Jump to content

New Information Sheds Light On Why Chicago Bears May Be Sold Soon


Recommended Posts

On 7/7/2021 at 7:02 AM, RunningVaccs said:

Nope, but I would bet they're brought in with a share greater than their cash contribution for the juice they'll bring to developing a sportsbook and probably hotel.  I have exactly zero personal trust in any commercial real estate personalities I know, but that type is top of my list if I ever wanted to accomplish a large scale plan that involves lots of financing and general dealmaking. Honestly I think it would be a perfect match for what the McCaskeys and other minor stakeholders bring in terms of the nearly-solely-owned huge brand asset.  Even being charitable I don't think you can think of George McCaskey as any kind of shrewd negotiator, and Ted Phillips seems more like the cautious accountant type.  I think all this could work (although I still prefer Soldier Field I think the nostalgia is a tiny tiny factor here and won't matter) so long as they get funded while money is cheap and the will to get a deal is strong from the town. 

My big interesting question is what to do with Soldier Field, aside from outdoor graduations there's not a lot that springs to mind. It's an awkward site as you're bound in by a harbor, a highway, a museum and that godawful convention center.  Northerly island is already kind of underutilized so someone needs to come up with a coherent plan for that area.  Fun story about the old Meigs Field that was next door:  when my buddy graduated from Police Academy (bleep boop) they got to take pictures with old Mayor Daley at McCormick. This was RIGHT when the midnight bulldozers appeared to trash Meigs, and I was the camera guy for a couple peoples pics, and I was slowly rotating the place they'd pose for "better light" but was really trying to get my pals and the Mayor with a background with the bulldozers and big ditches dug into the tarmac.  A couple of the Mayors team literally picked my up by my arms, moved me laterally 10' and reset the scene.  Mayor says "nice try *******" with a huge grin. 

 

That is an amazing story.

I think people outside the city don't know what a big deal that move was at the time.

Daley just ended a long argument by unilaterally wrecking the place and that was that.  

Daley family was definition of big city machine politics, but compared to other corrupt big city mayors like ones in Detroit for example he seemed to actual cared and ran the place fairly well and most everyone prospered.  I am sure he had his share of graft, but it wasn't just a personal piggy bank and there was general law and order.    

I can't tell you how many planned riots were brutally put and quickly down by a mass of Chicago PD in the years I lived and worked there.  I witnessed like 3 of them first hand.  Intimidating and scary stuff, but it got message across.  Message at time was don't think you are going to wreck and loot Michigan Ave or the Loop without a broken skull for your trouble.  

They would pay your family off, a lot of lawyers in city got rich off quick and easy CPD settlements, I interned for one.   It was just phone call, a filing and then a 6 figure check with little to no argument.  It was like a workers comp claim.   But you would be personally eating through a straw for many years and/or your brain wouldn't work so good anymore.  

You can't say that since they left the scene.  There are a lot of people moving out of city at moment because they don't feel safe anymore.   A lot of people moving in too of course.   You can't sell without a buyer.   But this is what people moving out tell me.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2021 at 7:26 AM, dll2000 said:

When you have a baby you are a baby as a parent as well and you grow together.  

I can say most men would rather have a son when they imagine having children, but you will find that daughters are a tremendous blessing from God and have a relationship with dad that is very special.

 

 

 

 

 

As a man with four daughters and two grand daughters I couldn't agree more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2021 at 9:54 AM, dll2000 said:

NFL is becoming increasingly outspokenly political and falling in with left wing ideals and positions, which resonates strongly with media, social media, forums, etc. but there are still large swaths of people who don't agree with those positions.   I mean national elections are still close and cities are all blue and most everywhere else is red.

Can we put this kind of crap to rest?  I'm sick of hearing people and the f'ing media wanting to define everything as either right wing or left wing and all of the associations and the labels that go with both.   So let's not go there.

The divide itself and what it boils down to is actually simple.

You have those who freely acknowledge that it's the 21st century and that we have to accept that and move forward in ways not everyone is comfortable with.  On the other side are those who would prefer we regress back into the '50s and early '60s and while in some ways I can understand this it simply isn't practical.  It will never be like that again and to think otherwise is a fantasy.

The NFL being a progressive organization has chosen it's side.  Why would anyone think they would choose differently?

How does all of this apply to the Bears and Arlington vs Soldier Field?

