Bears New Stadium Nonsense Repository

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

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

What @IotaNet and @southdakbearfan said.

Yes, I believe it was basically posturing.

Now if the Bears had landed everything they proposed (no property taxes since the land is owned by the Park District AND collecting all football and non-football revenue, all on the public dime), yeah, I think they'd have stayed in the city for that sweetheart deal. When that didn't happen, they can say "we tried!" and the mayor can say "we tried!" and they build in AH anyway.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

I think both sides make great points. Building the stadium downtown with the windows showing the skyline could be one of the greatest stadiums ever. It would be a “go big” achievement.

At the same time developing everything in AH with a great/unique stadium as the focal point would cause a massive revenue stream for the team that couldn’t be matched by staying downtown. That too would be a “go big” moment.


If u had to guess I think AH will win out and it will be in large part due to the pressure/ delays that Friends of the lake ((or whatever they are called) will bring to the project.
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

Bearfacts wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:41 pm
Heinz D. wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 10:24 am
Huh?

How so?


Surprised to hear you say that, tbh. It seems to me Arlington Heights is BY FAR the better option. Build a damn Bears museum. Build a funky Bears shopping mall. They can have it be so much more than just a new stadium if they build in AH--they can also make it a tourist attraction. It would also represent a better candidate for other big sporting events. Holding, say, the Big Ten Championship Game in AH is a whole order of magnitude easier, logistically speaking.
Plank nailed it. I think we can tell or at least we should be able to tell from the artists renderings that what Kevin Warren envisions is a world class stadium in a very unique location that keeps the Bears in the city proper. He did much the same in Minneapolis. I believe a lakefront stadium is his vision far more than the one Teddy Bears concocted in AH.

Is a cookie cutter suburban stadium with a massive shopping and entertainment district a better option? I don't believe Kevin Warren thinks that way. He's not looking to build an amusement park/commercial tourist attraction around his football stadium. He wants the stadium itself to be the feature attraction. I'm curious to know what the McCaskey's favor.

I'm not indicating that AH is off the table. It's obviously not. But what I am indicating is how I believe Kevin Warren sees all of this.
In what possible way is the Arlington Heights development "cookie cutter"?
Image
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 492 times

Bearfacts wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:39 pm
Grizzled wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:38 pm

AH and development would be a printing press for the Bears and money, from naming rights to controlling all revenue from parking to concessions (beer alone will make them a fortune) to development around the stadium. Concerts. NCAA events. Possibly Olympic qualfiers. I'd have to think that would be a major inducement.
All possibilities but then I have one simple question. If AH has been the target all along why has Kevin Warren been pushing so much harder for a lakefront stadium? He's politicking pretty heavily for it and the Bears have obviously spent some serious money on an overall plan and stadium design for that site. Do you believe it's all just a ruse to bring AH back to the table to negotiate the tax issue?
You keep talking about Warren like he is the owner. He's not. The stadium will be wherever the McCaskeys say it's ok. Warren is not making the final decision. He may not even be President in 5 years if he is successful in this as he will try to jump to a bigger job. Warrens job is to get the Bears a state of the art stadium wherever the McCaskeys want it. That may be Chicago that may be AH.

Do you believe they bought AH and started work on it as some big bluff to get Chicago to pony up? They spent some serious money on that. Probably more then some drawing of a design for Chicago stadium.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5847
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Warren is playing big time poker with Chicago and AH. Only he and the owners really know which is the preference, if any. He's pushing his chips to the center of the table.
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 Jul 01, 2024 7:34 am Warren is playing big time poker with Chicago and AH. Only he and the owners really know which is the preference, if any. He's pushing his chips to the center of the table.
Arlington Heights can flex all they want but the Bears have all the cards.

If AH chases off the Chicago Bears due to a greedy tax grab and bureaucratic harassment what do you think that’ll do to anybody else looking at that place?

But like @HurricaneBear alluded to. The McCaskeys didn’t buy that place because they were bored.

Unfortunately they massively tipped their hand and got into bed with AH no matter what, it just sucks for me as a fan that this huge exciting thing happens and a local government just shits all over it with the drama.

