Bears New Stadium Nonsense Repository

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

The Cooler King wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 6:19 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 4:38 pm

If the stadium gets built and the Bears pay for it, are you OK then with them keeping the revenue from an Olympics, World Cup, NCAA Tournament, etc?

This particular stadium build out is about substantially more than just 8 football games per year.
At a high level, it should be proportionate including the necessary infrastructure "requirements" which seemingly are heavily skewed towards increasing the viability and frequency of said big events which apparently stands to benefit the Bears only who want control and revenue over that. I'd also probably throw in cost to tear down and repurpose the current stadium and retiring the existing debt and funding the reserve too. But ymmv.

Too much cost for Bears? Then go 50/50 on cost and 50/50 on revenue/control. If it's a good business deal I'm sure the entire city and state will be willing parties.

Fact is the benefit of publically held land (no property tax) and publically issued bonds (tax advantaged financing instrument) are two huge benefits to teams seeking stadium homes. If the business deal is that good they should seemingly give up those advantages and go full privately owned route, whether at AH or other properties within the city. If the ancillary events were that strong you'd probably hear rumblings about Chicago waiting for the lease to end so they can kick them out and utlizie that land better. But that isn't what it's really about for Bears. It's just the (poor) justification.
That wasn't what I asked.
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

You won’t get through to him, when he anchors nothing moves him. The tell was when he said, paraphrasing, I don’t really care if the Bears leave Chicago. That ended the conversation for me.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

dplank wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 6:53 am You won’t get through to him, when he anchors nothing moves him. The tell was when he said, paraphrasing, I don’t really care if the Bears leave Chicago. That ended the conversation for me.
Literally not what was said. I would care, obviously. But also, F em. Both can be true.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 2:47 am
The Cooler King wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 6:19 pm
At a high level, it should be proportionate including the necessary infrastructure "requirements" which seemingly are heavily skewed towards increasing the viability and frequency of said big events which apparently stands to benefit the Bears only who want control and revenue over that. I'd also probably throw in cost to tear down and repurpose the current stadium and retiring the existing debt and funding the reserve too. But ymmv.

Too much cost for Bears? Then go 50/50 on cost and 50/50 on revenue/control. If it's a good business deal I'm sure the entire city and state will be willing parties.

Fact is the benefit of publically held land (no property tax) and publically issued bonds (tax advantaged financing instrument) are two huge benefits to teams seeking stadium homes. If the business deal is that good they should seemingly give up those advantages and go full privately owned route, whether at AH or other properties within the city. If the ancillary events were that strong you'd probably hear rumblings about Chicago waiting for the lease to end so they can kick them out and utlizie that land better. But that isn't what it's really about for Bears. It's just the (poor) justification.
That wasn't what I asked.
I expanded the answer, but yes if they pay for the relevant costs I listed at 100%, no issue to keeping all revenue, IMO.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Left unsaid with all of this:

The Bears have a home in Chicago that the citizens helped make happen and is still a viable home. This IS NOT about the viability of Chicago as a home for the Bears. They can play out and extend their lease at the end of it. They just want something better on their terms and the terms suck for everyone who isn't them.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Also this is trying to be turned into a fandom thing and as a fan the upgrades as a Bear fan are IMO very questionable due in large part due to the site they chose. The only slam dunk fan benefit is the dome as protection from weather being a dome. But given the rest, I don't think that's enough to get me excited. And I might call the fake turf swap a net negative with the dome (now that they've actually figured out the grass surface)

As a fan I don't give a rats ass about the Bears ability to host SBs, Final Fours, and Taylor Swift concerts.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

The Cooler King wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 8:52 am Also this is trying to be turned into a fandom thing and as a fan the upgrades as a Bear fan are IMO very questionable due in large part due to the site they chose. The only slam dunk fan benefit is the dome as protection from weather being a dome. But given the rest, I don't think that's enough to get me excited. And I might call the fake turf swap a net negative with the dome (now that they've actually figured out the grass surface)

As a fan I don't give a rats ass about the Bears ability to host SBs, Final Fours, and Taylor Swift concerts.
This I agree with. As a fan, I'm perfectly fine with them staying right where they are. I love Soldier Field and I don't give crap about the SB's and other stuff, I come to Chicago once a year for a Bears game and that's about it.