The current Soldier Field is a renovated 20th century venue that came about as a compromise between the Bears, the NFL, and the City of Chicago.  In reality it was obsolete before it hosted it's first game but for an NFL team who'd played many home games in an even smaller venue than the NFL required (Wrigley Field) it was made to work for the 20-25 years it would take to pay for itself.  That's almost over now.

New NFL stadiums aren't just sports venues any longer they're an adult amusement park complete with their own hotels, restaurants, and shopping districts.  They've become "events centers" for many things and sources of revenue besides eight annual NFL football games and if the Bears ownership isn't eyeing that kind of potential attraction then they're snoozing at the switch.

Keep an eye out for the name Judd Malkin and JMB Real Corp. as a potential McCaskey Family partner in developing the Arlington Racetrack into a world class NFL venue and events center.  The potential is enormous.

Edited by soulman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, soulman said:

Can we put this kind of crap to rest?  I'm sick of hearing people and the f'ing media wanting to define everything as either right wing or left wing and all of the associations and the labels that go with both.   So let's not go there.

The divide itself and what it boils down to is actually simple.

You have those who freely acknowledge that it's the 21st century and that we have to accept that and move forward in ways not everyone is comfortable with.  On the other side are those who would prefer we regress back into the '50s and early '60s and while in some ways I can understand this it simply isn't practical.  It will never be like that again and to think otherwise is a fantasy.

The NFL being a progressive organization has chosen it's side.  Why would anyone think they would choose differently?

How does all of this apply to the Bears and Arlington vs Soldier Field?

The current Soldier Field is a renovated 20th century venue that came about as a compromise between the Bears, the NFL, and the City of Chicago.  In reality it was obsolete before it hosted it's first game but for an NFL team who'd played many home games in an even smaller venue than the NFL required (Wrigley Field) it was made to work for the 20-25 years it would take to pay for itself.  That's almost over now.

New NFL stadiums aren't just sports venues any longer they're an adult amusement park complete with their own hotels, restaurants, and shopping districts.  They've become "events centers" for many things and sources of revenue besides eight annual NFL football games and if the Bears ownership isn't eyeing that kind of potential attraction then they're snoozing at the switch.

Keep an eye out for the name Judd Malkin and JMB Real Corp. as a potential McCaskey Family partner in developing the Arlington Racetrack into a world class NFL venue and events center.  The potential is enormous.

I wasn’t trying to start a political argument.

In context, I was pointing out in the larger post that NFL future may not be its present and I gave some arguments to that effect.  Just one of arguments was divisive politics, it wasn’t meant to be the primary focus or to start a argument on which POV or politics is better or correct.   

  • The fact is that sharp divisions exist and people feel them deeply and taking a side in culture and political wars effects future of NFL fandom.  
  • Less kids are playing tackle football than they were 10 years ago.
  • Less kids are watching NFL football than they were 10 years ago, etc.   
  • Kids grow up and old people die.  Along with that, some old people are conservative.  Some old people are Christian.  They don’t like ‘progressivism’ as it doesn’t align with their values and may not watch NFL as a result.  I know several Christians that say they are done with NFL.       
  • Police officers don’t love the defund the police movement and they really hate the push to take away personal civil lawsuit protections that BLM pushes as part of its platform. Police officers have family and friends.   I know several police officers that say they are done with NFL.  
  • The NFL is a dominant cultural institution at moment.  But so was baseball, horse racing and boxing once upon a time.     

You can call something or an institution ‘progressive’ or ‘regressive’ (which using those words is itself taking a side) rather left or right.  But using those words is just calling same thing a different name.   Liberal or Conservative.  Whatever.

 I also know there are many variations within a given broad category or label, but I still need a word to speak generally within a conversation.    

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I said all that in context, not of politics, but of idea that it wouldn’t be a crazy decision for Bears ownership to sell the team now.

NFL may be nearing its peak of popularity was greater point I was making. 

To sell now may be selling high as selling a racetrack way back when would have been selling high.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

I wasn’t trying to start a political argument.

In context, I was pointing out in the larger post that NFL future may not be its present and I gave some arguments to that effect.  Just one of arguments was divisive politics, it wasn’t meant to be the primary focus or to start a argument on which POV or politics is better or correct.   

