be the Wirtzs, Ricketts, and Reinsdorfs, but the Reinsdorfs will say, “the White Sox are neutral on the bill” ===validates what I already believe=== No. You refused to respond to this… your own validation is the voice in your head. * Do you got polling to back that up, because I’d like to see that. * It’s the primary election, that’s where it might be bad, gotta get through either a far right GOP primary, or a left leaning Dem primary that has the incumbent supporting monies either for a billionaire or “giving tax dollars away” * The Cubs and the Bulls/Blackhawks have done stadium financing for themselves. Only takes a smart ad to remind voters, in a primary, about how “sweetheart” of a deal the Bears got. Until you can reconcile these… - twowaystreet - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 5:04 pm: ==Do you got polling to back that up, because I’d like to see that.== Back what up? It’s a bit confusing what you’re referring here. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 5:07 pm: ===In the next election or two no incumbent is going to lose over voting to give the Bears money to build a new stadium. Voters won’t like it, but it won’t be what is a deciding factor in their votes.=== You’re assuming something in the future, do you have polling on publicly funded stadium(s) won’t matter to voters, and you want to attach that, in the future, to races yet to be run? It’s not like folks are flocking to co-sponsor with Gillespie Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.