Like what else do AH and Illinois have going on to compete with this? They got any other developments to make Chicago a global attraction? Nope.

Everybody just wants to look like a hard ass like they stood up to an NFL team as if that’s supposed to impress anybody.

Just build the stadium. Let people have their fun and market the area for global attractions.
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

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 8:49 am
Grizzled wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 7:34 am Warren is playing big time poker with Chicago and AH. Only he and the owners really know which is the preference, if any. He's pushing his chips to the center of the table.
Arlington Heights can flex all they want but the Bears have all the cards.

If AH chases off the Chicago Bears due to a greedy tax grab and bureaucratic harassment what do you think that’ll do to anybody else looking at that place?

But like @HurricaneBear alluded to. The McCaskeys didn’t buy that place because they were bored.

Unfortunately they massively tipped their hand and got into bed with AH no matter what, it just sucks for me as a fan that this huge exciting thing happens and a local government just shits all over it with the drama.

Like what else do AH and Illinois have going on to compete with this? They got any other developments to make Chicago a global attraction? Nope.

Everybody just wants to look like a hard ass like they stood up to an NFL team as if that’s supposed to impress anybody.

Just build the stadium. Let people have their fun and market the area for global attractions.
The general strategy of "build it and they will come" is a good one, but that is done near city center and not outside the city. No one is going to AH. If they put a stadium there, then people will go there 9 times a year for an event, and just come and go. If you want to attract tourism, the play is putting the stadium downtown where the action is and you can have all those great events year round in the city. Tourists stay there, not the burbs.

I understand you hate the city, but that's just like, you're opinion man (said in The Dude voice). Most people love the city, it's a top notch city world wide and I completely disagree with you that people don't think about traveling to Chicago for tourism purposes, and I'm living proof. I love coming to Chicago and have been several times without going to Bears games. It's literally my favorite city in the world to visit, #2 is Melbourne.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 8:49 am
Like what else do AH and Illinois have going on to compete with this?
It's entirely possible that anything - even a penny ante operation from a new owner...or even literal nothing - could do better.

If, hypothetically, it costs you 2B in handouts and other hidden associated costs (maintenance of roads, widening them, new traffic lights, increased police force, new schools, all sorts of other public service demands) and that buys you 20 years of 100M/yr in taxes...all you're doing is breaking even.
You'd actually be better off having the land sit empty and just collect 5-10M/yr in tax on empty land.

It's similar to hosting the Olympics, where everyone oversells the income, ignores the hidden costs, and the whole thing virtually always ends up being an overall money loser (except for connected people who had nice contracts).

We have no idea how much of a tax deal the Bears think they're entitled to. (But based on the parameters of the vague deal they made with the Chicago Mayor and on the Bears appealing the tiny taxation they're paying right now on the empty space, I'm going to expect they're pushing hard for a sweetheart deal.)
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
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:02 pm
I do wonder how Mayor Johnson reconciles his desire to keep the Bears in Chicago with the also Democrat controlled state legislature and governor's office not wanting to commit state funding to a new stadium.

The Democratic Party controls the City Of Chicago and the State Of Illinois so it's odd to me that there's the perception of a conflict here.

None of that is intended to be political. It just seems to me that the Democrats in Springfield and the Democrats in Chicago would want the same thing.
Everyone is in different situations and values different things.

The Mayor wants the stadium in the city badly. He doesn't want stuff moving outside his borders and people figuring out that you can do the same things outside city limits.

The Governor doesn't really care if the stadium is here or there. Chicago is Illinois and AH is Illinois. He's here to balance the budget and prop Illinois back up financially. Subsidizing an NFL team to pick a particular location doesn't achieve that.

All the other state reps who aren't from the city or AH area don't really have a horse in it, either. If they care at all, towns near AH that would experience worse traffic, but pocket no money from it are probably somewhat negative. And some downstate reps may have a little general anti-city sentiment. But mostly, they all just don't want to hand money over to the McCaskeys, either. Whatever costs them the least is what makes sense for them and their constituents.
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
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Moriarty wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:27 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:02 pm
I do wonder how Mayor Johnson reconciles his desire to keep the Bears in Chicago with the also Democrat controlled state legislature and governor's office not wanting to commit state funding to a new stadium.