  • The fact is that sharp divisions exist and people feel them deeply and taking a side in culture and political wars effects future of NFL fandom.  
  • Less kids are playing tackle football than they were 10 years ago.
  • Less kids are watching NFL football than they were 10 years ago, etc.   
  • Kids grow up and old people die.  Along with that, some old people are conservative.  Some old people are Christian.  They don’t like ‘progressivism’ as it doesn’t align with their values and may not watch NFL as a result.  I know several Christians that say they are done with NFL.       
  • Police officers don’t love the defund the police movement and they really hate the push to take away personal civil lawsuit protections that BLM pushes as part of its platform. Police officers have family and friends.   I know several police officers that say they are done with NFL.  
  • The NFL is a dominant cultural institution at moment.  But so was baseball, horse racing and boxing once upon a time.     

You can call something or an institution ‘progressive’ or ‘regressive’ (which using those words is itself taking a side) rather left or right.  But using those words is just calling same thing a different name.   Liberal or Conservative.  Whatever.

 I also know there are many variations within a given broad category or label, but I still need a word to speak generally within a conversation.    

 

For someone whose not trying to start a political argument you're surely bringing a lot of political talking points and tropes into play here and pretty much laying it on the line as far as which side you're advocating for.   Many I've spoken with who shun progressive ideals cherry pick one or two things they dislike then throw the baby out with the bathwater even when it benefits them overall and produces a happier, healthier baby.  I'm no ultra liberal but I'm smart enough to understand that you can't turn back the clock on progress no matter how much some would prefer it.

My advice to you and/or others who resent businesses like the NFL favoring certain elements of progressive ideologies is to vote with your wallet but if you believe that's gonna change anything you're living a dream.  MLB is still quite popular in American culture.  Horse racing has it's fans as well and boxing has mostly been replaced by MMA competition as the front runner in that market.  The NBA and NHL have strong fan bases and soccer is growing rapidly in popularity as well.  I see no near term decline in the popularity of college and pro football.  It's still the #1 team sport.

The terms Liberal and Conservative mean very little any longer.  The lines have been blurring for over 30 years now.  But terms like Progressive and Regressive do seem to indicate the preferred direction of their proponents with many issues including social ones.  The problem is a term like regressive, though quite accurate, would automatically be seen in a negative light so it needs to be dressed differently in order to market it to the public so the term Conservative prevails even when it's current causes lack many of the basic principals it was initially based upon.

You're a great poster and a valuable member here and while I would dearly love to discuss and debate some of this with you let's agree to stick with our football opinions and leave politics out of it OK?

Edited by soulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

And I said all that in context, not of politics, but of idea that it wouldn’t be a crazy decision for Bears ownership to sell the team now.

NFL may be nearing its peak of popularity was greater point I was making. 

To sell now may be selling high as selling a racetrack way back when would have been selling high.

 

OK, now were back to the meat of the matter.

One or two articles spreading a rumor that the Bears are up for sale flies in the face of what GMcC has said all along.  The Bears are a Halas/McCaskey heirloom and are not for sale.  The most recent television deals will only make their franchise more valuable.

But as it relates to the development of the Arlington property I can see a possible partnership between the Bears/McCaskeys and an experienced real estate developer like Judd Malkin to bring it all about if only because the McCaskeys have nowhere near the knowledge or expertise to pull that off themselves.  It may be a joint venture as far as the development of the property is concerned with the ownership of the team having nothing to do with that at all or it could be a willingness to take on another minority owner to facilitate the deal.  We just don't know.

I'm only guessing mind you but this may be where those rumors got started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, dll2000 said:

I wasn’t trying to start a political argument.

In context, I was pointing out in the larger post that NFL future may not be its present and I gave some arguments to that effect.  Just one of arguments was divisive politics, it wasn’t meant to be the primary focus or to start a argument on which POV or politics is better or correct.   

  • The fact is that sharp divisions exist and people feel them deeply and taking a side in culture and political wars effects future of NFL fandom.  
  • Less kids are playing tackle football than they were 10 years ago.
  • Less kids are watching NFL football than they were 10 years ago, etc.   
  • Kids grow up and old people die.  Along with that, some old people are conservative.  Some old people are Christian.  They don’t like ‘progressivism’ as it doesn’t align with their values and may not watch NFL as a result.  I know several Christians that say they are done with NFL.       
  • Police officers don’t love the defund the police movement and they really hate the push to take away personal civil lawsuit protections that BLM pushes as part of its platform. Police officers have family and friends.   I know several police officers that say they are done with NFL.  
  • The NFL is a dominant cultural institution at moment.  But so was baseball, horse racing and boxing once upon a time.     

You can call something or an institution ‘progressive’ or ‘regressive’ (which using those words is itself taking a side) rather left or right.  But using those words is just calling same thing a different name.   Liberal or Conservative.  Whatever.