As a fan of the city of Chicago though, I do feel strongly that the stadium and team should stay downtown. The entire city identity is the skyscrapers / buildings / architecture - it's what made Chicago stand out as THE major midwestern city. Keeping that vibe and identity means having a world class stadium downtown as well.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

Eh, Chicago isn't going to stop being Chicago if there's not a new lakefront stadium. The whole "vibe" thing is overrated nostalgia IMO. Not there is anything wrong with that. I was once upset when they revamped soldier field for the same reasons.

But in the end, the world turns and that stuff doesn't matter much after the newness wears off.

I mean people freaked out when the Cowboys left the Cotton Bowl in Dallas for Texas Stadium in Irving.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5850
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

dplank wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:45 am
The Cooler King wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 8:52 am Also this is trying to be turned into a fandom thing and as a fan the upgrades as a Bear fan are IMO very questionable due in large part due to the site they chose. The only slam dunk fan benefit is the dome as protection from weather being a dome. But given the rest, I don't think that's enough to get me excited. And I might call the fake turf swap a net negative with the dome (now that they've actually figured out the grass surface)

As a fan I don't give a rats ass about the Bears ability to host SBs, Final Fours, and Taylor Swift concerts.
This I agree with. As a fan, I'm perfectly fine with them staying right where they are. I love Soldier Field and I don't give crap about the SB's and other stuff, I come to Chicago once a year for a Bears game and that's about it.

As a fan of the city of Chicago though, I do feel strongly that the stadium and team should stay downtown. The entire city identity is the skyscrapers / buildings / architecture - it's what made Chicago stand out as THE major midwestern city. Keeping that vibe and identity means having a world class stadium downtown as well.
Well, the team has a lease through 2032 at SF so they don't have to move. They may want a new stadium but I have things I want that I need to come up with the price entirely.

In yet another twist, some Dem lawmakers in Springfield are now saying that any public funding for men's sports stadiums now has to include the same for women's also.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Relative to this discussion in general, a little bit of background, as I know probably half or more of the board is not local (and probably many that are aren't very plugged into boring financial stuff).
I'll dodge politics as much as possible.



Illinois' finanical situation has been in the toilet.

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/in ... 4729/73243
As of December 2, 2018, Illinois’ general obligation bonds have a credit rating of Baa3 with a
Stable Outlook from Moody’s; BBB- with a Stable Outlook from Standard & Poor’s; and BBB with a
Negative Outlook from Fitch Ratings (State of Illinois Comptroller 2018). For Moody’s and
Standard & Poor’s, their ratings are one step above “junk” ratings; though no state in the United States
has ever received a junk rating (Pierog 2017). If current trends continue, Illinois faces the prospect of
crossing into uncharted territory

That situation isn't based on one unfortunate decision, bit of bad timing, or fluke. It's been developing for a long, long time. 30-40 yrs.

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/in ... 4729/73243
The history of financial mismanagement and the rapid growth of unfunded pension liabilities starts
in 1989. Governor James Thompson (R) changed the cost-of-living adjustment factor in the pension
funding formula...

We finally have a governor who's willing to make tough choices in order to get finances back on the right track. The impact has been quick and dramatic.

https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.27249.html
Governor Pritzker today celebrated the state's ninth credit rating upgrade in just over two years as Fitch Ratings elevated Illinois' rating for general obligation bonds. This fiscal progress comes as the result of five balanced budgets and years of responsible financial management and discipline under Governor Pritzker

Agencies have cited the state's actions in paying down bill backlogs, repaying debts, increased fiscal transparency, building financial reserves, and balancing the state budget as factors in the upgraded ratings.