The Democratic Party controls the City Of Chicago and the State Of Illinois so it's odd to me that there's the perception of a conflict here.

None of that is intended to be political. It just seems to me that the Democrats in Springfield and the Democrats in Chicago would want the same thing.
Everyone is in different situations and values different things.

The Mayor wants the stadium in the city badly. He doesn't want stuff moving outside his borders and people figuring out that you can do the same things outside city limits.

The Governor doesn't really care if the stadium is here or there. Chicago is Illinois and AH is Illinois. He's here to balance the budget and prop Illinois back up financially. Subsidizing an NFL team to pick a particular location doesn't achieve that.

All the other state reps who aren't from the city or AH area don't really have a horse in it, either. If they care at all, towns near AH that would experience worse traffic, but pocket no money from it are probably somewhat negative. And some downstate reps may have a little general anti-city sentiment. But mostly, they all just don't want to hand money over to the McCaskeys, either. Whatever costs them the least is what makes sense for them and their constituents.
Chicago brings in about 17 billion annually in tourism revenue, it's a significant part of the Governor's income stream. Seems obvious to me that having a world class, year round capable stadium in the city would boost tourism into their money maker. You won't get that boost if you put it in AH. So financially speaking, I think that downtown is still the right answer. Politicians being short sighted is nothing new, and it's probably politically expedient to simply push back and act like he's prioritizing other things like schools and stuff - but in reality a yearly revenue boost would do more for schools long term than just refusing to outlay some cash towards a new tourist draw and event center would.
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

dplank wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:00 am I understand you hate the city, but that's just like, your opinion man (said in The Dude voice).
Image
User avatar
IotaNet
MVP
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 267 times

dplank wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:36 am ... Politicians being short sighted is nothing new, and it's probably politically expedient to simply push back and act like he's prioritizing other things like schools and stuff - but in reality a yearly revenue boost would do more for schools long term than just refusing to outlay some cash towards a new tourist draw and event center would.
I'd like to resurface a post from earlier this year on this topic:
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:01 pm
Despite $1B cost, mayor open to helping develop area around proposed new Bears stadium on lakefront

... Ald. Jeanette Taylor (20th), Johnson’s hand-picked Education Committee chair, believes public subsidies for both new stadiums should be a non-starter.

“Hell no ... We shouldn’t be giving them subsidies to do anything. They’re … billion-dollar franchises. They can afford it. Honestly, I’m really tired of all of them. They’re always coming to Chicago to beg,” Taylor told the Sun-Times.

“How much money [do] the Bears and the Sox invest back in the city? And I’m not talking about no damn free tickets. Help us build up some park districts. Adopt some of these schools. Help us have free programming in communities we know need it.

At that point, maybe we can talk about some subsidies for them. But, until they come to the table with a package that we all can benefit from, they can take that somewhere else.”

Full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/ ... on-johnson
For better or worse, this is the prevailing sentiment across much of the city. We consistently read posts in this forum about "how shabby " Chicago seems to be or about the "Rampant Crime" in the city.

Against that backdrop, there is little political will (or benefit) to support a billion-dollar oligarchy that virtually PRINTS money for itself. Especially given the raft of studies that show that the public value of stadium projects tends to be HIGHLY oversold.

I won't defend or attack the politicians for their take but given today's economic and political climate, I can certainly understand why they are unwilling to stick their necks out to support something like this. The city has far more pressing needs.
“Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it.”

- Gen. Colin Powell
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

IotaNet wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:39 am
dplank wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:36 am ... Politicians being short sighted is nothing new, and it's probably politically expedient to simply push back and act like he's prioritizing other things like schools and stuff - but in reality a yearly revenue boost would do more for schools long term than just refusing to outlay some cash towards a new tourist draw and event center would.
I'd like to resurface a post from earlier this year on this topic:
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:01 pm
For better or worse, this is the prevailing sentiment across much of the city. We consistently read posts in this forum about "how shabby " Chicago seems to be or about the "Rampant Crime" in the city.