 I also know there are many variations within a given broad category or label, but I still need a word to speak generally within a conversation.    

 

I just noticed I used 'than' when I should have used 'then.'

Oh well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dll2000 said:

 

I just noticed I used 'than' when I should have used 'then.'

Oh well.

 

Meh.....the grammar police left for lunch and never returned.....LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dll2000 said:
  • The fact is that sharp divisions exist and people feel them deeply and taking a side in culture and political wars effects future of NFL fandom. 

Not in the slightest. Not even close to being true. 

11 hours ago, dll2000 said:
  • Less kids are playing tackle football than they were 10 years ago.

 

11 hours ago, dll2000 said:
  • Less kids are watching NFL football than they were 10 years ago, etc.   

But all THAT does--you're absolutely right about this stuff. And it does lend credence to your notion that selling now is selling high. It's hard to say just where the league will be in twenty years...but there is really no way to definitively claim they'll still be king of the mountain. 

Edited by Heinz D.
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, soulman said:

Meh.....the grammar police left for lunch and never returned.....LOL.

Well when I found out the pay was literally non-existent I refused to go back. Tens of seconds of my life wasted without anything but lost friendships to show for it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dll2000 said:
  • Less kids are playing tackle football than they were 10 years ago.
  • Less kids are watching NFL football than they were 10 years ago, etc.   
  • Kids grow up and old people die.  Along with that, some old people are conservative.  Some old people are Christian.  They don’t like ‘progressivism’ as it doesn’t align with their values and may not watch NFL as a result.  I know several Christians that say they are done with NFL.   

While fewer kids may be playing tackle football than 10 years ago where I live none of the local teams have been forced to play 8 man football like most of the rural HS do.  The Englewood HS stadium is in my back yard.  I can see the Friday Night Lights and hear the shouts each weekend in the fall.  Fewer prospects doesn't indicate to me HS is losing it's popularity and this is Colorado.  Travel down to West Texas where HS is practically a religion and there are still plenty of players to stock their teams.

How many college football players are there?  How many are eligible for the NFL draft or to be signed as UDFA each year?  How many of them actually make an NFL roster or a 16 man PS?  The BCS is looking at expanding from 4 teams to 12 teams.  That doesn't sound to me like their market is shrinking either due to lack of players or lack of interest.  Eventually we'll run out of fossil fuels and the sun will stop shining as well but not anytime in the near future so I'm not trading in the Toyota for a Tesla.

I suspect it's much the same with football.

And let's not get into what many Christians define as their so called "values" since they seem to be quite "flexible" in that regard and often enjoy straddling the fence on many of those anyway.  I'm not even certain some of them know exactly what their personal values are unless someone tells them what they should be then asks for their generous financial support while doing it.

But hey, new Gulfstreams, Boeing 757s, and fancy mansions cost a lot of money to buy and maintain so hearing the Word of God has to be paid for somehow right?  😉

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To dance around the political aspect of it, I think the NFL is going to be just fine long term, but it's hard to argue that this doesn't feel like a high-water mark for it's popularity and thus the value of the franchise.  The McCaskeys are never going to be panhandling, but if they want to cash out now it's probably the time, or at least right after a stadium deal gets done and the golden goose gets even bigger.  I don't think they'll sell though as they all seem to value the team for what it is rather than it's value. Wouldn't make sense to spend all the cash on the new LF facilities just to cash out a few years later.  I think they keep the team, albeir ceding some control to high dollar partners that they bring in to make the Arlington move happen with all the options. 

One of the very unreputable sites was also stoking a rumor that there could be another Illinois team. Now THAT would be weird.  Bring on the Naperville Executives or the Joliet Jailers or soemthing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the NFL still appeals strongly to older demographics. What they're struggling to capture is the younger group. It's less a political problem than a generational one.

The culture around sports no longer appeals to young people. And every sport is trying to figure out how to market itself to younger generations that grew up around video games and digital content creators rather than watching sports on TV. Attention spans are shorter and fans are less tied to the local team by irrational fandom. People have gotten accustomed to watching 5-10 minute videos or watching streams where they can personally interact with their favorite personalities. They no longer want to watch a 2 hour sporting event with lots of ads, downtime, and little engagement from the product itself.

Sports production was based on the rules of broadcast TV. But nobody watches broadcast TV anymore, yet networks still want to disseminate sports content like they did 50 years ago. Watch every sporting league die if that doesn't change. They'll capture some holdover Millenials. Subsequent generations won't be watching.

Edited by abstract_thought
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...