Despite these really positive developments, there's still lots of room for improvement and IL certainly isn't back to the financial health it had back when I was a kid.
Given all this background, I don't think there's a chance in Hell that the "get tough on fixing disasterous finances" governor is going to suddenly feel generous and want to toss a couple billion dollars to a billionare family. (Nor should he, IMO)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

dplank wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:45 am
The Cooler King wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 8:52 am Also this is trying to be turned into a fandom thing and as a fan the upgrades as a Bear fan are IMO very questionable due in large part due to the site they chose. The only slam dunk fan benefit is the dome as protection from weather being a dome. But given the rest, I don't think that's enough to get me excited. And I might call the fake turf swap a net negative with the dome (now that they've actually figured out the grass surface)

As a fan I don't give a rats ass about the Bears ability to host SBs, Final Fours, and Taylor Swift concerts.
This I agree with. As a fan, I'm perfectly fine with them staying right where they are. I love Soldier Field and I don't give crap about the SB's and other stuff, I come to Chicago once a year for a Bears game and that's about it.

As a fan of the city of Chicago though, I do feel strongly that the stadium and team should stay downtown. The entire city identity is the skyscrapers / buildings / architecture - it's what made Chicago stand out as THE major midwestern city. Keeping that vibe and identity means having a world class stadium downtown as well.
And I do generally think pro sports should be in city center areas, not just Bears. Football is one area that I think can "get away" with the suburban stadium sprawl, but I'd still prefer a city center area, all else equal. As a fan who only expects to interact as a tourist, I do get it's not the full city experience when you travel if they play in the burbs, but that's obviously just differences of perspective. AH would probably be slightly easier and more convenient, albeit boring, than SF for most local fans.

Within the city, I think the SF site holds no special extra allure though too. Yea it's beautiful on the lake, but that's such a small part of the actual fan experience to me. And given sufficient height and angles you could probably create a land bound stadium site (at certain spots) that has both city and lake concourse views. Even from places like Comiskey, you can create beautiful city skyline views from the concourse and get way better access to multiple transit ways. So even in the context of being in the city, if the Bears want the big dream, they should explore options where they could do more of a private investment. Or live with SF for a bit longer at least if that site is so special to them. It's not the best stadium, but it does at least have well configured seating and fairly ample box revenue.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Moriarty wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:02 pm Relative to this discussion in general, a little bit of background, as I know probably half or more of the board is not local (and probably many that are aren't very plugged into boring financial stuff).
I'll dodge politics as much as possible.



Illinois' finanical situation has been in the toilet.

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/in ... 4729/73243
As of December 2, 2018, Illinois’ general obligation bonds have a credit rating of Baa3 with a
Stable Outlook from Moody’s; BBB- with a Stable Outlook from Standard & Poor’s; and BBB with a
Negative Outlook from Fitch Ratings (State of Illinois Comptroller 2018). For Moody’s and
Standard & Poor’s, their ratings are one step above “junk” ratings; though no state in the United States
has ever received a junk rating (Pierog 2017). If current trends continue, Illinois faces the prospect of
crossing into uncharted territory

That situation isn't based on one unfortunate decision, bit of bad timing, or fluke. It's been developing for a long, long time. 30-40 yrs.

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/in ... 4729/73243
The history of financial mismanagement and the rapid growth of unfunded pension liabilities starts
in 1989. Governor James Thompson (R) changed the cost-of-living adjustment factor in the pension
funding formula...

We finally have a governor who's willing to make tough choices in order to get finances back on the right track. The impact has been quick and dramatic.

https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.27249.html
Governor Pritzker today celebrated the state's ninth credit rating upgrade in just over two years as Fitch Ratings elevated Illinois' rating for general obligation bonds. This fiscal progress comes as the result of five balanced budgets and years of responsible financial management and discipline under Governor Pritzker

Agencies have cited the state's actions in paying down bill backlogs, repaying debts, increased fiscal transparency, building financial reserves, and balancing the state budget as factors in the upgraded ratings.


