48 Comments - Riversidian - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:29 am: I don’t see how this gets done. I can’t recall a single person at the state level who would need to vote on public funding expressing interest in doing so. - Telly - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:36 am: They own the Arlington Heights property and have a pro-stadium mayor and village board in place. They can break ground there tomorrow without enabling legislation. Nothing is stopping them except the want of a government handout. - Larry Bowa Jr. - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:40 am: It may seem hard to believe but this will only become more absurd when it ends with nothing to show for anyone but a bunch of salary and perks in Kevin Warren’s pockets. I struggle to understand what the McCaskeys don’t understand here. I’ve known enough born wealthy people to know that they’re no more likely to have brains than anyone else but this is getting embarrassing. Someone help them. - low level - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:40 am: == I can’t recall a single person at the state level who would need to vote on public funding expressing interest in doing so.== Exactly correct. Its difficult to see how they get anything from the state. They need to acknowledge that reality and move on. - Joe Bidenopolous - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:43 am: They should build a mini-stadium then invite legislators to a cruise to discuss it. That seems to be a winning strategy. - Joe Bidenopolous - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:44 am: Seriously though - who is more incompetent here, the McCaskeys or Reinsdorf? - Norseman - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:45 am: === Is “enabling legislation” a new way of saying “state government handout”? === For the current push. The use of political euphemisms is a well-established technique. Some folks get really creative. - Chicagonk - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:47 am: The Bears have little leverage. That said, it’s a better use of taxpayer dollars than data centers that barely employ anyone and consume tons of water and electricity. - Save Ferris - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:50 am: “Nothing is stopping them except the want of a government handout.” It’s not ant, it’s need. The stadium will cost upwards of $3 billion. They are debt capped at only $750 million. They are over $2 billion short. The family has no outside source of income or wealth, so their only option would be to sell equity. They can’t do that and maintain majority control of the team. That is why they want to have someone else pay for it (us) and lease instead of own. - H-W - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:52 am: I suppose it is his job to say yes, “yes we are going to build on the lakefront next year.” Its sort of like Maggie Green of Georgia’s job to say “the Democrats are sending hurricanes to republican states.” Someone has to say these things, I suppose. - Gravitas - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:53 am: Color me skeptical. This is the same George McCaskey who attended the Jimmy Irsay Band concert at Navy Pier, so he is somewhat delusional and less than credible. - Telly - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 10:57 am: == a better use of taxpayer dollars than data centers that barely employ anyone and consume tons of water and electricity. == I would agree that the economic development benefits of data centers are offset by those shortcomings, but at least they pay their fair share of property taxes — something the Bears are looking to avoid with both their stadium proposals. - Pundent - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:00 am: When an organization is addicted to government funding, the worst thing that you can do is enable them. - DuPage Saint - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:04 am: They have Mayor Johnson on board maybe they can hire Darren Bailey to swing the downstate legislature They need and deserve no state money. The NFL helps with financing and seems to be allowing teams to take equity partners Maybe Warren has pictures he doesn’t really seem to be helping the Bears just selling false hope - walker - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:08 am: State-level “enabling legislation” could also be to allow local governments to create new property tax or TIF structures, similar to the PILOT proposals. - ChicagoBars - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:10 am: I don’t think they get it done but the debt in the final years of the ISFA bonds that built Soldier Field will create real (more) fiscal problems for City Hall so assume they’ll keep pushing a new stadium bond deal so they can refi out of the looming payments that will come out of City Hall revenues. That’s the only angle I see left that they haven’t really played on trying to get a deal (and avoid selling some team equity). - Proud Papa Bear - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:12 am: You’ve got 446 days to get a shovel in the ground, Kevin. Good luck with that. - Northsider - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:24 am: Is “enabling legislation” a new way of saying “state government handout”? Yes. And, therefore, no. - Bigtwich - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:26 am: –Nothing is stopping them except the want of a government handout– That and a lake front. - Henry Francis - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:26 am: George McCaskey is a very fine and decent person. He has done nothing in his professional life of note that would suggest he is qualified to be Chairman of a multi-billion dollar organization. (Apparently that was his brother Mike/s) He’s been chairman for 12 seasons and the Bears’ record during that time is 86-120, a winning percentage of .417. This is a family business and will continue to be operated like a family business until George’s mom passes. Then George and his cousins can cash out. Any subsidy given to the team will simply add millions (on top of tens of millions of dollars) set to go to Papa Bear’s grandkids. - Huh? - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:38 am: What don’t the bears understand about the word “no”? The “n” or the “o”? - Burrito Man - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:56 am: Good luck. McCaskey is still dreaming but I don’t its gonna happen anytime soon. But starting the bulldozers soon means they have the funds to pay for it too. They just want a state refund check (in the millions) once they complete the project in 2025. - Dan Johnson - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 11:57 am: Hi Save Ferris (and anyone else) – You said It’s not ant, it’s need. The stadium will cost upwards of $3 billion. They are debt capped at only $750 million. They are over $2 billion short. The family has no outside source of income or wealth, so their only option would be to sell equity. They can’t do that and maintain majority control of the team. If the team is worth about $5B, then why couldn’t they raise $2B for a minority stake and maintain majority control? That, to me, is the big unanswered question. - Lincoln Lad - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:19 pm: I’m sure the unions would like to see the State help this get done, but they’ve been strangely silent. Not sure what to make of that. - Sal - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:21 pm: @Save