Against that backdrop, there is little political will (or benefit) to support a billion-dollar oligarchy that virtually PRINTS money for itself. Especially given the raft of studies that show that the public value of stadium projects tends to be HIGHLY oversold.

I won't defend or attack the politicians for their take but given today's economic and political climate, I can certainly understand why they are unwilling to stick their necks out to support something like this. The city has far more pressing needs.
OK, so show me after they pass on doing this that this money was actually allocated to these things. I'll wait.

IT NEVER HAPPENS. It's a nice talking point for people who lie for a living, but it has no basis in reality. They are scoring a political point while trading a one year investment against a multi year revenue generator. That's bad business even if it's good politics.

The benefits of building a world class stadium downtown will absolutely, 100%, filter itself out to the surrounding area. And the removal of the stadium and move outside the city will absolutely, 100% have a negative financial impact to the city. People just want to make this about greedy billionaires without understanding the overarching benefits to the surrounding area - and so I don't have any problem at all with the city kicking in to ensure that not just stays, but grows.
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

Interesting takes on AH and why it's a better option. I can see that perspective from a Ted Phillips point of view but not from a Kevin Warren point of view and Warren is the CEO now not Teddy Bears. Also, despite getting AH back to the bargaining table we hear that the lakefront is still the preferred location.

I'm in Colorado so I don't have a horse in this race period but even I can easily enough see what the motivation behind that is. No matter where it's built some people will end up unhappy. While AH makes more sense from an initial dollars and cents standpoint it still will not make the same impression the lakefront option does.

The lakefront will be more difficult to pull off and it may need to be shit canned because of resistance to it but I will still maintain that it's where Kevin Warren wants to build it. In that vein I don't believe it's simply a negotiating tactic. While they may build in AH because it's the only location that will meet the time line they want I still believe it's Warren's second choice.
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

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 2:20 am
Bearfacts wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:41 pm

Plank nailed it. I think we can tell or at least we should be able to tell from the artists renderings that what Kevin Warren envisions is a world class stadium in a very unique location that keeps the Bears in the city proper. He did much the same in Minneapolis. I believe a lakefront stadium is his vision far more than the one Teddy Bears concocted in AH.

Is a cookie cutter suburban stadium with a massive shopping and entertainment district a better option? I don't believe Kevin Warren thinks that way. He's not looking to build an amusement park/commercial tourist attraction around his football stadium. He wants the stadium itself to be the feature attraction. I'm curious to know what the McCaskey's favor.

I'm not indicating that AH is off the table. It's obviously not. But what I am indicating is how I believe Kevin Warren sees all of this.
In what possible way is the Arlington Heights development "cookie cutter"?
Based on my impression of most stadiums built in the "burbs". Strictly personal opinion.
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

HurricaneBear wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 6:05 am
Bearfacts wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:39 pm

All possibilities but then I have one simple question. If AH has been the target all along why has Kevin Warren been pushing so much harder for a lakefront stadium? He's politicking pretty heavily for it and the Bears have obviously spent some serious money on an overall plan and stadium design for that site. Do you believe it's all just a ruse to bring AH back to the table to negotiate the tax issue?
You keep talking about Warren like he is the owner. He's not. The stadium will be wherever the McCaskeys say it's ok. Warren is not making the final decision. He may not even be President in 5 years if he is successful in this as he will try to jump to a bigger job. Warrens job is to get the Bears a state of the art stadium wherever the McCaskeys want it. That may be Chicago that may be AH.

Do you believe they bought AH and started work on it as some big bluff to get Chicago to pony up? They spent some serious money on that. Probably more then some drawing of a design for Chicago stadium.

I'll just respond with a shrug. The McCaskey's hired Kevin Warren to run their franchise just as they once hired Ted Phillips to do that same thing. Their decisions have more typically been in line with whatever their CEO preferred or could accomplish for them. I don't believe any of that has changed. The McCaskey's are not football people nor are they real estate developers.