Despite these really positive developments, there's still lots of room for improvement and IL certainly isn't back to the financial health it had back when I was a kid.
Given all this background, I don't think there's a chance in Hell that the "get tough on fixing disasterous finances" governor is going to suddenly feel generous and want to toss a couple billion dollars to a billionare family. (Nor should he, IMO)
Yea, I saw some speculation that even a "paid for" stadium deal could have negative credit rating impacts just based on the scope and there's still always associated risk (the current deal has had funding shortfalls twice that has come out of residents, and not tourists taxes). I guess the plan is to create a surplus for that at outset, but that's basically just borrowing in advance as well and could still create shortfalls.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

The Cooler King wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 5:47 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 2:25 pm

I do think today it is much more of a two-way street. The teams are kicking in a ton of money. If I recall from what i read, it seems like the Bears and NFL are kicking in over 70% of the stadium cost (granted I don't think that factors in the infrastructure cost that will be needed). Whereas in the past it seems like teams tried to have the governments (city or state) pick up the bill for the new place or they were leaving.

This is another of those things that's just "really hard." If the team is going to own the facility, I think the level of support they get from tax dollars should be minimal. But in this case, since it appears the Bears can't own/control the stadium due various court rulings and the Friends of the Lake crowd or whatever they are called, it seems to me the government should be carrying a pretty big load here as they get to own/control the building. So I think the contributions of the Bears/NFL is more an upfront payment of rent to insure they have exclusive use during the time they need it. Which is exactly why I don't understand why the team pivoted back to the city.
Everything we've seen from the proposed terms is public ownership in-name-only. I think in general people get too zeroed in on owenership, when it's (partially to your point as well) about control, and also benefit/revenue. The Bears can't own that land and they know that, but they seem to want to on nearly everything but technicality. BTW, I'm sure the Arlington Heights tax fight is a big reminder for them as well of the downsides of direct private ownership. Public ownership is a slick and undervalued benefit of the long term model of publically owned stadiums.

Some in city leadership have also offered up fully private plans within city limits and with close access to transit that the Bears aren't apparently interested in. If it falls apart becuase the Bears are narrowly focused on some pretty skyline drawings on architectural markups... I just don't think they deserve any benefit of the doubt as to where their loyalty lies

They can be tenants with reasonable terms and limitations. Or they can be owners and set their own terms and go after ancillary revenue and be business people. There isn't a ton in the middle between those, IMO. It's not fully black and white but they are apparently throwing a plan out that absolutely deserves a middle finger back based on all reported details.
Okay I'm not following this as close as you. i was under the impression that the Parks District would still own and control the stadium like they do Soldier Field. So I assumed the city would still be getting the benefit from all revenue that is not Bears' games. If the deal gives the Bears all the power to control the facility, that would seem a bit more problematic to have a large percentage covered with tax dollars if there isn't some sort of return to the city/state on their investment.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:00 pm
The Cooler King wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 5:47 pm
Everything we've seen from the proposed terms is public ownership in-name-only. I think in general people get too zeroed in on owenership, when it's (partially to your point as well) about control, and also benefit/revenue. The Bears can't own that land and they know that, but they seem to want to on nearly everything but technicality. BTW, I'm sure the Arlington Heights tax fight is a big reminder for them as well of the downsides of direct private ownership. Public ownership is a slick and undervalued benefit of the long term model of publically owned stadiums.

Some in city leadership have also offered up fully private plans within city limits and with close access to transit that the Bears aren't apparently interested in. If it falls apart becuase the Bears are narrowly focused on some pretty skyline drawings on architectural markups... I just don't think they deserve any benefit of the doubt as to where their loyalty lies

They can be tenants with reasonable terms and limitations. Or they can be owners and set their own terms and go after ancillary revenue and be business people. There isn't a ton in the middle between those, IMO. It's not fully black and white but they are apparently throwing a plan out that absolutely deserves a middle finger back based on all reported details.
Okay I'm not following this as close as you. i was under the impression that the Parks District would still own and control the stadium like they do Soldier Field. So I assumed the city would still be getting the benefit from all revenue that is not Bears' games. If the deal gives the Bears all the power to control the facility, that would seem a bit more problematic to have a large percentage covered with tax dollars if there isn't some sort of return to the city/state on their investment.
Unfortunately a lot of details are somewhat foggy (making the mayor's enthusiastic report a bit baffling) but a few reports did state the Bears would get all the ancillary revenue unlike in the current lease.