Ferris, while you are correct that the McCaskeys are relatively cash poor compared to other NFL owners, they have already committed to raising $2.3 billion for their lakefront proposal (probably financed by a combination of selling Personal Seat Licenses, stadium naming rights, and an NFL loan.) They can now raise approximately an additional $500 million by selling 10 percent of ownership to private equity thanks to the new NFL rule. All that gets them very close to the $3 billion they need to build a subsidy-free dome in Arlington Heights. They could probably easily raise another $200 million through a partnership on the surrounding real estate development on the Arlington property. But they hired Kevin Warren to get a government hand out to spare them of some of that. - Frida's Boss - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:21 pm: @Dan- The Bears already have minority shareholders who have about 20% of the team. I believe they also have first rights to purchase majority stake if the Bears decide to sell. I may be misinformed on that second point. While the Mayor may not understand taxes, TIFs, budgets, finance, governing, or anything else, he for sure understands that losing the Bears to Arlington Heights will be his defining legacy. Imagine, on top of everything else he’s been going through, come the next election, he’ll be the Mayor who lost the Bears and possibly the Sox. That will be his footnote in the Mayoral history of Chicago Mayor’s. - Rahm's Parking Meter - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:27 pm: We are just waiting in AH. I’ll take the Bears and the Sox for all I care - TJ - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:32 pm: The state should give them a symbolic check for a buck fifty. - Bill W. - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:35 pm: “Enabling legislation,” does this mean Chris Welch and Don Harmon would be supporting the McCaskeys’ addiction to public funds? - Proud Papa Bear - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:36 pm: “ I’m sure the unions would like to see the State help this get done, but they’ve been strangely silent.” While the head of the Chicago Teachers’ Union has been strangely supportive. Interesting times. - Excitable Boy - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 12:50 pm: - They can’t do that and maintain majority control of the team. - Crying shame. Some folks really got it awful. - OneOpinion - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:04 pm: Is “enabling legislation” a new way of saying “state government handout”? No, absolutely not. It’s a “private revenue enhancement,” nothing more. - Steve Rogers - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:05 pm: Maybe the Bears should move to the Northwestern stadium that seats 12,000. - @misterjayem - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:17 pm: In all my years of knocking on the doors of Illinois voters, not once has anyone expressed the slightest interest in much less support of government funded sports stadiums. George’s “enabling legislation” would require “enabling legislators” and I can’t identify anyone who wants to tank their career like that. NOPE. Not One Penny, Ever. – MrJM - JS Mill - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:17 pm: =While the head of the Chicago Teachers’ Union has been strangely supportive.= If the Bears got money from the state CTU would try to use that as a political cudgel against the state. - ElTacoBandito - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:25 pm: “The State owes the City of Chicago 1.1 billion. . . and can you also give us another 2 billion because why not if your giving it out.” - Excitable Boy - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:27 pm: - not once has anyone expressed the slightest interest in much less support of government funded sports stadiums. - Head down to Forgottonia and hit my dad’s door. Since I was a kid he’s complained about public funding of stadiums when average people can’t afford to go to a game. I assure you he’ll bring it up and you’ll enjoy the conversation. - Dan Johnson - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:27 pm: Thanks Frida’s Boss - I didn’t realize there were already 20% owners. And thanks @Sal I didn’t know the NFL rule only allows for a 10% sale. - Juice - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:38 pm: My understanding was that the non-family minority owners (namely Pat Ryan) already offered to assist in financing the Bears stadium. Presumably they would have had a larger ownership stake in the stadium than they have with the team. But the McCaskey’s told them no. So Pat decided to build his stadium in Evanston instead. - low level - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 1:53 pm: ==does this mean Chris Welch and Don Harmon would be supporting the McCaskeys’ addiction to public funds?== Correct, it would mean that, and this is not going to happen. See how easy that was? I just made their lobbyists jobs simple. - The Magnificent Purple Walnut - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 2:05 pm: Henry Francis, I agree that George is a good man. As far as his qualifications, With all due respect, I would look closer at the financial bottom line over the past 12 years rather than the won lost record. “Statistica” claims they were worth 1.2 Billion in 2002 and 6.4 Billion in 2024. I’m guessing that’s a pretty successful company. - The Magnificent Purple Walnut - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 2:08 pm: I made a typo. That was from 2012 to 2024. Sorry. - Thomas Paine - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 2:18 pm: === That is why they want to have someone else pay for it (us) and lease instead of own. === Part of the reason. Government-issued bonds are tax-exempt, so you get a better rate. Also, if the stadium is owned by the team, the depreciation gets recorded as a financial loss every year. A $3 billion asset depreciated on a 20 year schedule is recorded as a $150 million loss each year, which is not nothing. - Skeptic - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 2:55 pm: “A $3 billion asset depreciated on a 20 year schedule is recorded as a $150 million loss each year, which is not nothing.” Is that saying they want our tax money to (in part) enable them to pay less tax money? That seems like a lose-lose for us. - Candy Dogood - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 3:30 pm: ===The family has no outside source of income or wealth, so their only option would be to sell equity. === Ah yes, the old multibillion dollar sports franchise rich, cash poor scenario. - Tim - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 3:38 pm: === The family has no outside source of income or wealth === Maybe they should go to Vegas and put some of it on red, then. The odds might be better than the State giving them any money at all. - workingfromhome - Friday, Oct 11, 24 @ 4:16 pm: Love the Bears through thick and thin but I have zero interest in any of my tax dollars supporting a new stadium. Same goes for the White Sox. They have the money. - Just a guy - Friday, Oct 18, 24 @ 1:34 pm: I’ll keep it simple…sell the team. You have an ownership that is nowhere near, from a financial standpoint, capable of playing in the field with its competition. The NFL is a Billionaire league. Take your lottery win, split it among the heirs, and let Bezos come in and build a stadium with the money he has in his couch. TrackBack URI Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.