So I'm not so much in a disagreement with you and others who've responded I'm simply saying that the lakefront still appears to top the list of preferred sites. If the McCaskey's didn't want that why would Warren still be pushing it forward over AH? That only makes sense if it is a ruse to get AH to agree to the Bears terms re; property taxes.

IMHO and only IMHO if they cannot get favorable terms on taxation not only does it impact the stadium but also the entire AH Racetrack development. I don't believe any final decision can be made before that issue is settled and to the best of my knowledge from afar it doesn't look like it has been.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Bearfacts wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 4:25 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 2:20 am

In what possible way is the Arlington Heights development "cookie cutter"?
Based on my impression of most stadiums built in the "burbs". Strictly personal opinion.
Yep. You can take a photo of several domed suburb stadiums, hide the name, and very few could tell one from another.
User avatar
wulfy
MVP
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:51 pm
Has thanked: 171 times
Been thanked: 352 times
Contact:

I think this is going to come down - where can they build this with the least amount of state money?

Pritzker has dug his heels in (he has White House ambitions) and needs to fund his lengthy list of projects that are more important to him that a stadium. (I'M NOT BEING POLITICAL!)

I never understood the idea by Warren that renting in the City (from a notoriously bad landlord) was a better idea than owning in the suburbs. (And I was born and raised in the City) The City of Chicago and the Bears have had a bad relationship for decades - and just because Warren can manipulate Brandon Johnson doesn't mean that Peace and Harmony will live beyond this particular Mayoral Administration.

What I don't know is .... is it actually cheaper to build the stadium in AH than Chicago? It's the same labor unions working on the same wage scale, it's the same material cost, etc. You already own the Land, but you weren't buying the Land on the Lakefront. As a banker, I would LOVE to see the financial analysis on the comparison of the two projects.

In Minnesota, they basically financed the entire US Bank Stadium with gambling pull tabs (kind of like instant lottery tickets that you buy in a bar/restaurant) .... the success of this actually enabled Minnesota to retire the bonds early - the outstanding $$ on the Soldier Field bonds are higher today than when SF reopened.

How can they create new revenue with the State that will ease the burden on the existing taxing infrastructure? Can they get a casino license for Bearsland where the proceeds are earmarked for paying off the roads, etc that are required? Can they open a pot shop in Bearsland? (No, I'm not kidding). Can they get an above market Naming Rights deal? Can they put a $10 toll at the exit for everyone who won't/can't take the train?
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

wulfy wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 9:49 am Can they open a pot shop in Bearsland? (No, I'm not kidding).
I can see it now:

Jimmy Mac's Weed Emporium
"You don't have to be stoned to follow the Bears, but it helps."
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5847
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 11:49 am
wulfy wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 9:49 am Can they open a pot shop in Bearsland? (No, I'm not kidding).
I can see it now:

Jimmy Mac's Weed Emporium
"You don't have to be stoned to follow the Bears, but it helps."
Combine it with a bar and some type of gambling and that stadium would be paid off in a year.
User avatar
Otis Day
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8170
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: Armpit of IL.
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Image
User avatar
IotaNet
MVP
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 267 times

This article is a few days old (June 28) but I’m only seeing it today. Its in line with what has been published over the past week or so but its the first time I’ve seen actual quotes about the latest wrinkles …

We’re in a much better place’: Arlington Heights mayor says Bears have responded to proposed deal

“As the team juggles two stadium sites now in limbo, the Chicago Bears have received and responded to a proposed settlement from Arlington Heights that aims to resolve outstanding tax issues on the suburban option, village officials confirm.

“We’ve worked very hard to come to an agreement with the school districts that I think the Bears can be comfortable with, and that’s been communicated to the Bears, and that’s what we’re discussing now,” Mayor Tom Hayes told the Daily Herald. “So I feel very comfortable that should the Bears reengage with us and continue to explore the Arlington Park site, that the road is going to be much easier than we found in past months.””


Continues here: https://www.dailyherald.com/20240628/ne ... osed-deal/
“Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it.”