And it also appears that the Bears accounting of what the city has to contribute was presented more favorably than actual (you kind of always expect that sort of thing anyways).

Even casually following the Bulls stadium plan for example there's a lot of city protections, for instance assurance on cost overruns and binding agreements that forbid Bills from exploring alternate stadium hones. No such reports AFAIK of the Bears proposal.

All of this wont even touch the Friends of the Park aspect. I have a feeling this negotiation may go like the last one, which took a decade+ of maneuvering all to end with a very underwhelming result for both sides.
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 4007
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 697 times
Been thanked: 679 times

The Cooler King wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:12 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:00 pm

Okay I'm not following this as close as you. i was under the impression that the Parks District would still own and control the stadium like they do Soldier Field. So I assumed the city would still be getting the benefit from all revenue that is not Bears' games. If the deal gives the Bears all the power to control the facility, that would seem a bit more problematic to have a large percentage covered with tax dollars if there isn't some sort of return to the city/state on their investment.
Unfortunately a lot of details are somewhat foggy (making the mayor's enthusiastic report a bit baffling) but a few reports did state the Bears would get all the ancillary revenue unlike in the current lease.

And it also appears that the Bears accounting of what the city has to contribute was presented more favorably than actual (you kind of always expect that sort of thing anyways).

Even casually following the Bulls stadium plan for example there's a lot of city protections, for instance assurance on cost overruns and binding agreements that forbid Bills from exploring alternate stadium hones. No such reports AFAIK of the Bears proposal.

All of this wont even touch the Friends of the Park aspect. I have a feeling this negotiation may go like the last one, which took a decade+ of maneuvering all to end with a very underwhelming result for both sides.
Well, under the proposal from the Bears (at least as far as I understand it):
  • The Park District would control the stadium (nominally speaking), thereby giving the Bears cover when something happens with the turf (natural or otherwise). "Not our fault, talk to the Park District." Status quo.
  • The Park District would still own the stadium, thereby not cost the Bears anything in property taxes. Great deal for the Bears, less so for the public because they lose out on the tax revenue.
  • The revenue (note: not profit) generated at the stadium for all football-related events would belong to the Bears. This is probably reasonable for both the Bears and for the public.
  • The revenue (note: not profit) generated at the stadium for all non-football-related events would also belong to the Bears, with none of the scheduling or logistic headaches. "Not our fault, talk to the Park District." Great deal for the Bears, completely fucked up raw deal for the public.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
grendel2000
Player of the Month
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Grizzled wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:20 am
dplank wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:45 am

This I agree with. As a fan, I'm perfectly fine with them staying right where they are. I love Soldier Field and I don't give crap about the SB's and other stuff, I come to Chicago once a year for a Bears game and that's about it.

As a fan of the city of Chicago though, I do feel strongly that the stadium and team should stay downtown. The entire city identity is the skyscrapers / buildings / architecture - it's what made Chicago stand out as THE major midwestern city. Keeping that vibe and identity means having a world class stadium downtown as well.
Well, the team has a lease through 2032 at SF so they don't have to move. They may want a new stadium but I have things I want that I need to come up with the price entirely.

In yet another twist, some Dem lawmakers in Springfield are now saying that any public funding for men's sports stadiums now has to include the same for women's also.
That's idiotic.

You could build a facility made of gold bricks that could house 200 fans to seat the fans at most women's sports for an equal amount of cash...

Politicians are imbeciles.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

grendel2000 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 3:08 pm
Grizzled wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:20 am

Well, the team has a lease through 2032 at SF so they don't have to move. They may want a new stadium but I have things I want that I need to come up with the price entirely.

In yet another twist, some Dem lawmakers in Springfield are now saying that any public funding for men's sports stadiums now has to include the same for women's also.
That's idiotic.

You could build a facility made of gold bricks that could house 200 fans to seat the fans at most women's sports for an equal amount of cash...

Politicians are imbeciles.
From everything I've seen "the same" here does not mean equal investment. It's very vague right now, but all indications are it's about equitable, not equal, treatment.

But as one point of reference, the WNBAs Chicago Sky are about 50% of the attendance of two of Chicago's men's teams (Sox in 2024 and Fire in 2023). There is real growth in women's sports attendance. So while not on the same scale, thoughtful investment in facilities with those as anchor tenants is just as worthy of consideration as a massive NFL package. And frankly those teams are probably a lot more ammendable to multi use arenas that can serve multiple purposes. The ancillary events a NFL scale investment accommodates that other venues can't is fairly small in terms of opportunity (though with potential big payoffs). But hoping for a once a decade Final Four or SB is pretty boom or bust. In terms of consistent usable space, smaller is probably better in a multi use arena.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

The Cooler King wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 3:53 pm
grendel2000 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 3:08 pm
That's idiotic.

You could build a facility made of gold bricks that could house 200 fans to seat the fans at most women's sports for an equal amount of cash...

Politicians are imbeciles.
From everything I've seen "the same" here does not mean equal investment. It's very vague right now, but all indications are it's about equitable, not equal, treatment.

But as one point of reference, the WNBAs Chicago Sky are about 50% of the attendance of two of Chicago's men's teams (Sox in 2024 and Fire in 2023). There is real growth in women's sports attendance. So while not on the same scale, thoughtful investment in facilities with those as anchor tenants is just as worthy of consideration as a massive NFL package. And frankly those teams are probably a lot more ammendable to multi use arenas that can serve multiple purposes. The ancillary events a NFL scale investment accommodates that other venues can't is fairly small in terms of opportunity (though with potential big payoffs). But hoping for a once a decade Final Four or SB is pretty boom or bust. In terms of consistent usable space, smaller is probably better in a multi use arena.
Now we're bringing women's sports into this.

I just can't.

I mean seriously, the Bears want to build a new stadium, AH plays hardball and screws themselves. Now it's back to Chicago and all the drama therein.

Now the topic of what about women's sports.

Instead of having a positive fun conversation about what the stadium is going to look like, the surrounding area, how cool it'll be to have a franchise QB play there and all the world class event it could attract everybody has their hand out looking for theirs.

This is why Illinois sucks.
Image
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri May 24, 2024 2:42 am Now we're bringing women's sports into this.

I just can't.

I mean seriously, the Bears want to build a new stadium, AH plays hardball and screws themselves. Now it's back to Chicago and all the drama therein.

Now the topic of what about women's sports.
Women's sport... like this?

User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri May 24, 2024 8:02 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri May 24, 2024 2:42 am Now we're bringing women's sports into this.

I just can't.

I mean seriously, the Bears want to build a new stadium, AH plays hardball and screws themselves. Now it's back to Chicago and all the drama therein.

Now the topic of what about women's sports.
Women's sport... like this?

OMG that’s real?!

So what do you think of female referees? Is that a hot look for a woman or what?
Image
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 359 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri May 24, 2024 2:42 am everybody has their hand out looking for theirs.
Including the Bears.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri May 24, 2024 8:23 am OMG that’s real?!
According to wikipedia the league was founded in 2009 and ran for 11 years. It started off as the Lingerie Football League and was then rebranded the Legends Football League. The Chicago Bliss were the team with the most wins and the most championship titles. with a 40–14–1 record and four Legends Cup wins.