- Gen. Colin Powell
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5847
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Not a Bears stadium article per se. But I read an article the city is $37 billion in the hole on mandated pension plans. Might ramp up the pressures on the mayor to address other budget issues before promising any monies for a new stadium.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

Grizzled wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:16 am Not a Bears stadium article per se. But I read an article the city is $37 billion in the hole on mandated pension plans. Might ramp up the pressures on the mayor to address other budget issues before promising any monies for a new stadium.
I'm still shocked that so many government bodies (states, cities, etc) haven't gone away from the defined benefit plans to more of matching in a deferred comp plan or matching 401K. With life expediencies getting longer and long, those are going to be big burdens. That being said, I do love having one.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Grizzled wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:16 am Not a Bears stadium article per se. But I read an article the city is $37 billion in the hole on mandated pension plans. Might ramp up the pressures on the mayor to address other budget issues before promising any monies for a new stadium.
Yes.
Pension Liability is a crucial aspect of Illinois' financial situation that I was expounding on earlier:

viewtopic.php?p=384267#p384267
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
IotaNet
MVP
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Moriarty wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:57 am
Grizzled wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:16 am Not a Bears stadium article per se. But I read an article the city is $37 billion in the hole on mandated pension plans. Might ramp up the pressures on the mayor to address other budget issues before promising any monies for a new stadium.
Yes.
Pension Liability is a crucial aspect of Illinois' financial situation that I was expounding on earlier:

viewtopic.php?p=384267#p384267
This is the exact kind of thing I was referring to upthread. The city of Chicago (and by extension, the state of Illinois) have far more pressing priorities than opening their checkbooks to a billionaire sports franchise. The political optics are simply unmanageable.
“Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it.”

- Gen. Colin Powell
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

IotaNet wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:37 pm
Moriarty wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:57 am

Yes.
Pension Liability is a crucial aspect of Illinois' financial situation that I was expounding on earlier:

viewtopic.php?p=384267#p384267
This is the exact kind of thing I was referring to upthread. The city of Chicago (and by extension, the state of Illinois) have far more pressing priorities than opening their checkbooks to a billionaire sports franchise. The political optics are simply unmanageable.
And again, while the thought sounds nice it’s disconnected from reality for several reasons. Unless that’s addressed it’s a non issue. Sometimes you gotta spend money to make money, but if you default to a position of “no spending until every social issue is resolved” then you’ll never do anything and die a slow but steady death. Investments are crucial to growth.

It’s just not as simple as you seem to want it to be.
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

dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:43 pm
IotaNet wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:37 pm This is the exact kind of thing I was referring to upthread. The city of Chicago (and by extension, the state of Illinois) have far more pressing priorities than opening their checkbooks to a billionaire sports franchise. The political optics are simply unmanageable.
And again, while the thought sounds nice it’s disconnected from reality for several reasons. Unless that’s addressed it’s a non issue. Sometimes you gotta spend money to make money, but if you default to a position of “no spending until every social issue is resolved” then you’ll never do anything and die a slow but steady death. Investments are crucial to growth.

It’s just not as simple as you seem to want it to be.
The pension thing is unrelated. It doesn't stop Illinois from doing anything else. Look at the highways. Constant construction. I don't hear anybody belly aching about the pensions with that.
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

The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:26 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:43 pm

And again, while the thought sounds nice it’s disconnected from reality for several reasons. Unless that’s addressed it’s a non issue. Sometimes you gotta spend money to make money, but if you default to a position of “no spending until every social issue is resolved” then you’ll never do anything and die a slow but steady death. Investments are crucial to growth.

It’s just not as simple as you seem to want it to be.
The pension thing is unrelated. It doesn't stop Illinois from doing anything else. Look at the highways. Constant construction. I don't hear anybody belly aching about the pensions with that.
Yes that’s exactly my point. Well put.
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 227 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 11:49 am I can see it now:

Jimmy Mac's Weed Emporium
"You don't have to be stoned to follow the Bears, but it helps."
I have no idea how to use Photoshop, or anything like it. But, someone needs to whip up an add for that idea. Have the actual McMahon be the spokesperson.

:rofl:
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
Post Reply