In 2020 it morphed into the Extreme Football League aka X League, although there were no games until 2022 due to Covid. The athletes are somewhat less scantily dressed now though. The Bliss became the Chicago Blitz ad they won the inaugural championship in 2022. There haven't been any games since.

Fellas, we've been following the wrong Chicago football team! We could have enjoyed winning football and 5 Championships in the last 15 years! Who knew? :o
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

dplank wrote: Tue May 21, 2024 1:48 pm
HurricaneBear wrote: Tue May 21, 2024 1:42 pm

The Bears aren't leaving Illinois. I don't think the league would allow them. It's too big a market.
I was little when the Colts left Baltimore but no one thought it would happen. Browns left for Baltimore. Rams left St. Louis. Raiders left Oakland just a year or so ago. Chargers left San Diego. All the league can do is put a new franchise in Chicago if the Bears leave.
The Bears aren't going anywhere as long as they're under McCaskey ownership and even then I don't believe the NFL would ever condone a move. I may be way off base here but as an observer from afar it looks to me like Arlington was a more typical Ted Phillips/GMcC idea whereas the Lakefront has Kevin Warren written all over it. IMHO stadium in that location right on the Lakefront with a window facing north highlighting the Chicago Skyline would be a world class facility compared to a more mundane suburban version of something like NE's Foxboro stadium. This is turning into a "go big or go home" deal.
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 492 times

I live in CT and have been to Soldier Field once so I absolutely don't give a shit where they play.

With that said, the lakefront stadium pics were absolutely stunning. Would be one of the prettiest stadiums in the league
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5850
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

The Illinois Senate passed their version of the budget bill, which will go to the House next. I didn't read anything about any monies allocated for pro sports stadiums.
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 492 times

Grizzled wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 8:43 am The Illinois Senate passed their version of the budget bill, which will go to the House next. I didn't read anything about any monies allocated for pro sports stadiums.
Does that officially mean the stadium is dead or just that other avenues need to be explored?
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5850
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

HurricaneBear wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 9:33 am
Grizzled wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 8:43 am The Illinois Senate passed their version of the budget bill, which will go to the House next. I didn't read anything about any monies allocated for pro sports stadiums.
Does that officially mean the stadium is dead or just that other avenues need to be explored?
Nothing's dead but it's one source of funding that doesn't look it's going to materialize. So the team has to now get creative. But they'll be looking for public assistance even if they build in AH and I haven't read anything of how the municipalities view such requests.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 1150 times
Been thanked: 203 times

..does NFL allow an owner to mortgage the project partially ?
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

Grizzled wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 1:48 pm
HurricaneBear wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 9:33 am

Does that officially mean the stadium is dead or just that other avenues need to be explored?
Nothing's dead but it's one source of funding that doesn't look it's going to materialize. So the team has to now get creative. But they'll be looking for public assistance even if they build in AH and I haven't read anything of how the municipalities view such requests.
If the project winds up being Arlington Heights with a massively scaled Bears Land with hotels, condos, restaurants, etc. investors would have to be lining up around the block for that.
Image
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5850
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 2:03 pm
Grizzled wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 1:48 pm

Nothing's dead but it's one source of funding that doesn't look it's going to materialize. So the team has to now get creative. But they'll be looking for public assistance even if they build in AH and I haven't read anything of how the municipalities view such requests.
If the project winds up being Arlington Heights with a massively scaled Bears Land with hotels, condos, restaurants, etc. investors would have to be lining up around the block for that.
I gotta agree. There will be no lack of them for a project of this scope. We'll see if the school districts, AH, etc. realize that they're on the cusp of a cash cow and actually work with the Bears to jump start a stadium and development.

Several members of the state legislature yesterday acknowledged that any discussions regarding public funding for the Bears (and Sox?) are on hold until the fall legislative session. This includes the member whose district includes SF. But even with the NFL and Bears putting up 72% of the costs of a new stadium (which is supposedly high for a new NFL stadium), Illinois has traditionally shunned kicking in public funds.
Post Reply